The Truth About The Crusades..... Defensive response or...

[_canpakes]

Youtube is ONE of 1,000's of sources and things I study.

Yes, Sarah. Anything that you say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

[_huckelberry]

Perhaps some hyperbole is a correct description. On the other hand I am a little puzzled by preemptive war as a description of the crusades. What became of the history of Islamic expansion by conquest. Why is Santa Sophia in Constantinople a mosque in some city called of all things Istanbul?

Because Venice and allied western European powers used a succession crisis as a pretext to sack the city? This is otherwise known as the fourth crusade and is generally considered to be the turning point in the eventual permanent dissolution of the Byzantine state.

The twists and turns of history are quite complex. While the hollow shell of what Byzantium once was eventually was conquered by the Ottoman Turks, I don't think you can use that fact as an example to demonstrate an unbroken pattern of Islamic expansionism in the face Western defense. There's a substantial back and forth to the conflicts between and within Islamic and non-Islamic states during the period the crusades cover. That there are eventual winners and losers doesn't necessarily speak to the unmitigated aggression of one party over all others. It really just means that somebody won. You can go back to before Islam existed to when the Sassanids and Roman Byzantium were the major powers and the entire region is a history of expansion and retreat with every major power wanting take the offensive at one point. That extends into a near unbroken chain of events all the way up to the final fall of Constantinople.

I suppose you could involve the Greeks and Persians as well. I have no reason to take exception to your observation other than I am inclined to place substantial blame on Christian infighting extending back at least three centuries before Muhammad.

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm the smarted moron in the world

Please list the five books that you own/read on the subject of the crusades. I have quite a few, and they're written by those who are generally considered to be the world's authorities on the subject. Who are they, and which books do you own?

[_Morley]

Bernard Lewis is perhaps the best authority on Islam and its history.

Meh.

[_Kevin Graham]

He is generally considered the best authority in the English Speaking world.

[_Kevin Graham]

"We are now expected to believe that the Crusades were an unwarranted act
of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. Hardly. The first call for a
crusade occurred in 846 CE, when an Arab expedition to Sicily sailed up the
Tiber and sacked St Peter's in Rome. A synod in France issued an appeal to
Christian sovereigns to rally against 'the enemies of Christ,' and the pope, Leo
IV, offered a heavenly reward to those who died fighting the Muslims. A
century and a half and many battles later, in 1096, the Crusaders actually
arrived in the Middle East. The Crusades were a late, limited, and
unsuccessful imitation of the jihad - an attempt to recover by holy war what
was lost by holy war. It failed, and it was not followed up." (Bernard Lewis,
2007 Irving Kristol Lecture, March 7).

[_Morley]

Bernard Lewis is perhaps the best authority on Islam and its history.

Meh.

He is generally considered the best authority in the English Speaking world.

If I remember correctly, his was the academic/intellectual justification for the War in Iraq.

That said, for the most part, I'm sure he's a fine historian.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yeah, I heard that too but I never saw any direct quotes. It was more of someone in the administration implying that he supported it, but no direct quotes. Of course, I'm just going from memory here and could be wrong. But in any event, Lewis has more recently stated that he opposed the war:

'Osama bin Laden Made Me Famous'

I don't ever remember Bush or anyone saying the war of justified because of anything Lewis had to say about Islam. From their viewpoint the war had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with non-existent WMDs.

[_Morley]

Yeah, I heard that too but I never saw any direct quotes. It was more of someone in the administration implying that he supported it, but no direct quotes. Of course, I'm just going from memory here and could be wrong. But in any event, Lewis has more recently stated that he opposed the war:

'Osama bin Laden Made Me Famous'

I don't ever remember Bush or anyone saying the war of justified because of anything Lewis had to say about Islam. From their viewpoint the war had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with non-existent WMDs.

One can't get access to Lewis's provocative, 2002 WSJ op ed, Time for Toppling, without subscribing, but here's the link:

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1033089910971012713


Another, more accessible piece (again, in the Journal), says in part:

Call it the Lewis Doctrine. Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis's diagnosis of the Muslim world's malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years. The occupation of Iraq is putting the doctrine to the test.

and

As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends. Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them. Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative.

After Sept. 11, 2001, as policy makers fretted urgently about how to understand and deal with the new enemy, Mr. Lewis helped provide an answer. If his prescription is right, the U.S. may be able to blunt terrorism and stabilize a region that, as the chief exporter of oil, powers the industrial world and underpins the U.S.-led economic order. If it's wrong, as his critics contend, America risks provoking sharper conflicts that spark more terrorism and undermine energy security.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB107576070484918411

[_Kevin Graham]

Yep, that was what was said about him in various media outlets but none of them quote Lewis as having said anything of the sort. He explains this in his book. He never supported an invasion, though he believed the government needed to be replaced. Hell, who didn't believe that?

Lewis says he argued for recognizing the leadership in northern Iraq as the country's legitimate government and arming those forces if necessary. In the decade since the first Persian Gulf war, he says, Kurds and Arabs had managed to build a nascent democracy under the protection of the no-fly zone.

"That was the way to do it," he says. "Simply to invade was the wrong way to do it, and I thought so and said so at the time." Why didn't he speak out before the invasion? "I didn't feel at that crucial moment that it was right to take a public stance against the war."

Private advice is difficult to verify, of course. But in Notes on a Century, Lewis tries to build a case, reprinting long excerpts from e-mails he sent to then-National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley in 2006. They suggest that Lewis was at that time more concerned about Iran than Iraq. "My job was not to offer policy suggestions but to provide background," Lewis recalls in the book, emphasizing that his "role in policy making was, at most, minimal." Furthermore, he says, his name appears only once, in passing, in Cheney's memoir, In My Time. (Notes on a Century incorrectly states that Lewis does not appear at all in Cheney's memoir.) Asked if he was relieved when he read Cheney's book, Lewis mumbles something unintelligible and smiles.