Who are the real barbarians? Time to pay-back.?

Question

Foreigners who are aggressive, ignorant, barbaric and unwelcome. Foreigners who are forever advocating their way of life and prepared to advocate it by brawling and fighting; foreigners with embarrassing and uncouth manners. Are we talking of Muslim immigrants as seen by Europeans in the late twentieth century? No. These are Europeans almost a thousand years ago in the Muslim lands of the Middle East. They came as individuals and as armies and as soldiers of fortune.

Muslims were not their only target; local Christians and Jews were also among their victims. In one instance their behavior plumbed new depths. It was in the St. Sophia church in Istanbul. They violated women, drank, and stripped the church bare. An eyewitness of the fourth Crusade was horrified: 'I Geoffrey de Ville Hardouin, Martial of the court of Champagne, am sure that since the creation of the universe, a plundering worse than this has not been witnessed' (Efe 1987: 18). Compare this to Mehmet the conqueror's entry when, with humility and awe, he fell to his knees, taking the dust from the floor and wiping it on his turban as an act of devotion (Efe 1987). Christians here have a saying: 'Better the turban of a Turk than the tiara of the Pope.'

As for the unfortunate Jews, they would be massacred by the Christians on their way to the Crusades and massacred by them on their way back from the Crusades. Not surprisingly Muslims thought that here was a civilization doomed to barbarism and backwardness for ever. The Crusades, especially the Fourth, during which Crusaders killed, cooked and ate the population of a village in their path, convinced Muslims and Orthodox Christians that the Christians of the West were malign barbarians. The privileges for Christians extracted by the great powers early in the 20th century and plans to divide Turkey between Greeks, French and Italiansconfirmed the opinion.

From the very beginning, during the Crusades (1096-1100 A.D.), the Crusaders gained themselves a reputation for their barbaric behavior amongst the Muslim inhabitants of Syria, and much of that reputation would appear to have been founded on the horrific events which occurred at Ma’arra al-Numan. Following the fall of Antioch, the Crusaders raided the surrounding countryside in the lean winter months failing to bring in anything like sufficient supplies to feed their large numbers. They laid siege on the town of Ma’arra al-Numan. As many as 20,000 of its inhabitants are reported to have been massacred, despite assurances that their lives would be spared.
But if such events were common during those times, what happened next was certainly not. The Christian soldiers started to cannibalize Muslim Men, Women and Children. Men and Women were boiled then eaten. Children were barbequed on spits, somewhat like a shish-kabob.

In a letter to the Pope one of the Crusader commanders wrote; Radulph of Caen wrote explicitly how: "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults alive in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled."

For centuries afterwards, the image of the Crusaders as fanatical cannibals lived on in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish literature. Some Arab commentators have even suggested that the behavior of the Crusaders was born not of necessity, but rather out of fanaticism, their religious fervor leading them to view the Muslims as lower than animals. Thus Amin Maalouf, in his book The Crusades through Arab Eyes, points to the words of the Crusader chronicler, Albert of Aix, who wrote: "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!” What is interesting to note is that if these Christians were really on a “Holy” mission to oust the “heathen” Muslims…then why did they break Christian morals and values to eat Muslim Men, Women, and Children?

Answer 1

Obviously, these weren't true Christians. They were ignorant and easily manipulated by church leaders and kings to grab land that wasn't theirs and to hurt other races. Jesus said that those who take the sword would perish by the sword. Matthew 26; 52

Answer 2

Wern't the Crusades by order of the pope via a king?? Doesn't that say enough about the motivation for early catholisicm- land, goods, riches and VERY dirty political stunts to buy their positions? There is early Christians (followers of Jesus) and then the early "christendom" Two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.Christendom being a product of papal propaganda)-... that professed bible following but practised barbarism in every sense of the word....they wanted to raise funds for excursion into other lands to increase empires and their own vault holdings....and used the excuse of the spread of "Christianity "to do it...Men are men, no matter what century- the only difference is whether or not they truly believe in Christ Jesus...or in the depth of their pockets and the availability of someone elses goods.

Answer 3

Christianity and the Crusades started by Christians set mankind and religious warfare on the path that lead to 9/11.

Answer 4

The only thing new to me in this is the cannibalizing. I knew about the barbecuing, seen pictures in Spain of a king being roasted on a spit by his brother (who replaced him as king). But I really don't think he ate him.
The crusades were absolutely barbaric. Nothing Christian about them, except what people called themselves, and to me for those people to take the name of Christ was absolute blasphemy of the worst kind.
Today .... ???? ....

Answer 5

Anybody seen my guns. Praise Jesus!

Answer 6

yes they were barbarians and for the same reasons they are in Iraq today.