Rank #9227 on CommentsLevel 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
OfflineSend mail to weirdoo Block weirdoo Invite weirdoo to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||9/10/2012|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#9775|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#2306|
|Content Thumbs:||19 total, 49 , 30|
|Comment Thumbs:||4113 total, 4569 , 456|
|Content Level Progress:|| 40.67% (24/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 35% (35/100) |
Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
|Times Content Favorited:||1 times|
|Total Comments Made:||1800|
latest user's comments
|#37 - Did someone say ancient ***********?||06/28/2016 on Humans will always be humans||+1|
|#21 - I don't have it but he came back and he played it 2x more||06/24/2016 on Best of 4chan||0|
|#39 - ****, sorry for my late reply. >You still did not …||06/18/2016 on "History of Peace"||0|
|#32 - > Does not rebuttal raiding sea caravans > Does not … [+] (2 new replies)||06/16/2016 on "History of Peace"||+1|
#35 - alexwinning (06/16/2016) [-]
The 400 years of aggression occurred in one of two places:
-territory controlled by the Byzantines (Orthodox)
-territory in the Iberian peninsula (Catholic)
Instead of assisting the Catholics in Iberia, the crusaders instead decided to reconquer formerly orthodox lands (Called "Christian" in the above image, though important to differentiate from catholic lands). Additionally, the crusaders apparently paid no heed to their "Christian" (read: Orthodox) brethren when they sacked constantinople in the fourth crusade. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_ (1204))
See in the image, which says that the Christians should retaliate for the Muslims besieging Constantinople? Funny how it's suddenly acceptable and righteous if the Crusaders do it, and sack the city to boot.
Take all of this, and add to it some of the other atrocities committed in the name of Christianization:
And you get the picture for how the crusaders, and aggressive christianization in general, significanly harmed many europeans just as much, if not more, than muslim conquests.
#39 - weirdoo (06/18/2016) [-]
Shit, sorry for my late reply.
>You still did not rebuttal my point about raiding sea caravans
>You admitted and proved me right that the islamic horde was a common and a greater threat to the christian world and legitimized the first Crusade.
I don't really know about the events of the fourth crusade which is why I usually don't talk about it. I'll learn about it more at a later date.
"And you get the picture for how the crusaders, and aggressive christianization in general, significanly harmed many europeans just as much, if not more, than muslim conquests" Niggah are you for real? Islam spread because of conquests! All christian cities were captured and were made Islamic, the christian populace suffered terrible oppression under Islamic rule, paying taxes and whatnot.
And it wasn't just 1 or 2 coastal cities that were raided by them but hundreds! Who were then massacred and sold into slavery, then most of spain was captured which was christian and forcefully converted to Islam, The Caliphate then tried to invade France but was repelled Charles Martel, and they tried more than 1 time to invade Europa.
To avoid any confusion my argument is about that the Islamic conquest was, in fact, not peaceful and the first Crusade had a rightous cause to unite and fight the Islamic threat.
I'll attempt to rebuttal your points now:
1: "Instead of assisting the Catholics in Iberia, the crusaders instead decided to reconquer formerly orthodox lands (Called "Christian" in the above image, though important to differentiate from catholic lands)" It could be politics and strategems working behind the scenes, like capturing strategically important locations.
2: "When they sacked Constantinople in the fourth Crusade" Do you mean the first Siege in which no sacking happened? Or do you mean the 2nd siege in which it was mutinous Crusader armies who sacked it? Which would then label them as "rebels" so not part of the Crusades.
3: "Take all of this, and add to it some of the other atrocities committed in the name of Christianization" See the Islamic Conquest, both sides did terrible things in the name of their religion. But this is about Islam and it's brutal expansion on the world, so because both sides are guilty of the same thing (Though the first Crusade had Casus Belli) your argument defaults
|#22 - Video is staged as ****, she was prepping herself for the hit [+] (1 new reply)||06/07/2016 on Oh shit! (VOLUME WARNING)||-1|
|#162 - Mah ******||06/04/2016 on Remember when?||0|
|#93 - I do that most of the time, I call it "Lesson of the day"||06/04/2016 on Rogue rolls Natural 20||0|
|#1899 - **weirdoo used "*roll picture*"** **weirdoo rolled image **||05/28/2016 on Hot Girl Roll Scavenger Hunt||0|
|#129 - I will never walk straight again||05/22/2016 on /mu/tant receives some...||0|
|#127 - Comment deleted||05/22/2016 on /mu/tant receives some...||0|