Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
And the crusades were a more conventional land war even though it involved Muslims vs. Christians. They were fighting over occupation of the holy lands and city. The conventional kind of war over land and occupancy.
The Barbary pirates, however, were practicing terrorism and piracy.
Oh, I see the difference. In the Crusades, it was the Christians who were doing the killing. I forgot, that makes it justified.
Read the article I linked anyway. It's an interesting piece about something that was largely left out of school history books in the 20th century.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
All five versions of the speech differ widely from one another in regard to particulars. All versions, except that in the Gesta Francorum, generally agree that Urban talked about the violence of European society and the necessity of maintaining the Peace of God; about helping the Greeks, who had asked for assistance; about the crimes being committed against Christians in the east; and about a new kind of war, an armed pilgrimage, and of rewards in heaven, where remission of sins was offered to any who might die in the undertaking.
A new kind of war, an armed pilgrimage, and rewards in heaven, where remission of sins was offered to any who might die in the undertaking. That has a familiar ring to it. In Bin Laden's case, America is the ally of Israel, which has invaded Palestine and oppressed the Muslims there; and it is necessary to undertake a new kind of war that promises rewards in heaven and remission of sinse to any who die in the undertaking. It's an exact parallel.
Fundamentalists who attempt to paint the Muslim world as savage terrorists fail to recongnize their own history as savage terrorists.
Steve's point is well made in that what has been going on the last 40+ years has pretty much been happening throughout the entire history of the US. Its a constant battle of the have not's wanting to use terrorism and fear to get what they want rather than developing their own stable governments and economies.
The politics involved in how we have decided to fight this scourge has not changed much either.
The difference in 1801-4 is that we took the fight to the leadership of those countries by attacking the palaces and vital interest of the kings and royal families. We did not invade their country, we just leveled it.
The Barbary war was a very succusefull campaign that not only allowed our merchants to sail and trade freely in that part of the world but established a Navy and Marine corp that was able to protect our interests world wide.
But I digress. Again. You need to get to what the basic cause of the Crusades was. Not rewards in heaven. Not the Pope's speech. From the Wikipedia article on the Crusades:
The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Christian Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.
As I said, the Crusades were a war waged against occupation of Jerusalem, and invasion of Asia Minor by Arabs (Muslims).
The whole issue of Papal indulgences and dying in the holy war and going to heaven were totally wrong and unbiblical, and that has been made abundantly clear. But that wasn't WHY they went to war. It was how they kept people going back again and again over many years. The Crusades ended up going way beyond the original cause, but nonetheless they still came down to one empire fighting against another.
The type of terrorism the Barbary pirates engaged in was a totally different affair. One much more akin to what we are seeing today. It was perhaps precipitated by Spain having thrown out the invader Moors, as retaliation. The Barbary pirates basically were demanding ransom or protection money, much as a mafia does, for European and American merchant ships to have safe passage. They did their fair share of piracy by taking ships from the merchant and naval fleets to amass their own navy to be able to carry out their extortion and terrorism.
In 638 Muslims took full control of Jerusalem, but continued to let christian visit and worship on holy sites. The Muslim Turks eventualy took over Jerusalem and put an end to all christain access to Jerusalem. That is what led to the Christain Crusades, and the first holy war.
So no, the Christian were not the first terrist.
We should have outgrown the violence and intolerance of religion centuries ago.
Terrorism is a different kind of event. Piracy on the high seas, holding ships and their crews for ransom, making the seas unsafe and so on are much more akin to the terrorism we see today.
It's too bad WhKnuck is too narrow minded and anti-Christian to be able to understand the difference between a war over ownership of a piece of land and piracy and terrorism. Somehow he sees the word Muslim in a title and thinks that I am denigrating all those peace loving Muslims all over the world.
Fact is, the Barbary pirates were Muslims, and in retaliation for having been thrown out of Spain (which they had previously invaded and taken over in the name of Allah) they set up their piracy.
Whether at the time there were any peaceful Muslims or not, they were Muslims and they took to piracy against all the Catholic countries of Europe as retaliation--bringing up the oft-quoted letter whereby the United States is declared not a Christian nation in an effort to get the Muslims to stop attacking American ships.
Post a reply to: The war on Muslim terrorism not new