Since you won't answer my question, I will show you proof as to how history and the world views the Crusades.

This is just a tidbit, from a quick INTERNET search, but the titling was all the same pretty much.
Funny thing I started to read a little bit of the history, which I will mostly plead ignorance to, and saw the Crusades were sanctioned/started by the Roman Catholic Church....
Gee, don't we have a pious member round here that talks squat to others rude behavior  

Anyway, here is an example:

Timeline for the Crusades and Christian Holy War to c.1350

Historical definition of “crusade”:

The crusades were a series of holy wars called by popes with the promise of indulgences for those who fought in them and directed against external and internal enemies of Christendom for the recovery of Christian property or in defense of the Church or Christian people.  Crusades were characterized by the taking of vows and the granting of indulgences to those who participated.  Like going on pilgrimage, to which they were often likened, crusading was an act of Christian love and piety that compensated for and paid the penalties earned by sin.  It marked a break in earlier Christian medieval conceptions of warfare in that crusades were penitential warfare. Crusades combined the ideas of: a) Holy War and b) and Pilgrimage to produce the concept of "indulgence" (remission of penance and/or sin granted by papacy for participation in sacred activity).  

Now, you wanna state you have never associated that Christians with the Crusades in your own dialogue?

Maybe we can change history and give these crusaders a new name to not offend Christians like me, and all the good ones who started schools/universities, hospitals, etc in our country and around the world, well?

Shall we call them a name that will pizz them off and minimize them?

Lets call them the Pope's poopers , but I am open to the left sided brain suggestions as they seem to sure have these Muslim JV Terrorist in retreat from their taunting  

Well amigo.... its on you????

Sometimes, I just can't follow your logic...

You ask questions without posing them...

Anybody get this?... ...

raydawg wrote on 12/05/15 at 08:03:34:


YYYUP !

raydawg wrote on 12/05/15 at 07:40:44:


No, Sir, it wasn't.

By the tone and contents of your question I assume you are:
a. white,
b. anglosaxon or germanic (or polish or scandinavian or slavic)
c. have only studied History of the World as described in High School history books.

During the 16th century the only ones to explore the new ContinentS (there were two, you know) were the military and the clergy.

The first successfull settlements were garrisons.

To call the Pilgrim Fathers' settlement "successful" is a mistake, it should be classed in the same way as shipwrecked castaways saved by a passing ship,. i.e. a fluke of fortune and nothing else.
OR
the story of Thanksgiving has changed since 1998.

In the 17th century the first "civilians" to populate North America were criminals sentenced to the gallows and proposed to "colonize the Colonies" as an alternative - quite often the entire family followed suit.
Others, from Germany, the Netherlands and France emigrated to flee from war, famine and desease.

Precious few, if any at all, emigrated because of religious intolerance; this includes the Pilgrim Fathers, if you take the time to read their entire story.

As for the Crusades, yes, they were, by today's standards, not what you would call "holy wars".

Quite possibly 100 years from now Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be called a crime against humanity and all that.

But, just like "the Bomb" seemed a bright idea to Pres. Truman in 1945... the Crusades seemed a good idea way back then.

Who knows... maybe King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella shouldn't have allowed that crazy Genoese Captain to sail at all...

raydawg wrote on 12/05/15 at 12:42:55:


Are you an enrolled member of a Tribe?  What is your CIB?  


Best regards,

For the moment, I am not even going to attempt to comment on everyone's posts here. They seem kinda scary .

Bot, I guess Raydawg is trying to accuse you of relating the Crusades to Christianity , which is not particularly unusual.  

I think the idea he is trying to propose is that the Crusades suck, the Crusaders suck, and that we should rename them the "pope's poopers" simply because we Christians want nothing to do with those stupid, lousy, stinkin', murderous blankety-blank blank blanks  

Plain English Version  

cheapnewb24 wrote on 12/05/15 at 18:14:34:



How  

cheapnewb24 wrote on 12/05/15 at 18:00:04:



Gee...... you must have an advanced degree in Cryptanalysis,
that would explain Bots inability to grasp something so rudimentary  

I wonder if he said it aloud he might hear the hypocrisy within it?  

raydawg wrote on 12/05/15 at 18:22:09:


Revealing Bot's hypocrisy by quoting me? Revealing my hypocrisy by stating it aloud instead of writing it? I don't fully understand here? Who's the hypocrite and how and why? I would assume you're referring to Bot, but I don't quite understand what you're saying.