Sunday, December 16, 2007

Suffer Not The Children


"We cannot let culture supercede religion, If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it." -Sheikh Alaa Elsayed

Tol·er·ance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Prej·u·dice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Anyone who doubts that a clash of cultures between Western Civilization and Islam is inevitable will find it hard to explain why we as a society should "tolerate" and allow the free existence of such teachings as these within our midst. The following stories are, unfortunately, true.

A Mississauga, Ontario man will be formally charged on Tuesday with murder in connection with the death of his 16-year-old daughter. The girl, Aqsa Parvez, was in critical condition on Monday after being strangled, apparently after a dispute with her family over her refusal to wear the hijab, the Islamic headscarf worn by some Muslim women. However Peel Regional Police said Tuesday the girl died late Monday night. Police arrested the victim's 57-year-old father, Muhammad Parvez on Monday morning after receiving a 911 call from a Mississauga home from a man saying he had killed his daughter. He is due to appear on Tuesday in a Brampton, Ontario court. The victim's 26-year-old brother, Waqas Parvez, was also charged with obstructing police.
Friends of the teenager, a Grade 11 student at Applewood Heights high school, said Monday they were shocked by the attack on the outgoing, likeable girl, but said she had been threatened by her strictly religious family before.
Ebonie Mitchell, 16, a friend of the victim, said the conflict with her father over wearing Islamic dress came to a head at the beginning of this school year. "She just wanted to dress like we do," she said. "Last year, she wore like the Islamic stuff and everything, the hijab, and this year she's all western. She just wanted to look like everyone else."

This would be a tragic event if only it wasn't so predictable. This kind of thing is not uncommon in Islamic countries where discipline of this sort is EXPECTED from the parents of "rebellious" and "disobedient" children. Often it is seen as a matter of restoring "honor" to a family that perceives itself to have been slighted by the child's behavior, hence the name "honor killing." However seeing this behavior within the confines of a Western country should be cause for alarm for here is a clear case of Islamic immigrants so devoted to NOT assimilating into our culture as to allow themselves to perpetrate such a vile act in clear sight of everyone and with an indignant sense of entitlement and pro-piety!
At a news conference at the Islamic Society of North America Canada headquarters in Mississauga, held three days after the strangling death of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez, Sheikh Alaa Elsayed said "We cannot let culture supercede religion, If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it."
Naturally Islam apologists C.A.I.R. were quick to try to claim it is not an Islamic problem but instead is a typical teenage situation.

"There should be zero tolerance for violence of any kind against women or girls," said Shahina Siddiqui, the president of the Islamic Social Services Association. "The strangulation death of Ms. Parvez was the result of domestic violence, a problem that cuts across Canadian society and is blind to colour or creed. We call for the strongest possible prosecution of Ms. Parvez's alleged attacker,"- Faisal Kutty, the legal counsel for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Unfortunately it is Islam that is not "blind to color or creed." Islam is, and has always been, INTOLERANT to all non Muslims! CAIR-CANADA's Sameer Zuberi had this add:

"Teen rebellion is something that exists in all households in Canada and is not unique to any culture or background, Domestic violence is also not unique to Muslims."

Teen rebellion? Domestic violence? Thats right, many parents kill their children over poor choices in clothing. If this were true there would probably be a massive murder spree here in the United States in order to quell the rise of the "sagging pants syndrome" that has been infesting our culture. And what parent hasn't wanted to kill their child for getting an earring or a tattoo? It happens all the time...doesn't it? It gets better! Muhammad Elmasry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress had this to say about the murder.

"I don't want the public to think that this is really an Islamic issue or an immigrant issue. It is a teenager issue."

So it had nothing to do with Islam or Islamic immigrants...could've happened to anybody right? Damn teenagers! Somebody ought to...Oh, I guess he did. United Muslim Women of Canada's Anisa Ali threw in with this statement:

"The public shouldn't assume that honour killings only happen in the Muslim community. Honor killings are not limited to Islamic countries like Pakistan, Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan."

Ahh, so what you are saying is that other people are doing it. We tend to not like the "everyone else is doing it so why can't I" defense here in the civilized world. It kind of sounds like something a teenager would say. Unfortunately the teenager in this story is dead. I guess, however, it is true that such things don't just happen in Islamic countries. Aqsa lived in Canada, certainly not an Islamic country, but one that is flawed by a desire to be perceived as tolerant of a profane religion called "Islam." And how about this story from our friends in England, another non-Islamic least not yet.

The daughter of a British Imam is living under police protection after receiving death threats from her father for converting to Christianity. The 31-year-old, whose father is the leader of a mosque in Lancashire, has moved house an astonishing 45 times after relatives pledged to hunt her down and kill her. The British-born university graduate, who uses the pseudonym Hannah for her own safety, said she renounced the Muslim faith to escape being forced into an arranged marriage when she was 16. She has been in hiding for more than a decade but called in police only a few months ago after receiving a text message from her brother. In it, he said he would not be held responsible for his actions if she failed to return to Islam. Officers have agreed to offer her protection in case of an attempt on her life.
Last night the woman said: "I'm determined to live my life the way I want to because I should have that freedom in this country. "If you make the choice to come to this country, as my parents did from Pakistan, you have to abide by the laws of this country and that means respecting the freedoms of other people. "I know the Koran says anyone who goes away from Islam should be killed as an apostate, so in some ways my family are following the Koran. They are following Islam to the word. "But I do not think every Muslim would act on that. "My situation is frightening, but I'm not going to let it frighten me to the extent I can't live my life.
A study this year found that 36 per cent of British Muslims between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another religion should be punished by death. In July an Iranian immigrant to Britain, who converted to Christianity, was saved from deportation after it emerged she would be stoned to death in her own country.

Apparently our Muslim friends have a problem with independent women and still desire to continue the time honored tradition of arranged marriages. Where, one may ask is the assimilation into British society?One thing Islam does not "tolerate" is apostasy from the faith. The only way out of Islam is through death. Doesn't that sound familiar? Every street gang worth it's salt has a blood in, blood out rule. So that pretty much puts Islam on an even keel with the Crips and the Bloods. Good company, huh?
And yet there is more! Everyone of these examples collected by the National Post occurred in non-Islamic Western countries!!

-Rajinder Singh Atwal stabbed his 17-year-old daughter, Amandeep, 17 times after he discovered she was dating a boy he disapproved of. Atwal was convicted of second-degree murder in British Columbia in March, 2005. He automatically received a life sentence of 25 years in prison.

-A devout Muslim's strict religious beliefs drove him to murder his favourite daughter when he found her "secret" boyfriend in her bedroom, a jury in the U.K. heard in February, 2002, the Manchester Evening News reported. Faqir Mohammed, a father of 10 children, stabbed the 24-year-old student in the head after finding the man when he came home unexpectedly. His original target was the boyfriend, student Bilal Amin, but he escaped by jumping from the bedroom window. The father chased him, but when his daughter tried to stop him, he took hold of her and stabbed her repeatedly, reports stated. "According to the law it was not right, but according to religion it was right," he told detectives.

-Hina Saleem, 21, was found buried in the backyard of her family's home in Italy. Four men, including her father and uncle, were accused of premeditated murder and hiding the body, lawyer Carlo Bonardi was quoted as saying in an Associated Press story in August, 2006.
Ms. Saleem's mother, Bushra Begun Saleem, told AP her daughter was disobedient — often out late without saying where she was or when she was coming home. She also said she did not forgive her husband for his alleged participation in the killing.

-A Kurdish immigrant in Sweden, who killed his daughter because he did not like her modern way of life, pleaded guilty to the murder in March, 2002. Rahmi Sahindal said he had not planned the killing but lost his temper when he came across his daughter, Fadime, while she was paying a secret visit to her mother and sisters in January. He gunned her down at point-blank range before their eyes. Fadime, 26, had fled the family home to escape from her father and other male relatives who did not want her to mix freely in Swedish society. Sahindal was trying to arrange a marriage for her in Turkey and threatened her when he found out she had been dating a Swedish man.

I bet you think such things can't happen here in America? Well, think again my friends. One of the best of these 'honor killings" happened right here in the United States. I say best because this one was caught on tape!

In November 1989 in St. Louis, the FBI inadvertently tape recorded the entire episode of a teenage girl's being killed by her Palestinian father and Brazilian mother (the Feds were looking for evidence of terrorism, which they also found). In a ghastly eight-minute sequence, Zein Isa stabbed his daughter Palestina thirteen times with a butcher's knife as his wife held the girl down and responded to Palestina's pleas for help with a brutal "Shut up!" The killing ends with Zein screaming "Die! Die quickly! Die quickly! . . . Quiet, little one! Die, my daughter, die!" By this time, she is dead.
The jury deliberated more than four hours before asking for the death penalty against Zein Isa and his wife, Maria. The jurors had convicted them in the death of their daughter Tina, the father for stabbing her and the mother for holding her down. The girl's screams and moans as she begged her parents not to kill her were captured by devices secretly planted in the apartment by Federal agents who were looking into possible illegal activities by Mr. Isa on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Instead of international intrigue, the tapes captured a sometimes chilling, sometimes heartbreaking family drama involving clashes of cultures - Mr. Isa was born in Palestine and his wife in Brazil - and the parents' attempts to control their daughter who, it seems, wanted to be an American teen-ager.
The seven-minute tape of the killing, on which the father is heard shouting in Arabic "Die quickly!" in answer to his daughter's cries, chilled the jury of seven women and five men and shocked court officials who thought they had seen and heard everything. "It's worse than any movie, any film, anything I thought that I would ever hear in my life," said Bob Craddick, an assistant prosecutor for seven years, who has heard the tape seven or eight times.
…On the night of her death, Tina's parents express anger on the tape that she was at work, then seem not to believe that she was at work at all. Then Tina's father says: "Here, listen, my dear daughter, do you know that this is the last day. Tonight, you're going to die?"

Tina responds: "Huh?"

Zein Isa replies: "Do you know that you are going to die tonight?"

The girl's mother asks her questions about items in her schoolbag. In the midst of her conversation with her mother, Tina begins to shriek in fear.

"Keep still, Tina!" says her father.

"Mother, please help me!"

"Huh? What do you mean?" the mother says.

"Help! Help!"

"What help?" the mother responds.

Tina screams, and Maria says: "Are you going to listen? Are you going to listen?"

Screaming louder, Tina gasps: "Yes! Yes! Yes, I am!" then coughs and adds, "No. Please!"

The mother says, "Shut up!"

Tina continues to cry, but her voice is unintelligible.

"Die! Die quickly! Die quickly!" the father says.The girl moans, seems to quiet, then screams one last time.

"Quiet, little one! Die my daughter, die!" the father says.

Tina was stabbed six times in the chest with a boning knife, which pierced her heart, one lung, and liver.

Now explain to me why we should "tolerate" Islam. Sure, all Muslims do not behave this way. But where are the ones condemning this practice? I guess they are being drowned out by the noise of all those Muslims condemning jihadist terrorism.
Are we guilty of prejudice if we choose not to tolerate this behavior, or the religion that encourages it, within our society? No, for we are not acting "without knowledge, thought, or reason." We are acting with it! Also, we have plenty of indisputable evidence to back it up. Intolerance and prejudice are, in fact, embedded in Islam like a cancer. It has already destroyed them. It need not destroy us as well.

"We cannot let culture super-cede religion, If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it." -Sheikh Alaa Elsayed

"If we tolerate the teachings of Islam, WE will pay for it." -Sidney Allen Johnson

Aqsa Parvez, killed by ISLAM
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Sunday, November 11, 2007

All The News That's Printed To Fit


You people are going to have to step up to the plate and do your fair share. You need to go find yourself a homosexual or a Muslim (or, perchance, a Homosexual Muslim) and give him, or her, a proper beatdown. If you don't particularly dislike Homosexuals or Muslims you can go beat up on some of the old standby downtrodden and discriminated factions of our society, but the media would prefer you stick to the current agenda. You see, there just isn't enough genuine racism and bigotry in America anymore. As a result you are making the poor media have to go out and create some "artificial" bigotry. But hey, that will do when you have a great idea for a story and are just lacking a few minor things like facts, truth and well, news. Sometimes bad news is hard to find. Shocked that I would say such a thing? Do read on...

From WBRC TV in Birmingham Alabama comes this wonderful story:

ABC is doing a social experiment in Birmingham that includes having same-sex couples show affection for each other in public, according to Birmingham police department sources. FOX6 first learned about this story from a Southside merchant who pointed out an RV parked at the corner of 20th Street and 11th Avenue South. The merchant said ABC was working on a week-long project to see how people would react to things like public displays of affection by gay and lesbian couples. A FOX6 news reporter approached the RV and talked with an "actor" who said, "Yes, we are working for ABC News."
A South Precinct officer who spoke anonymously said he had received at least three or four reports from people who said they were disgusted over two men kissing in public. That officer says the ABC project is not a violation of the law and that ABC has a permit to park the RV. An attempt to reach ABC News for comment has been unsuccessful.

What's this? Is ABC News attempting to create a news story out of thin air? Do you think they were looking for passersby to celebrate the "cultural diversity" of American social life as they witness these unsolicited public displays of homosexual affection? Or were they hoping for some rednecks to come by and take a swat at them? All of it, of course, to be captured on camera as an example of intolerance against the current "discriminated minority" they have championed as needing special protection, and therefore special rights, to save them from ignorant hatemongers. So what if the news media had to use "actors" as bait to lure the hatemongers out into the open. The subsequent reactions of hatred would still be real...wouldn't they?
Naturally Birmingham Alabama is the perfect place to set up their little sting operation because everyone knows the South persecutes gay people. And wasn't Birmingham the sight of some of the finest examples of discriminatory violence ever caught on tape? Yeah, FOURTY years ago. But who am I to critique investigative journalism? I am sure I should be offended.
If you can't find the news to tell the story you want, why not just go out and hire some actors and fake it? I find it interesting that they saw fit to use actors and not real gay people. I guess when you are staging phoney news your pride must insist on total fabrication. I can understand that in an Alabama sort of way. I know I prefer to catch a fish on a plastic worm rather than a real one. It makes me feel superior to the stupid fish to know he never was chasing anything real. So by hiring actors instead of real gay people, ABC News is showing their total superiority over the stupid citizens of Birmingham Alabama. Well, except for one little problem...they got caught.
As we all know, competition between the network news organizations is fierce and ABC must have felt the need to prove they were superior to their rivals at NBC News. I am sure you all remember how last year NBC attempted this same sort of thing, only they were not as elaborately deceptive as ABC. They attempted the equivalent of fishing with real bait when last year the program "Dateline NBC" sent what they described as "Muslim-looking men" to a NASCAR race in Virginia. Of course they were accompanied by a camera crew to film the expected fan reactions. Reactions they felt confident they could easily get at this hotbed of Red State "elitist" culture. Apparently they intended to air a segment on anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. The uncooperativeness of the American population at engaging in these acts of hostility during the transactions of their day to day lives in the post 911 world forced them to try to instigate it themselves. What better place than a NASCAR race to "incubate" such a worthy social experiment? It was a work of genius. Well, except for one little problem...they got caught.
A NASCAR spokesman had this to say about it:

"It is outrageous that a news organization of NBC's stature would stoop to the level of going out to create news instead of reporting news. "Any legitimate journalist in America should be embarrassed by this stunt. The obvious intent by NBC was to evoke reaction, and we are confident our fans won't take the bait," he said.

Unfortunately for NBC the NASCAR fans didn't take the bait. Instead of manufacturing a news story, they became one. Some days the fish just aren't biting and then some days you fall out of the boat. Did I say boat? Who could forget NBC reporter Michelle Kosinski giving a live report, while floating in a boat, from the flooded streets of Wayne, New Jersey when two men walked between her and the camera, revealing that the water where she was floating was barely ankle-deep. Later, an NBC News spokeswoman explained that Kosinski had been riding in deeper water near an overflowing river down the street, but there were concerns that the current was too strong for her. "It's not like we were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't," said spokeswoman Lauren Kapp. Of course not.
Such shenanigans are not just limited to the major TV networks. The fabricating of news stories is a thriving and driving force in the print media as well. The New Republic magazine managed to get itself busted recently when Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, author of the heavily disputed "Shock Troops" article in their July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns, signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations, falsehoods and fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth." It was a clever idea to pay a real soldier to write a story about the treacherous behavior of soldiers fighting in Iraq. It added a wonderful aura of authenticity to an otherwise solid piece of bulls***. Certainly Senator John Kerry must be proud, as he set the standard for this sort of thing. And really, what does the truth matter if by telling a lie you can effect a change for the greater good of mankind? Well, except for one little problem...they got caught.
These unfortunately are not isolated or rare incidents. This is now the modus operandi for a media determined to "change the world." Reporting the news is so last century. Journalists now see themselves as "social engineers" and our society is just a mechanism for them to tweak...for our own good of course. But you can rest easy for the future is in good hands as this recent news item can attest:

A student journalist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., admitted that she had drawn swastikas on her own dorm room door. Sarah Marshak signed a confession after security cameras caught her in the act. The campus publication, The Hatchet, said she told the staff that she "only drew the final three of six swastikas on her door in an attempt to highlight what she characterized as the University's inaction."

No, say it ain't so. Like I said, the future of journalism is in good hands. I know it warms your heart to know that there is another young journalist who is well on her way to an outstanding career engineering our society for the better. Well, except for one little problem...she got caught.

"It's not like we were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't,"
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Sunday, October 28, 2007

To Torture Or Not To Torture


The confirmation process for Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey seems to have hit an interesting speed bump. Once again the country is being confronted by not only whether or not the United States should allow captured terrorists to be "tortured," but also we are being challenged to define "torture" in a very public spectacle.
The question centered around an aggressive interrogation technique called "waterboarding," which many, including Presidential candidate, and former prisoner of war, John McCain, do consider torture. On the second day of his confirmation hearings last week, Mukasey refused to say that waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding is a technique that involves pouring water over a prisoner's face to create the sensation of drowning. ``It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else,'' Mukasey stated at one point. However Mukasey also said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done. This frustrated many senators who equate his response with legalistic hedging.
So what is it going to be? Do we, as a country, believe that terrorists, who operate outside of the conventions of warfare accepted by civilized societies, deserve to be treated with the respect and general well being reserved for soldiers fighting under the flag and command of a recognized government? This is an important distinction that goes to the very heart of our war against terrorism.
There are those, Senator McCain among them, who consider the technique of waterboarding to be torture and therefore are against the United States employing such measures when interrogating a captured terrorist. (notice that I do NOT refer to them as "enemy combatants" but call them what they are!) Senator McCain's position is well received. Certainly there are not many people who can claim to know more about this subject. His history as a "guest" of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war entitles him to much respect on this issue. As it pertains to the United States engaging in wars with other nations I would even wholeheartedly agree with his position. The information we might gain would be corrupted by bad information and false confessions. Trained soldiers know how to handle tough interrogations, even those that might be considered torturous. Therefore the information would be of dubious value and not worth the harm that would be incurred to the reputation of the United States. But terrorists, by definition, don't play by the they?
Many people on the political left in this country take matters even farther. It is their contention that these "enemy combatants" are entitled to the same "due process" as an American citizen in the U.S. judicial system. They believe that these terrorists should be tried in the criminal justice system. This in spite of the fact doing so would inevitably involve compromising U.S. national security interests by forcing the United States to reveal the means used to capture them. Trying to deal with terrorism as a law enforcement issue is the tried and failed policy of the Clinton Administration that culminated in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Placing international terrorists on an equal status before the law with citizens of the United States is absurd. Pure and simple.
I was watching C-Span the other night and one of these "wackadoos" was bemoaning the fact that the Bush administration had only brought one of the detainees of the Guantanamo Bay facility to trial....ever. (and yes he was convicted) This may be true, but I found it interesting that this person chose to omit another important fact that is crucial to understanding how serious a danger these "detainees" pose. At least 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against U.S. forces FOLLOWING their release. Ouch! That is a stinging truth isn't it?
These terrorists, for their part, claimed to be farmers, drivers, cooks etc. to explain why they were caught in the wrong places and at the wrong times in Afghanistan and Iraq. These former detainees successfully lied to U.S. officials to acquire release from the Guantanamo Bay facility only to return to fight against us.
In July, one such detainee, Abdullah Mehsud, reportedly blew himself up rather than surrender to Pakistani forces. In December 2001, Mehsud was captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay until his release in March 2004. He later became the Taliban chief for South Waziristan.
Let's cut through the malarky. These terrorists do not fight for a government. They do not serve under a flag nor do they wear a uniform. They consider themselves soldiers of Allah, and as such, they answer only to him. This provides them with several advantages. They get to operate in that area between international laws regarding warfare. They are therefore not restrained by anything and consider themselves free to violate all of the rules of warfare...and they do. They have certainly shown no queasiness when it comes to their willingness to use and misuse "noncombatant" civilians to advance their Islamic Supremacist agenda.
This has had its most gruesome display in the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, which they had the audacity to record and distribute for broadcast to the delight of the Islamic world. Meanwhile the U.S. media refused to show it. Ask yourself why? As far as I am concerned you must have seen this video to even voice an opinion on this issue. The media doesn't want the American people to see the enemy for who he really is. They have too much sympathy for the terrorists because they have a common enemy...the Bush Administration. Treason has never been so obvious.
States such as Iran and Syria train and equip these killers and send them into Iraq to do the work they haven't got the courage to do for themselves. In this manner they think they are outsmarting the United States by playing in between the rules. And they are outsmarting some of you. Iranian trained terrorists using Iranian made munitions are killing U.S. soldiers. Iran is entitled to a U.S. counterattack. Or does my history fail me. It seems that I recall the U.S. Civil War started when confederate forces fired on a U.S. installation (Fort Sumter). The United States was mad and suddenly very hot for war. Strange when you consider no one was killed in the attack. Yet the new religion of tolerance now demands that we tolerate Iranian and Syrian interference that results in the deaths of our people. The terrorists provide a political shield to prevent the supporting states from receiving what they have coming to them. This is the perfect system for engaging a superpower such as the United States. They are using our democracy against us.
Another question that seems to be both answered and ignored is whether or not "aggressive interrogations" actually produce results. Former CIA Director George Tenet said the "aggressive interrogations" of top al-Qaeda leaders brought the U.S. more valuable information about planned terror plots than all of the government's other intelligence gathering efforts. "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Tenet said in a "60 Minutes" interview. Tenet went on to say "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."
Why do you think these "aggressive interrogations" are so successful? Because these terrorists are often misrepresented in the media. We constantly hear them referred to as being "trained." Its true that they are given as much training as can be done in their chosen predicament, but no one should ever equate a trained terrorist with a trained soldier. The media uses the word "trained" to try to persuade you into viewing the terrorist as some form of a soldier. He is not. That is precisely why "aggressive interrogations" work so well. They were trained to kill others or themselves. They have no knowledge how to handle a real military interrogation and as a result they That is why the former CIA Director is so adamant about its usefulness as a technique. It doesn't take torture to get these cowards to capitulate. THEY ARE NOT SOLDIERS!!!
Well, maybe they are....phoney soldiers.
Am I the only one who wonders what happens to U.S. soldiers who are captured by the terrorists? How are THEY being treated. Unfortunately we know the answer to that as we always get our captured soldiers returned to pieces. It seems the terrorists don't find our soldiers to be of any use to them. That's called discipline, and our people pay dearly for their adherence to it. That's the difference between a "trained" soldier and a terrorist.
So do I believe the United States is torturing these people? No I don't. They don't need to do it. The media have an alliance to anyone that will help them get a Democrat into the White House and this is just an issue created to try to damage the credibility of our President and the military during a time of war. Our soldiers have every reason to question whose side the media is on in this war. Though I'm afraid the answer is obvious.
However if torture was required to extract information from these terrorists I would hope we wouldn't hesitate to do it. In this issue, I am vehemently pro choice. Terrorists choose to operate in the area outside of the law. Let's give them exactly what they have asked for!

Sympathy For The Devil? Abdullah Mehsud
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Sunday, October 21, 2007

The Exploitation Of Genocide


"Kill without mercy! Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" -Adolf Hitler

Some people never learn from history. Instead, they endeavor to repeat it by falling victim to their own shortsightedness and political ambitions. The controversial Armenian Genocide Resolution, sponsored by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is just such an instance.
Before assessing the merits and the timing of Speaker Pelosi's resolution, it is a good idea to make sure everyone knows just what happened in the first genocide of the 20th century. The Armenian Genocide occurred between 1915-1923 when 2 million Armenians living in present day Turkey were forcibly removed from their historic homeland through deportation and massacre. The Turks, for their part, claim the death count is inflated and the result of civil unrest, not a deliberate government policy aimed at exterminating an entire population of people.
For three thousand years the Armenian community thrived in the area known as Asia Minor. The roads of commerce from three continents (Europe, Asia and Africa) run through this area which had been ruled by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs and Mongols. The Armenians created a flourishing society of peace and prosperity through commerce and were well known for their unique style of architecture.
Then, in the 11th century...the Turks came. By the 16th century Armenia had been totally absorbed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
Though once seemingly invincible, the Ottoman Empire was reluctant to embrace technological and economic progress, which inevitably resulted in their decline. The countries of Europe became dominant and many Ottoman conquests like Greece, Romania and Serbia won their independence from the declining empire.
In spite of the Ottoman's decline, the Armenians were a prosperous minority within the empire. Sultan Abdul Hamid II got the genocide ball rolling by massacring 100,000 to 300,000 Armenians between 1894-1896 with a series of widespread pogroms.
An organization known as The Young Turks carried out the Armenian Genocide. The Young Turk Movement was a reaction to the lack of progress and societal advancement under Sultan Abdul Hamid II. It was largely organized by young military officers upset by the decline of the Ottoman Empire and wishing to restore it to its previous greatness by espousing a form of Turkish Nationalism. Their idea of Turkish Nationalism was extremely Xenophobic and exclusionary.
The Young Turk Revolution was itself guided by The Committee of Union and Progress which seized power in a coup d'etat in 1913. At first, both the Turks and the Armenians were happy with the prospect of a brighter future under this new government. For the Armenians, this happiness would prove to be short lived. You see, there is one thing that keeps being left out of the discussion of the Armenian Genocide for "political correctness" reasons. Turkish Nationalism brought with it what we today call "Islamic Fundamentalism." The Armenians, unfortunately, were Christians...and now you shall learn the rest of the story.
Christian Armenians, always among the best educated and wealthiest communities within the Turkish Empire, were once again labeled as infidels in the time honored Muslim tradition. The Committee of Union and Progress devised a secret plan for the extermination of the Armenian population. This was in spite of the fact that the Armenians had already proven themselves to be an unthreatening and loyal minority by putting up with the hardship of unequal treatment as prescribed by Islamic law.
With the rest of the world preoccupied with World War I the Turks felt the time was right to "solve" the Armenian problem. Surprisingly, the Armenians were cooperative with the Turk's plans. This was largely due to the fact that they were misled by the Turks. They were being told it was necessary to "relocate" them for their own safety in order to keep them from being caught between the Russians and Turkey.
The Armenian population was to be disarmed first (something to consider for those of you who support "gun control" laws) and then "relocated." The Armenian's wealth was then to be seized and dispersed among the members of the Committee of Union and Progress and their cohorts. Alas, 20th century genocide was to prove as profitable as the Islamic Genocide taught by their master...the Prophet Muhammad! 40,000 Armenian men already in the army were immediately killed while other new recruits were "drafted" in the army only to be used as slave labor. If they somehow survived the brutal working conditions of the project they were working on they were subsequently shot at its completion.
The actual extermination order came from the ruling triumvirate of Mehmed Talaat Pasha, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal. Three names that deserve to be remembered in history. The order was transmitted in coded telegrams to all the governors in Turkey. April 24, 1915 saw 300 Armenian political leaders, educators, clergy, and writers removed from their homes in Constantinople. In the dead of the night they were briefly jailed and tortured, then hanged or shot. And so the genocide began in earnest.
Mass arrests followed throughout the country. Men were tied together and led out of their towns and killed by death squads. Armenian women, children and elderly were taken on death marches under the pretext of "relocation." They were led to the Syrian desert where they were killed upon arrival. That is assuming they survived being raped, starved and dehydrated along the way.
Muslim Turks took instant ownership of everything. Churches and monuments were desecrated and destroyed. Many Armenian children were "generously" spared from the "relocation" policy. Young children were often taken from their parents to be farmed out to Turkish families who would rename them and raise them as Muslim Turks. Many young girls were taken as slave brides. Once again a time honored Muslim tradition when dealing with "infidel" Christians.
The death marches involved over a million Armenians traveling in caravans. Their Turkish "escorts" allowed, and even encouraged, roving bands of criminals to attack the caravans and take whatever and whoever they wished. Killing for sport and amusement was common as was the raping and murdering of young women. It is estimated that 75% of the Armenians died on these death marches. Decomposing corpses littered the Turkish countryside. Though orders were given to bury the corpses, they were largely ignored.
The Allied Powers did issue warnings to Turkey, but they had little to no effect. World War I was too much of a strain on their resources for them to intervene in a serious manner.
In 1918 the Armenians took matters into their own hands. They managed to acquire weapons and began to fight back. They defeated the Turks at the battle of Sadarabad and subsequently managed to save the remaining Armenian population.
It is clear that the Armenians were the victims of a deliberate government policy of genocide. There is no denying that these people deserve to have their fate recognized as one of the great atrocities in human history and not the result of a breakdown of law and order at the end of the Ottoman Empire as the Turks have historically claimed. Any one should be able to see and understand this. However the question must be asked: Is the resolution sponsored by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi the proper way to address this issue?
Consider the situation. Turkey currently is an Ally of the United States and a member of NATO. It is one of the very few Islamic populations ruled by a secular government. That rule is being challenged more and more by Islamic Fundamentalists who seek to have Turkey governed under Islamic Sharia Law. Also Turkey has proven to be a very valuable ally in the current conflict in Iraq. Not only is Turkish land and airspace being used as a conduit for supplies to the war effort, but the government has also provided some valuable support for U.S. interests there as well. Kurdish rebels, with bases located in Northern Iraq, have been attacking and raiding Turkish territory with regularity and (as of this writing) the Turks have shown admirable restraint in dealing with the situation.
The Turks have made it quite clear that they do not wish to see Speaker Pelosi's resolution condemning the Armenian Genocide pass through the U.S. House of Representatives. They have indicated, clearly, that it would cause serious damage to the U.S.-Turkey relationship. They have threatened to cut off U.S. access to Turkish land and airspace. It also bears noting that they have more troops massed on the border with Northern Iraq than we have in Iraq. Their parliament, in response to Speaker Pelosi's proposed resolution, has authorized the use of force in dealing with the Kurdish rebels. Their "restraint" in dealing with this situation would appear to be in jeopardy if the resolution were to proceed. You will recall that the area controlled by the Kurds is the quietest and most successful of all the territories in Iraq. A Turkish army invading that area isn't going to do a lot to promote tranquility. President Bush has correctly made it clear that this is neither the time or situation in which to introduce this resolution.
After almost a century, why now push the issue when it can do irreparable damage to the interests of the United States? Perhaps Democratic Congressman James Clyburn accidentally let the answer slip when he said an American victory in Iraq "would be a real big problem for us" in the 2008 election. It would appear this is a last ditch effort to prevent that very big problem. This is nothing more than an attempt to reverse the, now undeniable, success of the military surge conducted by General Petraeus and the U.S. military. Unfortunately, its hard to come to any other conclusion. The democratic party invested all its power and effort in a fruitless campaign to prevent and subvert the military effort following the 2006 election. Now with that military effort proving successful they are faced with a political disaster. Its not that the Democrats WANT the United States to fail in Iraq...they NEED the United States to fail in Iraq. This is politics of the most treacherous sort.

"The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders" -Osama Bin Laden, Feb. 14, 2003

Which brings me now to the Armenian victims of this genocide. These people are nothing to Nancy Pelosi. She is merely exploiting their tragedy for political advantage. Sadly, by trying to place this issue as stumbling block between the United States and Turkey, she is actually working to assist the very movement that led to their deaths! It is the Radical Fundamentalist Movement that we are engaging in our "War On Terror." The Young Turkish Movement of the early 20th century had this at the very heart of their own nationalist movement. They, like Al Qaeda, were Islamofascist to the core. The Armenians were murdered, not because they were Armenian, but because they were not Muslims. A politically incorrect and inconvenient truth. Now these Christian Armenians are being exploited in such a way as will benefit the descendants of their murderers. They are being victimized a second time.

April 24,1915
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Death March
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Death March
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Christian Heads
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Starved Mother & Children
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Mass Graves
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Christian Skulls
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Muslim Turks Posing with Their Trophys

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Socialist "Metal Health"


"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." Proverbs 26:11

You've no doubt heard of the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) controversy by now. President Bush recently vetoed this bill and congress is right this moment gearing up for a fight to attempt to override his veto. This is really a small battle in what is going to be a long protracted fight over socialized medicine in the United States.
SCHIP in theory is quite simple. It was created in 1997 for one reason: to offer federally subsidized health insurance to children ineligible for Medicaid but unable to afford private insurance. Simply put, its health insurance for poor children. However, the new SCHIP legislation has altered the rules considerably. Initially SCHIP's top income limit was 200% of poverty ($41,300 for a family of four). The new bill raises that to 300% ($61,950) of the poverty level nationally and even higher in some states (New Jersey-$72,285, and New York a whopping $82,300!!!). And this they call poverty? According to the states' budget projections, 13 will spend more than 44% of their SCHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women. Michigan heads the list with 71.6% of its SCHIP money earmarked for adults who have no kids. In New Mexico, 52.3 percent of the state's SCHIP dollars will be spent on childless adults. IMPORTANT FACT ALERT: 46 states and the District of Columbia do NOT have an asset test for SCHIP!! So just how do they decide who qualifies?
If that isn't bad enough, the bill also includes a provision for children up to 25 years old. Thats right CHILDREN 25 years old!! I tell you what, I'll go along with that provision of the bill just as long as we apply this kind of rationale consistently. Let us also raise the drinking and voting ages to 25 years old as well. Any takers? After all we don't want children we? Certainly children aren't adequately prepared to bear the responsibility of voting either now are they?
This is nothing more than an attempt to expand entitlements in the direction of socialized health care. A policy that all three leading democratic presidential candidates support. Truth be told, the entire democratic party has line up behind the socialist apparatus that is pushing for government controlled health care. The President thoroughly, and rightly, opposes socialized health care and he was absolutely right to veto this bill that is nothing more than an incremental step in that direction. I only hope the republicans in congress don't fall for the "poster children" the democrats will use to try to manipulate public opinion in their favor. This veto needs to stand.
To reasonable people an annual income of $82,300 is not poverty and 25 year olds are not children. This is politicians taking advantage of the good hearted nature of the American people to expand a generous program for the truly needy to include people who should be taking responsibility for themselves. Hopefully the American people will likewise not be fooled by the "poster children" either. The President has indicated he will sign a bill that has these unacceptable provisions removed. It is really the democrats who are using "human shields" to attempt to advance their socialist agenda. This is not the democratic party of Roosevelt, Truman or Kennedy!
Alas, this is only the beginning of a full out assault to try and bring socialized health care to the United States. Expect more foolish shenanigans like this. Socialism is like Kudzu, (if you are not from the south you may be unfamiliar with this fast spreading, virtually indestructible vine) once it sets a root it is virtually impossible to stop. Consider this story from Sweden, a country entrenched in Socialism and government run health care:
Roger Tullgren, 42, is a Swedish Heavy Metal fan. He has had his musical preference for heavy metal officially classified as a disability. The results of a psychological analysis enable this "headbanging" fellow to supplement his income with state benefits. Thats right, tax dollars are being used to compensate a grown man for "heavy metal" addiction!
Because heavy metal dominates so many aspects of his life the employment service has agreed to pay part of his salary. His boss is even allowing him to play loud music while he works as a dishwasher in a restaurant. How many of you are thinking about Poison's "Nothin' But A Good Time" video right now?
According to Tullgren, he has been trying to get his "heavy metal" addiction classified as a handicap for ten years. Says Mr. Tullgren: "I spoke to three psychologists and they finally agreed that I needed this to avoid being discriminated against." ...Ahh yes. Discrimination. That makes sense.
The ageing "metalhead" claims to have attended over 300 heavy metal shows last year alone. The natural consequence of attending all these shows was an unaceptable number of absences from work that his previous employer was unwilling to tolerate. So the intolerant and compassion deprived employer terminated him leaving him jobless and living on welfare.
I don't know where to begin in assessing the stupidity of this story. This is the kind of nonsense you get when the government gets involved in health care. If they really consider the man to be addicted to heavy metal, and therefore handicapped, why is the government becoming an enabler of the behavior instead of treating him and trying to get him away from the heavy metal environment? This is the equivalent of giving a gambling addict money to gamble with or buying an alcoholic a drink! How can you encourage a handicap? Only a government run program could do such a thing.
Now I realize some of you out there may be salivating at the prospect of getting paid for listening to heavy metal music. This may be all that some of you need to hear to go out and vote for a democrat in the next election. But be careful. Whenever a Socialist country declares someone to be "inferior" for any reason it tends not to work out well for them. Remember the Nazis are "National SOCIALISTS." Socialist governments have always proven willing to kill to maintain their idea of "order" and its never a secret who they are going to kill. Something to consider before you metalheads volunteer to vote yourselves handicapped.
Just a generation ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Now it is designated as a sexual "preference." Heavy Metal music has now been designated by a western government not as a preference but a "handicap." Something seems awry here and I feel pretty sure I should be offended.
You may laugh at the preposterousness of this and think it can't happen here, but the United States is being bombarded by this constantly. The attempt to expand the SCHIP program beyond its intended parameters is definitely a step in this direction.
The United States is about to have this choice presented to them in a big way...again. All three leading democratic presidential candidates support some form of a government controlled health care system. This was attempted immediately after President Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. The democrats, like the dog in Proverbs 26:11, have returned to this theme. They think the idea of universal health care will work this time. Politically appointed officials would have the authority to make these kind of decisions and declare various groups of people to be "handicapped." Do you really believe these decisions will be made without political considerations? Don't be foolish. Let us learn from Sweden, not follow them.
I remember watching the 1984 Republican convention and seeing some people holding signs that read: "Heavy Metal Rockers for Reagan." As the years go by I am more and more impressed at the prescience of these wise rockers of an earlier time. Its never popular for musicians or "rock-n-roll" types to be supportive of republicans even though that is the party that stands up for individual freedom. Democrats, on the other hand, believe in the "collective." So whats it going to be you rock-n-rollers? Are you going to let the socialists buy your vote even as they consider you "handicapped?" Or do you have enough self respect to resist this foolishness and stand up for individual this case your own!!
Me, I'm going to grab my copy of the "Heavy Metal" movie soundtrack. I want to hear that old Nazareth know the one.....Crazy? (A Suitable Case For Treatment).

Sunday, September 2, 2007


The Truth About Islam pt. 3

Christians love to apologize for the Crusades. In the modern climate of the ever more liberal Christian denominations, this moment in its history is often perceived as an ill conceived war of aggression by a western civilization dominated by an opportunistic Catholic Church. Modern scholars, using modern vernacular, will often attribute this to a form of "Christian Fundamentalism." One could even be led to believe that the Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business, in lands that were legitimately theirs, until the European Crusaders came crashing into their benevolent kingdom forcing Christianity on them by the sword. Worse, the Crusaders are often seen as imperialists simply seeking to create new colonies for the profits of the "not so pious or faithful" adventurers seeking personal fame and fortune. Unfortunately this is a modern fabrication.
Lets make this nice and sparkling clear: The Crusades were absolutely justified by every standard of the world of that time and, if fairly and factually told, they should be seen as justified, and even necessary, by modern standards. It could be fairly stated that sometimes the behavior of the Crusaders themselves was beneath "Christian" standards, but NEVER beneath those applied by the Muslims. For some reason westerners, particularly the liberal academic intelligentsia whose job it is to teach such things, accepts the notion that the Europeans alone were aggressive. Somehow Islam is always allowed to project itself as a victim.
The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE war launched in response to centuries of Muslim aggression and conquests. In fact, by the start of the first crusade, 2/3 of the Christian world had been attacked and subjected to three choices. (1) Fight and die. (2) Surrender and convert to Islam and pay the zakat tax. Or (3) surrender and keep their Biblical faith and pay the jizya tax. Usually they chose the third option if they were allowed to live long enough to make the choice. The truth is that Islam, beginning with the fine example of Muhammad himself, has been on a "crusade" for world domination that began long before the European Crusades and, in fact, continues to this day! The death of Muhammad did nothing to impede the progress of Islamic aggression. In fact, it may have accelerated it. Here is an abbreviated timeline highlighting the major Islamic campaigns of aggression:

632 Muhammad's death
635 Muslims besiege and conquer of Damascus.
636 Muslims defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.
637 Muslims conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah
638 Muslims conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.
638-650 Muslims conquer Persia (Iran), except along Caspian Sea.
639-642 Muslims conquer Egypt.641 Muslims control Syria and Palestine.
643-707 Muslims conquer North Africa.
644-650 Muslims conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Afghanistan.
673-678 Muslim Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire.
710-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.
711-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the Kingdom of Andalus.
732 The Muslims are stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, France.
809 Muslims conquer Sardinia, Italy.
831 Muslims capture Palermo, Italy; and conduct raids in southern Italy.
837-901 Muslims conquer Sicily, launch raids into Corsica, Italy, and France. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East. Seljuks are Muslim Turks.
1012 Beginning of al-Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians.
1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia.
1071 Seljuk Turks invade Palestine.
1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Muslim Turks.
1075 Seljuks capture Nicea
1094 Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus asks western Christendom for help against invasions of Seljuk Muslim Turks in his territory.

As the timeline plainly illustrates, the Muslims were not peaceful nor were they minding their own business. The lands they claimed were, even after their conquest, largely populated by Christians who had to endure the subjugation and ostracization of their Islamic overlords and their draconian laws against non Muslims. These lands were, by no means, territory that they had any right to claim. They were taken by perpetrating violence against the populations living therein. Islam, you should know, sprung up from an exiled tribe of thieves that supported itself initially by conducting raids against the very people who banished them. They sought to anoint their banditry with a religion that they concieved to give their murder, slavery, and extortionist thievery the illusion of a higher purpose. Never forget that Islam is not a religion that has ever attempted to encourage its followers to follow a "higher calling." Instead, it excuses, and even provokes its followers into practicing all of the worst traits of human behavior. If Satan were to establish a worldwide system of worship, you would expect it to display all of the characteristics of Islam. I do not say this out of "Islamophobia." It is history. Learn it!
In 1071 after the annihilation of the Byzantine army at Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire collapsed into civil war and lost most of Anatolia. In 1081 a general named Alexius Comnenus captured the throne and and reimposed control over a considerably reduced empire. With most of his Byzantine Empire already under Muslim control, and fearing Constantinople could be next, the emperor Alexius I Comnenus ASKED the Christians in the west for help. This was not something done casually. By and large the Byzantines viewed western Europe as being inhabited by barbarians, even if they were Christians. They believed these westerners held heretical beliefs, not the least of which was granting the Pope authority over all Christians. Times were desperate however, and he needed help. In fact, as we shall see, he got more help than he could handle.
It is upon this foundation that the Crusades began. The entire reason for the Crusades is as a response to the aggression of Islam, and they went by invitation. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that were it not for these actions taken at this time, there would be no "Western Civilization" as we have come to know it.
At the Council of Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II asked for the "Knights Of Christendom" to mount the counterattack against Islam. Thousands chose to "take up the cross" and make this armed pilgrimage to the Holy Land. It may be hard to understand now, but the Holy Land was considered very important to the mind of the Medieval Christian. That it was taken by Islam was nothing new as it had been under Muslim control for centuries by this time. However, the Muslims had been allowing pilgrims to visit the Holy sites. This was, in fact, the lucrative reason for wanting to control the area. Pilgrims, or what we would simply call tourists, brought money. The Seljuk Turks however, would not allow Christians access to the Holy Land. At the Council Of Clermont the atrocities that the Turks perpetrated against Christians and their holy sites were laid clear in such a way as to infuriate a culture built on militant Knighthood and Christianity.
It is interesting to note that the term "Crusades" was never used to describe them in their own time. They regarded themselves as "taking up the cross," and truly perceived it as an act of faith and devotion to Christian duty.
At this point it is a good opportunity to look at the motivations of these original Crusaders. Perhaps no group of people have ever been so maligned as the Crusaders. Almost always they are portrayed as rogues and scoundrels, dressed in a false piety, while seeking fame and fortune as they murder and plunder through the Holy Land. Or they were second or third sons who had no wealth or property of their own who sought, through a conquest veiled in religion, what they didn't get through inheritance. This couldn't be farther from the truth but in a "Post-Christian" western society drunk on self loathing, it has become the accepted view of people who need to apologize for the difficult decisions and actions of the past. Actions that they lack the courage to carry out themselves today. I guess if you suffer guilt for the perceived wrongdoing of your ancestors you can claim to be a "victim" of their behavior and, in a sense, entitled to be a protected class of citizen in these "politically correct" times. However, the truth is not so heartwarming as some false sense of rising above your ancestry. The Crusaders, in fact, were quite a noble, if imperfect, collection of personalities.
The reality is that the Crusading Knights were generally wealthy men with great estates that they willingly left behind to "take up the cross" and make the long and dangerous pilgrimage to the Holy Land where they stood a good chance of being killed. And here is the thing: Just who do you think PAID for the Crusades? Wealthy knights sold their own holdings and used their own wealth to raise and finance the armies that marched to the Middle East. Now there is something you won't hear brought up too often. A military venture personally led by the wealthy, and paid for by the wealthy, out of their own pockets. For the modern anti-war liberal this would appear to be a dream army. But alas, their is that other motivating factor...God.
The fact is, that as a financial investment, the Crusades offered a poor rate of return. Especially considering the risk to both life and wealth. They did this not out of an expectation of treasure from this earth, but from the "Kingdom Of Heaven." One cannot disregard the purity of the pious intentions of the Crusaders, no matter how much our modern civilization scoffs at such overtly religious values. The church, of course, provided a further incentive by promising remission of sins for all those who took the vow of the cross. The Crusades were seen by all of Christendom as a noble act of charity. The living breathing example of this Bible verse:

MATTHEW 19:21:
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me...

To a large degree the Crusaders did just that. They cast off their worldly concerns and pursued the path of the cross.
This is not to suggest that the Crusades were full of puritanical saints. Quite the opposite. Their behavior was often not up to the standards of their idealistic motives. Yet they were hardly the first soldiers to succumb to the stresses and temptations that often accompany warfare. They certainly were not against plundering and grabbing such treasure as might make itself available. In fact, the armies of this time didn't carry long supply trains to support them, therefore plundering would often be necessary just to keep the army fed when operating away from its bases. This was just the nature of armed conflict in Medieval times, not the invention of rampaging imperialistic Europeans.
Pope Urban II gave the Crusaders two primary goals. The first, was to rescue the Christians living under the yolk of Islam. It was argued that one could not love his neighbor as as he loved himself if he knowingly allowed him to be bound in Muslim slavery. The Crusade was seen as an act of Christian love and charity. The second goal was to liberate Jerusalem and other places that were considered to be holy through the life of Christ. The Crusaders took a vow to worship at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher after they arrived, and subsequently liberated, Jerusalem.
It was decided that the main body of the First Crusade would depart from Constantinople on August 15, 1096. But first, those armies had to get there by making their way across the European continent. This, in and of itself, was quite a monumental task. The various armies were to be united in Constantinople, with the Byzantines, for the march to the Holy Land. There were five primary armies, and therefore, five primary leaders for the First Crusade. They were: Godfrey of Bouillon, Hugh of Vermandois, Bohemond of Taranto, Raymond the Count of Toulouse, and Robert the Duke of Normandy and son of William the Conqueror. They each arrived at Constantinople separately and, as they arrived, each one was persuaded to swear an oath (liege) to the emperor of Byzantium, Alexius I Comnenus. This oath stated that any lands captured by the Crusaders, that had previously belonged to the Byzantine Empire, would be immediately returned to the emperor. Though there was some reluctance, particularly from Raymond who believed he had come only to serve God, they all inevitably acquiesced and were then given passage across the Bosporus, a strait that connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. The First Crusade was under way.
The Crusader army was unlike the armies we know today. It was not a unified army under a single commander. It is an international army with various languages, loyalties and customs adding to their complications. The army itself numbered around 100,000 men however their true numbers were swelled by family members who accompanied them with intentions of settling in the lands to be retaken. Also, due to the fact that a plenary indulgence was offered by the church to all who made the pilgrimage, thousands more people who did not particularly serve any useful purpose were tagging along. It is under these circumstances that the Crusader army approached its first objective. Nicea, the capital city of the Sultan Kilij Arslan. Since Nicea was designed by the Byzantines, it was well prepared for defense, with massive city walls. Arslan, as luck would have it, was not in the city when the Crusaders initiate their siege. For two weeks they attempted to get their siege towers close enough to scale the walls. They also made attempts to dig under them. All to no avail. It would appear to be hopeless except Arslan makes a fatal mistake...he returns with his army. He is convinced, largely through his experience with an earlier expedition of Knightless Christians, that he will make short work of the crusading army. The Turks had never encountered the tactics of "heavily armored cavalry" before. The Crusaders would not break their formations which would have allowed the swifter Turk horsemen to isolate and destroy them piecemeal. Instead, they held solidly together and battered Arslan's lightly armored army. The result was a tremendous victory for the Crusaders with King Arslan fleeing the battlefield. Yet the siege had not succeeded in causing Nicea to surrender. Since Nicea is located on the shores of a lake there is a constant supply of water and food available. This supply line is finally cut off when Alexius arrives overland carrying boats that he puts into the lake.
With their army defeated and their supplies totally cut off, the Turks negotiated for terms to surrender the city. It was a negotiation conducted in the dead of the night so that by the next morning the banners of the empire were flying over the city. This took the Crusaders somewhat by surprise as they fully expected an opportunity to plunder the city, as was the custom in the warfare of the time. The suddenness of the surrender prevented any such thing and since they had vowed to return Byzantine territory back to the emperor, their job at Nicea was finished. They marched on toward Antioch.
DORYLAEUM...Does this name mean anything to you? Well it should, as it is one of the greatest moments in Western military history.
In June 1097 the Crusaders set forth toward the city of Antioch and make both a fatal mistake, and a brilliant tactical decision at the same time. The army decides to separate into two groups. The first army. led by Bohemond, Tancred and Robert, leads the way while a second army, led by Godfrey and Raymond lags one day behind. This would make it somewhat easier for the Crusaders to travel and would also ease some of the competition between Bohemond and Raymond for control of the entire expedition. However, separating your forces in enemy territory can be a fatal mistake, especially if your enemy has his forces concentrated and prepared for battle. Unknown to the Crusaders, King Arslan, freshly offended by his defeat at their hands at Nicea, has joined forces with Danishmend. Together they have prepared an ambush along the narrow road to Dorylaeum. Arslan intends to vindicate himself of his loss at Nicea by massacring the Crusader army. Bohemond's army made camp in a perfect location for disaster. When the sun arose the next morning that disaster came pouring in on them from the mountains...and from all directions!
Bohemond reacts quickly. His knights make up his first line of defense with his infantry standing in close support behind them. In his center he was protecting all of the non-combatants and, fortunately, a standing supply of fresh water. He would need it.
The fighting was fierce and relentless. The Turks charged repeatedly and the Crusaders suffered heavy losses, but they never broke from their tight defensive formation. This is in spite of the fact that Arslan is swarming around them with a 360,000 man force!! Bohemond's defenders number only 30,000!! These torrential attacks went on for over eight hours when suddenly, and quite unexpectedly as far as the Turks were concerned, Raymond and the second Crusader army arrived on the scene. Even with Raymond's arrival the Turks still enjoyed a 3-1 advantage in manpower. However there is a military axiom which states that an army, surprised from behind in battle, will not stand and fight. The Turks, surprised by the arrival of the second Crusader army, did not stand and fight. They panicked, and from the jaws of defeat, the Crusaders turned the battle into a rout. They pursued the Turks throughout the day and the following night and captured much treasure in the process. If they didn't believe it to begin with, the battle of Dorylaeum convinced the Crusaders that God was truly on their side.
The Crusaders resumed their march toward Antioch. This was not a good time to be moving across Asia Minor as the temperatures reach 110 degrees and their are no water sources along the way. There also are no food resources available for the army to forage either. By the time they finally reach a river the army is more depleted by hunger and thirst on the march than by the previous battles. They stop to recover their strength in an area inhabited by Christians who look after them. While they were held up there to collect themselves, several small engagements and raids were conducted that led to the conquest of Edessa. Baldwin was then pronounced Prince of the new territory of Edessa. It would turn out to be the first of the Crusader States that would soon be established.


On October 21, 1097 the Crusaders caught their first sight of the impressive walls of Antioch. The walls stretch for 25 miles and contain over 400 watchtowers. The city was well prepared to withstand an attack and it possessed an excellent system of deep wells to go along with its high defensive walls.
The Crusaders at this point are as unimpressive a sight as Antioch is impressive. Their supplies are depleted to nothing and desertion has become a problem for the army. It was not the best set of circumstances to be attempting a siege of the most heavily fortified city in Byzantium.
Antioch was ruled by Yaghi-Suyan, who upon seeing the Crusader army massing outside his walls, proceeds to drive all the Christians out of the city. All but one that is. In order to taunt the Crusaders he places the Archbishop in a cage and dangles him out over the wall where everyone can see him.
Yaghi-Suyan had tremendous success at keeping up with the Crusaders plans. When he expelled all the Christians from Antioch he slipped in many Muslims, disguised as Armenian Christians, to spy on the Crusaders and report to him on their ongoing attempts to break into the city. Bohemond became aware of the spy problem and wasn't squeamish about dealing with the situation. He rounded up hundreds of them and had them placed before the main gate to the city. He then has his men slit their throats and skin them. Then they rammed cooking spikes through their bodies so that they could be roasted before the eyes of Antioch's defenders. Spies throughout history have never been looked upon favorably.
As the winter pressed on, the news got even worse. Infighting within the Islamic world led the Fatimids of Egypt to attack the Turks in Palestine. They attacked Jerusalem and many of the Turks displaced in that conflict made their way to Damascus, Aleppo and Mosul. There they combined with other troops under the command of Kerbogha of Mosul, and marched toward Antioch to relieve the city. It seemed as though the Crusaders were destined to be crushed between the besieged Antioch and this huge Turkish army.
Alas, fate, cleverness and corruption would intervene on the Crusaders behalf. Bohemond had been attempting to bribe a disenchanted guard on the the city's wall and he was having success at corrupting him. He then gathered together the other Crusader leaders and convinced them to allow him to keep the city for himself, if he could take the city unassisted. They of course were oblivious to his wheeling and dealing with the guard in the city and, believing there was no real likelihood of him being able to take the city, they therefore agreed to this strange proposition.
On June 3, 1098 Bohemond's men were allowed to climb over the city's wall and open the gates for the Crusaders. As the city slept they poured in and took it. They killed every Turk in sight, including Yaghi-Suyan whose head is presented to Bohemond as a trophy. In a matter of hours all of Antioch, with the exception of the city's citadel, was in Crusader hands.
Meanwhile as Kerbogha was making his way toward Antioch, he allowed himself to be distracted by attempting to retake the city of Edessa. For three weeks he unsuccessfully fought to retake the city from Baldwin and the small force that was left behind to defend it. He ultimately concedes failure and has to resume his march to relieve Antioch. It turned out to be a crucial delay, for had he arrived just 24 hours sooner, he could have saved Antioch. Now, the Crusaders have had crucial time to occupy the city.
Poor Bohemond, in spite of his agreement with the other Crusader leaders to be allowed to keep Antioch for himself, he was not going to be able to bring up the subject just yet. Kerbogha and his army arrived and set upon the complete surrounding of the city. Strangely, the Crusaders, who just days before were laying siege to Antioch, now found themselves besieged inside Antioch! Many attempted to desert the city in the face of this new threat, while others were captured trying. Those captured, were tortured and mutilated within sight of the city's walls. The Crusade appeared to be in a fatal grip. They were surrounded by a powerful Muslim army while also the Muslims still held the citadel within the city's walls...
...And yet it could still get worse. Stephen of Bloise and four thousand Crusaders were separated from the main body of the army when Antioch was taken. When they returned from nearby Alexandria they saw that, although Antioch had been taken by their fellow Crusaders, the Crusade itself appeared certain to be destroyed. Stephen believed the situation was hopeless and decided to abandon the Crusade. He decided he and his men were heading back to France. Inside the city there was no food or water and the dead bodies of all the Turks, killed in the taking of the city, were decaying all around them. The stench from the dead bodies was unbearable. The Crusaders only hope was that the Emperor Alexius would come, with his Byzantine army, and relieve the city from its siege. As luck would have it, Alexius was coming to Antioch, if for no reason other than to be sure the Crusaders would be faithful to their oath to restore the city to him. Unfortunately for the Crusaders, Stephen found Alexius before he got there and relayed the situation to him. When told that Kerbogha had arrived with a superior army, and had himself laid siege to the city, Alexius thought better of the decision to go there and turned his men around. He was returning to Constantinople, and Stephen resumed his trek back to France. The Crusaders were on their own.
Make no mistake about it. The news of Alexius' withdrawal traveled fast. The Crusaders regarded both Stephen and Alexius as cowards. The oath they had taken to restore the territory to the emperor was now officially repudiated. They could not honor a promise to a traitor. However that wasn't going to solve their dilemma...but divine intervention might.
Throughout the Crusade, various people were claiming to have "religious visions." This is not an unusual expectation on an adventure with such "holy" underpinnings. Real or imagined, such "visions" were commonplace. One person making such a claim was a man named Peter Bartholomew. Bartholomew was no religious figure. Quite the opposite. He was a peasant with a reputation for drinking and whoring. Yet he claimed that St. Andrew appeared to him in a vision and told him the location of the Holy Lance, the spear that was used to pierce the side of Christ at the Crucifixion. Now prior to this, it was largely believed this lance was in Constantinople. At least there was a lance there that was being treated as though it was the authentic Holy Lance. Holy relics, and the fraudulent stories that often accompany them, are just as commonplace as "holy visions" at this time. The Papal legate, Adhemar of Le Puy, was openly skeptical of Bartholomew's claim but Raymond was convinced his story was true. Add to this the fact that on June 14 a meteor streaked across the sky, which to many, was a sign from heaven itself. The people were desperate for hope.
The next morning Peter Bartholomew led Raymond to the Cathedral of St. Peter and showed him a place to dig. They proceeded to dig for hours. Of course, nothing was found. At the point they were ready to give up, Bartholomew himself jumped into the hole and began to dig. After a few minutes he came out...bearing the head of a lance. Never mind the fact that he almost certainly went into the hole with it. The people celebrated the delivery of a miracle. Raymond attached it to a pole and carried it throughout the city for all to see. Whether or not the lance was real was not important. They believed the lance was real and it was a sign from Christ himself that he was going to deliver them a victory. Drunk on a religiously inspired euphoria, the morale of the Crusader army skyrocketed. They were not going to let this moment pass. Adhemar ordered a three day fast to begin on June 24. Not a difficult proposition considering their predicament.
At dawn on June 28, the Crusaders confess their sins, attend mass, and receive Holy Communion. Then, the gates of the city are opened. They have only 100 horses and a starving army to go up against Kerbogha's strong and well positioned forces. In spite of this, they came out anyway. Strangely, Kerbogha did not strike immediately. He found himself impressed with the audacity of the Crusaders, and likewise felt they were up to something. It placed a bit of doubt in his mind. Kerbogha actually presumed the siege had impaired the Crusaders more than it now appeared. He sent men to discuss a truce but the Crusaders would have none of it. For their part, many Crusaders claimed they could see angels on horseback, ready to join in battle with them. As a result they were headstrong for a fight.
The reality of the Turk's situation was about to rear its head. Kerbogha's forces were not loyal to him. The coalition that had brought them together was quite fragile, and many in the Muslim army feared the prospect of him acquiring too much power. Just the kind of power that would make itself available with a military victory. When it became obvious that a bloody fight was at hand, many of Kerbogha's allies withdrew their men. The Crusaders, displaying great discipline, advanced in good order and maintained their tight formations as the battle commenced. Still more Turks, seeing this audacious Christian advance, fled the battlefield. By morning's end the battle was over. The Crusaders had won the day. With Kerbogha's forces eliminated, the holdouts at the city's citadel also surrendered. Against the most horrendous of odds, the Crusaders now safely controlled Antioch.
The conquest of Antioch put the Crusaders in a relatively good position. At least they were as well off as they had been since they left Constantinople. They now controlled a port city, which would come in handy for maintaining a steady stream of supplies for their newly acquired territory.
At this point, however, internal bickering would rise up and paralyze the Crusade. Raymond did not want Bohemond to take possession of Antioch. He wanted Bohemond to honor his obligation to see the Crusade through to Jerusalem. Bohemond, for his part, felt he had fulfilled his requirement to take the city and by their previous agreement, the city should belong to him. Certainly there was no way it should be restored to Alexius as he abandoned them in their hour of need.
It was in the midst of this squabbling that a plague broke out in the city and many lives were lost, including the Papal legate Bishop Adhemar. This did not help with the internal bickering as it was Adhemar who had been a voice of reason, moderating the relations between the Crusader leaders. It finally reached a point where Hugh of Vermandois decided he had had enough. He gathered his forces and left to return to France. When he does finally arrive in France he is not looked upon favorably by anybody there. In fact the disdain from his fellow nobles is so great that he would later feel obligated to take part in what would later become the Second Crusade to redeem himself.
After the plague has run it's course, Raymond attempts to get the remaining leaders to renew the mission to Jerusalem. The army is anxious for movement but Bohemond isn't. He initially agrees to go, as long as he can retain the rights to Antioch, but it soon becomes obvious he has no real intention of leaving. As a result, Godfrey and Robert also refuse to take up the march to Jerusalem. Desperate for the mission to be resumed, Raymond and his men leave for the Holy City on January 13, 1099. Raymond makes a big show by leaving barefoot and saying he wants to enter the city where his Lord was crucified in the spirit of piety and humiliation. This had the desired effect of shaming Godfrey and Robert to the point that they gathered their men and joined him. Bohemond, determined that Antioch rightly belonged to him, stayed behind with his forces. The final march toward Jerusalem was under way.
The Crusader army that at one time had as many as 100,000 men now marches toward Jerusalem with a mere 20,000! In a strange twist of fate, the situation in Jerusalem itself has changed. The Fatimid Muslims, who are somewhat friendlier to Christians, have driven the Seljuk Turks out of the Holy City. Alexius is attempting to negotiate a treaty with the Fatimid Muslims, who are willing to resume allowing Christian pilgrims to have open access to the city. That is, providing the Crusaders abandon their plans to take it. The Crusaders swore an oath, at the start of the Crusade, to worship in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher after liberating the Jerusalem. They intend to keep it. Certainly they were not going to honor any obligations to, or any treaty arranged arranged by, Alexius, after he abandoned them at Antioch. The Fatimid Muslims themselves attempt to dissuade the Crusaders from taking the city by explaining that the Turks were their common enemy, and they should combine forces against them. The Crusaders at this point are reasonably unwilling to trust anyone, and therefore will have none of it. They don't recognize any particular distinctions between Muslims. Islam is Islam. In fairness, Islam has never recognized any distinctions between Christians either.
On May 19 the Crusaders entered into territory now controlled by the Fatimid Muslims. Most of the cities they encountered on the march were willing to surrender and provide the Crusaders with supplies in return for not being molested. The Crusaders were now operating with a singular vision to get to Jerusalem as quickly as possible, so they were generous in their terms. Beirut, Sidon, Tyre, Acre, Haifa and Jaffa all fell to the Crusaders in quick succession. On June 6, Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ and a city almost entirely populated by Christians, greeted the Crusaders as liberators. That night they witnessed a lunar eclipse in the heavens....another sign from God. The next day they would arrive at their ultimate destination.


On June 7, 1099 the Crusaders finally cast their eyes on the Holy City of Jerusalem, the center of the world. Jerusalem is protected by two walls. The outer wall being lower than the main city wall. It also has a 62 foot wide and 23 foot deep dry moat between these walls. It is a more than formidable defensive fortification.
The size of the city, along with the size of the attacking Crusader army, made a fully enveloping siege of the city impossible. Jerusalem was governed and defended by an Egyptian named Iftikhar al-Daula, and he saw to the preparation of the city's defenses effectively. He expelled all the Christians in the city to prevent Jerusalem from being compromised in the way that Antioch had been previously, even though the same precaution had failed to save Antioch from the consequences of espionage and betrayal. He also poisoned all the nearby wells forcing the Crusaders to expend considerable manpower retrieving and transporting water from the Jordan River. Also, Iftikhar al-Daula is not expecting a long siege, as he has sent word to Cairo requesting reinforcements. He has confidence in his defensive preparations and is therefore willing to resist the attacks of the Crusaders, fully knowing the consequence that befalls cities that resist sieges in warfare of this time....sacking! His overconfidence, even though based on reasonable knowledge and observation of the situation, is at least as much to blame for the ensuing sequence of events as are the actions of the Crusaders.
On June 12, a hermit approached the Crusader's encampment claiming to be a prophet. He said he had a message from God and stated that if they strike the city in the ninth hour of the next day, the city would be delivered into their hands. This, in spite of the fact that a source of wood to construct siege towers, ladders and trebuchets (counterweight catapults) had not yet been located. Such weapons were to bulky and heavy to transport and had to be built on location and they were necessary for a reasonable chance at successfully assaulting the city. The Crusaders were simply not prepared to attack Jerusalem's fortifications at this time. Nonetheless, being firm believers in visions at this point, they attacked anyway. No doubt they were themselves overconfident they possessed the unique blessing of God from their previous successes, which they considered nothing less than Divine Intervention.
The Muslims are totally surprised at the foolhardy assault the Christians made the next day, June 13. Few of the Crusaders even made it to the outer wall and those that did were compelled to retreat when Greek fire was poured on them. The medieval equivalent of napalm, Greek fire would burn anything it attached to, and was very difficult to put out. The attack is a dismal failure and the Muslims are left thinking little of the Crusaders intelligence or sanity. This only furthered the overconfidence of Iftikhar al-Daula.
Although this miracle failed to materialize, another one, requiring a little more patience, did. Six Genoese and English vessels bearing supplies for the Crusaders, arrived in the port of Jaffa. By utilizing the wood used to construct the ships, the Crusaders now had the materials to build proper siege weapons. This was time consuming work, and with an Egyptian army closing in on them, time was something they could not spare. It was known to them that the Egyptian army would arrive within the month. As had happened so many times on this Crusade, they found their backs against the wall facing impending disaster.
And it happened....again. The Crusaders were presented with a vision and an accompanying miracle. A priest named Peter Desiderius received a vision from none other than the recently deceased Bishop Adhemar. Adhemar, you will recall, had succumbed to the plague that struck Antioch after the successful conquest of the city. Now, in the form of this vision, he chastised the Crusaders for their lack of faith and ordered them to fast, and to walk around the city of! He told them that if they would parade around the city barefoot in humility before God, and put their sins behind them, then in nine days the city would be delivered to them.
On the morning of July 10, the 20,000 Crusaders did just as the vision instructed. Many of the Crusaders were wearing only their underwear on their barefoot march around the city. The Muslims, already overconfident in their situation and doubting the sanity of the Crusaders, jeered at them and made obscene gestures as they paraded around the city. Eight days after Adhemar's vision, they are prepared to make their attack. Their siege machines are constructed, including a massive battering ram that requires sixty soldiers to operate.
On July 14, 1099 the Muslim defenders of Jerusalem are awakened by the sound of the massive battering ram pounding against the outer defensive wall. Their attempts to disable the battering ram with Greek fire are this time met with accurate Crusader trebuchet fire. They quickly smash through the outer wall and begin filling in the moat that separates the two walls with rubble and rock to make it passable. As it grows dark the Crusaders are able to bring their siege towers toward the larger inner city wall. The Muslims throw tremendous volleys of arrows and Greek fire at the towers as they approach the wall. Several times the towers and the battering ram are hit, and start to catch fire, but the Crusaders successfully squelch the flames. Nightfall forces the Crusaders to pull back and wait.
The attack resumes again the next morning. The Muslims attempted to cushion the walls from the battering ram by hanging bales of straw and matresses over the wall. Unfortunately for them, this quickly catches fire, and greatly reduces their visibility as the smoke rises up and into the faces of the Muslim defenders up on the high wall. By noon on July 15, Godfrey's siege tower reaches the inner city wall. The Crusaders would enter the city at the same hour Jesus is said to have died on the cross and, perhaps more importantly, on the exact day the vision of Bishop Adhemar had prophesized.
And then it happened....
If you have been told anything about the Crusades, doubtless it was of the massacre that followed as the Crusaders stormed into Jerusalem. By all the standards of warfare at the time, the Crusaders would be justified in sacking the city and killing all the city's inhabitants. It sounds gruesome to modern ears, but this was a time when war was not entered into lightly. Particularly where the applications of laying siege to a city are employed. If a city is approached by an aggressor army and it surrenders, generous terms are expected and normally granted. No army believed there was any good or glory to come from waging wars on noncombatants. However, if a city chooses to resist and a battle ensues, then the standard that would be applied to a defeated army in the field would be applied to the entire population of the defeated city. Armies at this time in history tended to fight battles of annihilation. This means that when the battle is over, only one of them is left. Any soldiers that were allowed to survive from the defeated army would be sold into slavery unless they possessed enough wealth to purchase their own ransom. When a city chooses to resist a siege, its population forfeits its right to be viewed as noncombatants. Iftikhar al-Daura had confidence in his ability to defend Jerusalem long enough to allow the the coming Egyptian army to arrive and relieve the city of the siege. He gambled. He lost. It was he who put the city's population at risk. He knew what he was doing and he is entitled to an equal share of blame for the carnage that ensued in the subsequent sacking of Jerusalem.

Contrary to popular belief, the Crusaders did NOT kill everyone in Jerusalem. The blood did not run in rivers up to the Crusader's knees. There has been considerable exaggeration as to the extent of the massacre over the centuries. Some of this, of course, is due to the Crusaders themselves in retelling the stories. However, in modern culture it has become the "politically correct" norm to blame all Christian/Muslim conflicts on the Crusades. Particularly for the Crusaders' treatment of the inhabitants remaining in Jerusalem when it was taken. In truth, the Crusaders surely killed most of the Muslims in the city, although many were ransomed. It is also a popular myth among the "politically correct" crowd that the Crusaders were so "blood drunk" that they killed indiscriminately and even slew the Christians in Jerusalem. Since the Christian population was expelled from the city upon their arrival, the Crusaders would certainly not have been looking to cull Christians from the rest of the population. Quite the opposite. Since the Muslims expelled the people they felt were not loyal to them, the Crusaders had every reason to believe that all those remaining inside the city were hardcore supporters of their Muslim defenders. It is true, that sacking a city is hardly something that fits with the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but these historical denunciations of the conquest of Jerusalem are merely exaggerations by people whose agenda is to disgrace the Crusades as an act of Christian imperial aggression. There is simply no truth to this. The Muslims bear considerable responsibility for their own fate. The sack of Jerusalem was well within the rules of engagement considered normal for the time.
Let us also not forget that in 1187, when the Muslim leader Saladin would himself lay siege to Jerusalem,it was his entire intention to put every Christian to the sword. He was only prevented from doing so because Balian threatened to kill every Muslim in the city, and destroy the Dome of The Rock, before he could do it. This, combined with a more effective defense, forced Saladin to negotiate. Iftikhar al-Daura, having himself expelled the Christian inhabitants of the city, could not make such a threat. He therefore had no bargaining leverage. An extremely important factor in determining the outcome.
At sunset on July 15, the Crusaders gather at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and fulfill their vows. They celebrate mass just as they promised they would when this adventure began. Against all odds the First Crusade achieved all of its objectives. Ordained by God?....You better believe it!
I bet you are wondering about that Fatimid army dispatched from Cairo that was on its way to relieve Jerusalem from the siege. It looks like it could be a repeat of Antioch doesn't it? The Crusaders could find themselves trapped in Jerusalem with a huge Muslim army pressing them from the outside. But this story doesn't end that way. Instead, quarreling among the Crusader leaders rears it head again. After a brief period of celebration, the Crusaders got together and offered the Raymond the crown of the city. Ever the pious one, he declined, however when the same offer was made to Godfrey he initially refused, but then accepted. This angered Raymond so much that he and his troops left the city.
The Fatimid army that was closing in on Jerusalem expected the Crusaders to remain in the city the same way they remained in Antioch. When Raymond vacated the city he discovered the Egyptian army was encamped at Ascalon and making preparations to retake Jerusalem. Raymond informed the other Crusaders and rejoined them for an attack on their encampment. This caught the Egyptian army totally by surprise and it was thoroughly destroyed. The Holy land was now, not only conquered by the Crusaders, it was safe.


There were many subsequent crusades but the generally accepted rule is that there were seven crusades launched between 1095 and 1250 that constitute "The Crusades." The Crusader states lasted until 1291 when the Muslims took Acre and the other remaining outposts either fell or were abandoned. After 200 years the Europeans seemed to lose interest in expending "blood and treasure" in faraway lands.
What did the Crusades accomplish? Some would suggest that since they inevitably abandoned the Holy Land, that they ultimately accomplished nothing. Well nothing could be farther from the truth. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that Western Civilization, as we have come to know it, would not have even come into existence were it not for these defensive military campaigns. For 200 years, the expansion of Islamic conquest was halted. The Crusades may ultimately have failed to hold the territory they retook, but they certainly thwarted the expansion of Islam.
This can be proven by just how quickly the Jhihadist expansion of Islam resumed afterward. The Muslims moved against Europe, occupying Gallipoli in 1354 and captured Adrianople in 1357. It didn't stop there. The Islamic juggernaut roared into Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, and Macedonia. On June 5, 1389 they defeated a Western army in Kosovo. The Europeans called for more crusades, but now they were fighting a lot closer to home. In 1426 Cyprus fell. In 1430 it was Thessalonica that succumbed to Islam's sword. Then, on May 29, 1453, the crown jewel of the Byzantine Empire fell...Constantinople. There, the Muslims massacred men women and children without discrimination or mercy. A scene far worse than either the reality, or the fiction, of the massacre at Jerusalem in 1099. Yet we are supposed to accept guilt for the atrocities of Christian Crusaders in Jerusalem, when the sacking of Constantinople and so many other Islamic massacres goes unmentioned in our "politically correct" culture. Constantinople is now renamed Istanbul.
Twice, the "religion of peace" got as far as Vienna. Imagine how far Islam might have gotten if the Crusades hadn't stunted its growth for 200 years. We OWE the Crusaders our gratitude, NOT our condemnation. Instead, we see the same sort of condemnation that has historically been heaped on the Crusades applied to President Bush's "War On Terror." Islam is again being portrayed as the victim of Western aggression as though they have been peacefully minding their own business. Too many people are willing to blame their own countries and their policies instead of seeing Islamic terrorism for what it is. The great military strategist Carl von Clausewitz would recognize it as "war by other means."
The first siege of Vienna failed in 1529. But Islam is on a course for world domination and therefore setbacks are only temporary. They always come back. Islam reached its high water mark when it again laid siege to Vienna in 1683. Islam would enter into a period of decline when Poland's King Jan III Sobieski and 30,000 soldiers broke the siege.....
.....And don't you want to know what day that was?....September 11, 1683....Now you know why Osama Bin Laden chose September 11 to send his message to the world. Islam is prepared to pick up where it left off in 1683. They always come back...It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter what God you believe in or what God you don't believe in. They have time, and they are prepared to use that as their greatest weapon.
All religions are NOT created equal. Islam is an expansionist, imperialistic theocratic tyranny. It has more in common with Stalinist communism and National Socialism (Nazism) than it has with true religion. It just uses God to give it the false impression of a higher validation. The Crusades neither inspired nor amplified the aggressive behavior of Muslims. It was there from the time of Muhammad. They also didn't put an end to Islam's desire to dominate with a worldwide Caliphate. But for 200 years the Crusades held Islam in place. Not a weakened Islam, but an Islam of equal, or perhaps superior, military capability. Islam does not negotiate in good faith, and it preys on any sign of weakness. We dare not display any. We could do worse than to follow the Crusaders' example today. In fact, if we fail to show equal resolve and courage, Islam will steal our culture away from us. Just as it has done to all the cultures that have crossed its path before. Believe it...Or bury your face in the dirt facing Mecca.

The author is a true believer
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
"For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it."
From Pope Urban II's call for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont, 1095

Reading Material:
"The New Concise History Of The Crusades" Thomas F. Madden
"Crusades: The Illustrated History" Thomas F. Madden
"The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam And The Crusades" Robert Spencer
"The Idiot's Guide To The Crusades" Paul L, Williams
"The Crusades: An Illustrated History" James Harpur
"God's War" Christopher Tyerman
"The First Crusade" Thomas Asbridge
"The Crusades," David Nicolle