Is Rick Right? Ctd

Rick Santorum and his crazy comments are the gift that keeps on giving.

Re-spinning the Crusades:

Quote: “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. … What I’m talking about is onward American soldiers. What we’re talking about are core American values.” (South Carolina campaign stop, Feb. 22, 2011)

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Hakimofphut

    Another crazy Catholic , like Newt.  What is with the US education system  that you have people with JD or MBA who  DONT know anything about the real world.

  • Blair Mulholland

    What is wrong with that quote?  The Muslims invaded Palestine, and the crusades were about taking it back.  It was like the Falklands but bigger and not nearly as successful.

    • Hakimofphut

      What part of the Holy Land was ‘owned’ by Western Christendom. The middle east  had its own Christian churchs ( and still does) but had diverged from the authority of the pope by then.
      Was that like  invading  Iraq  was to ‘help the Iraqi people’  but the oil was a nice way of the invasion ‘paying for itself’

      • Blair Mulholland

        Palestine in the 11th Century was predominantly Christian, and a part of the Byzantine Empire.  The Muslims invaded and took it off the Byzantines.  The emperor appealed to Western Christians for help in freeing the subjugated Christian population and restoring access to the holy sites of Christianity.  That was the origin of the crusades.  It was about Christians helping out other Christians subjugated by a foreign invasion.

        And your comment that those churches had “diverged from the authority of the pope” is a nonsense, since they had never ever been under the authority of the Roman pope – Jerusalem had (and still does have) its own Patriarch.  The Roman Papacy only started claiming authority over the entire church in the 8th Century, and this claim was never accepted by the Jerusalem church.

      • Hakimofphut

        Jerusalem   had been Muslim for 460 years by the time the  1st crusade arrived.
        And it wasnt given back to the Byzantine Emperor.
        Thats like going back to 1550 and saying what you had then  , come and get it back because its still yours.

  • ChrisP

    You are absolutely right Blair.
    I tend to think of posts like this as Slater’s SDA indoctrination coming out. 
    Next he’ll be telling us the Pope has 666 on his mitre and Ellen Gould white is the Mother of God.
    SMOG #1466857 by Slater (the Rachel Glucina of the political internet) on this one.

    • What indoctrination, I was brought up a Presbyterian you useless twat and since when I have mentioned any Protestant dogma?

      Also what has that got to do with a quote by Rick Santorum. If this was farrars place I’d give you demerits. It snt so you simply have to give me a good reason why I shouldnt kick you arse out of here for that attack against me personally.

      Note, before you start whining, check the rules in the about section.

  • Hakimofphut

    The first crusade  ( 1095)was in response to an appeal by the Byzantine Emperor  for military assistance in his territory of Anatolia ( modern turkey).
    Somehow Jerusalem was added to the invasion, even though it had been under Muslim control for 450 years.
    And was the Holy land returned to Byzantium afterwards? . Never happened , they created a Catholic kingdom  to control the muslims and orthodox christians with Al Qaeda type organisations  such as Knights Templar, Knights of St John etc

  • Anonymous

    Santorum is correct here. So is Blair Mulholland.
    The Crusades were not launched until after the Muslim armies had been on the rampage for **several hundred years.** 
    Any attempt to say otherwise is PC bullshit.

  • Hakim of phut

    Blair history and dates dont seem to be your strong point. The Pope called the first Crusade (1095) however eastern and western churches had split in 1054. Hence the divergence and the eastern christians were no longer his  concern.
    As for the Byzantium Emperor, he had lost control of the holy land  to muslim conquest in 638, it had only been under byzantium control for about 350 years since the end of the roman period.
    So by the time the Crusaders took control  Jerusalem  had been Muslim for 650 years, twice as long as Byzantium.
    Of course the Crusadaers didnt give it back to the Eastern Church and Byzantium but instead made it a Western Catholic enclave.

    Under your crazy logic Spain should get Mexico back  pronto after all it was theirs  600 years ago.
     Cortez arrived in 1519, which is the same time back  from now that Byzantium had control in Jerusalem when the Crusaders reconquered the place

  • Alex

    But isn’t the real point here — what the hell is an aspiring US President talking about the Crusades in the 21st century? 

    Santorum seems to have the same mindset as Oasama Bin Laden and his fellow Muslim extremists, who also seem to talk about the Crusades as if they have modern relevance.  

40%