The Crusades were an effort to take BACK by force that which had been taken by FORCE by Islamic conquest.
Wars are brutal and what’s missed in that is (1) the Crusades were opposed by many Christians of the day, including (2) St. Francis of Assisi, who brokered a peace between the two sides on one occasion.
The Inquisition was run by a *political* hierarchy that used the name of Christ for cover, just as today in the West the most vile of corrupt rulers use “democracy” as a cover, and a tyrannical Hugo Chavez used “majority vote” –and even God– as a cover (never mind the fraud).
How can anybody call the Inquisition period a “Christian” thing when a central issue was to BAN THE BIBLE AND BURN ITS ADVOCATES as witches? An identity thief can call himself anything. Kris Kringle or Santa Clause by any other lying name, no matter how much you paint lipstick on that pig.
Recently one Anders Behring Breivik shot 77 peaceful –and unarmed– campers dead in Norway (the first one was the only one armed security man) had advocated “Christian” culture on his web site. As soon as they saw the word “Christian”, CNN ran a feed at the bottom of the screen for hours on end, days, that said “Christian fundamentalist” — a criminally negligent and slanderous accusation against a great number of peaceful Christian fundamentalists. Because on the same web site where they got the word “Christian”, the shooter said that he did NOT believe the Bible and he did NOT believe in Jesus. CNN shows itself again to be “fundamentally” bigoted against the name of Jesus Christ.
It is also a sign of truncated thinking and anti-Christ bigotry to equate Christian and Islamic holy books or actions. Even militant Islamists –as they are painted in the Western media image of them–are no doubt offended at this irrational equivalency-by-monotonous-repetition equivalency meme. Atheists who do not have the need to invent such contortions, are appalled by this too. The worst horrors of history were done by officially and enforced atheist regimes that banned all religious faiths from any public expression.
In one of them, both the central figure (Christ) laid down his life to the death for unbelievers at the beginning, and millions of his followers have done the same since. In the other, the founding figure laid down the lives of unbelievers at the beginning, and 100s of thousands, maybe millions, of his followers have done the same thing since.
Most Muslims want to live in peace, and support their families. I have cultivated close friendship with Muslim co-workers, and we have talked about the principles of our faiths without even raising our voices. Many Muslims risk beheading for accepting Jesus Christ as risen Savior and many Christians risk beheading in many parts of the world for being Christians.
“Terrorism” is a very broad category of tactics used by small groups to leverage such tactics where the proponent is otherwise weak in power.We see the “blowback principle” take effect when the people targeted by such actions become enraged.
The unconstitutional undeclared “war against terrorism” was a Newspeak tactic to propel the U.S.A. and the world into a permanent state of war. All the easier to take away the “freedoms” that “they” supposedly hate us for. It all too easily expands into asking the subjects of the rulers to tell authorities about anybody who “hates the government”. We have seen this movie before.
Michael Scherer said it well, something like, They’re not over here because we’re free to enjoy a few beers at night, they don’t like us bombing and invading them. Nobody can accuse Mr. Scherer of gullibility. He was the head of the team that sought Osama bin Laden all those years and set it up for the next team to find him. I doubt he is portrayed in the Hollywood movie about the search.
He has explained many times in media interviews the established principle of “blowback”, a term often used within the CIA for such a phenomenon, where your actions have reactions. This is *NOT* a “blaming America” thing.
Who decided to bomb and invade over there? Was there ever any debate in Congress, as constitutionally required in the U.S., about a declaration of war? Was it “America”, or was it America’s rulers?
Was there ever a debate in Congress over whether to declare war on Libya? Or did America’s *rulers” decide to send in military force (Special Forces) on the ground while denying it? When the “rebels” began losing, who decided to bomb the crap out of Libyan government forces?
There were lots of talking heads that declared Gaddafi was murdering civilians. But the best evidence of massacre of civilians are the pictures of the town that is no more, obliterated, its inhabitants wiped out and “cleansed”, that the entire town of Tawarga.
It’s not that the murderers who perpetrated this racist atrocity hid anything. They bragged about it, they bragged that they were not going to let it rebuild, they bragged about wiping out the 10,000 black-skinned Africans who built it up. Towarga burning:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/9/13/1315935037109/Tawarga-007.jpg
Frightened Towarga refugee:
Trutherator's Weblog 
