https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades
I'm really sick of pic related because its factually wrong and makes people with anti-Muslim sentiment appear stupid and ignorant about history. Who ever made it should be crucified.
Anyway, how come the crusades are almost always associated with the Middle-east?
>>492420
>"New Battle"
>one in Egypt
Shit is this thing still going on? Hold up I need to find my hauberk
>>492420
> implying the video pic is based on is wrong
> implying that the muslims weren't invading big chunks of Europe before and after the Crusades
Because the middle eastern crusades are a clash of two mighty civilisations that has lasting consequences to this say. While the northern crusades is just another case of Europeans fighting and being cruel to each other.
>>492420
>First map covers more than a thousand years, from about 632 to apparently at least 1683
>Second map apparently covers less than a century
Doesn't surprise me that this board loves Muslims....
>>492483
its not wrong though.
>>492420
Where's the Crusader invasion of Alexandria marked? Or the sack of Constantinople?
>>492516
i think the white cross is the one for Alexandria
as for Constantinople that ended up not really being a crusade but just Europeans beating the snot out of each other for other reasons
>>492501
You can't love history without loving the subjects.
>>492501
Shut up
>>492705
>Europeans beating the snot out of each other for [ostensibly religious] reasons
Sounds like a Crusade to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Swedish_Crusade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despenser's_Crusade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista
>>492501
fuck off /pol/
i don't like muslims at all as an ex-muslim but we're only being objective here
scum
>>492420
Arent most crusades into european pagan regions pretty lacking in documentation because they happened so long ago?
I thought that the Moors were in Iberia after Muhammeds death?
As much of a deusvultfag I am, there should be a pic for Christian crusades in Europe as well as the Islamic conquests in the middle east.
No one ever wants to talk about the poor zoroastrians.
>>492420
That pic is accurate in measuring the comparative levels of Muslim-on-Christian wars and vice versa.
But it doesn't show Christian-on-pagan violence, which would add quite a few battles up north and east into Europe. There weren't nearly as many Christian conquests as Muslim, but the church is hardly blameless.
>>492420
How are the Northern Crusades relevant to the topic of Jihad vs Crusade, which is what that image was created to show?
>how come the crusades are almost always associated with the Middle-east?
Gee, I don't know, becausae almost all of them were directed there maybe?
Not too bright are you OP?
>>492483
Even during the Renaissance Christian Kingdoms were almost entirely on the defensive when it came to wars with Muslims.
Aside from Spain and Portugal in Morroco. Nobody else could give a shit about attacking Muslims yet the Ottomans were still creeping their way into Europe.
>>492731
>fuck off /pol/
Why am I seeing this so often these days?
You do realise that this site has always been at best apathetic towards racial insensitivity and outright misanthropic and racist at the worst?
Not trying to say this is an edgy meme site for Nazis, but it most certainly isn't some SJW hugbox where people like you need to sound the alarm every time you get triggered by something.
Please lurk more.
>>492768
It just gets annoying when you want to talk history in a mature manner but you're constantly bombarded with POO, WE, and the rest of these shitty memes
>>492768
>I bet you are le triggered
>>492768
Because /pol/ adds nothing to the conversation except stupid assumptions.
>>492768
>You do realise that this site has always been at best apathetic towards racial insensitivity and outright misanthropic and racist at the worst?
/pol/ is like /b/ yes, but it's actually serious.
>>492420
>muslim battles=ottomen battles
That's like making a christian map and including Galipoli and so on
>>492768
They lower the level of every discussion and cause it to revolve around the holocaust in the end.
>>492420
>muslim
vs
>crusade
Shouldn't the second map not include "christian" battles? Especially the Reconquista? I can't see based on which categories the battles mapped are chosen.
>>492873
>I can't see based on which categories the battles mapped are chosen.
Islamophobic categories.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm all for religious war nao, gas the muzzies, but that pic is just misleading
Your point is valid but you have to keep in mind that the northern crusades legitimacy is questionable. The Northern Crusades de facto started before being sanctioned by the pope and it quickly turned into expanding kingdoms, and not Christianity.
>>492863
Ottoman conquests were very much religiously motivated
>>492879
Seems like the pic originated here:
https://windsorcoactforamerica.wordpress.com/about/
or here:
https://scottthong.wordpress.com/
and that you are right.
>>492420
That picture isn't factually wrong, it is a poor analysis that fixates on the most famous crusade to Jerusalem and stretches the definition of "muslim conquest battles" to the usual sparring between warlords.
>how come the crusades are almost always associated with the Middle-east?
An enormous amount of attention is paid to events in history where europeans were mean to brown people. It has more to do with you and your ilk than /pol/.
>>492889
okay, I looked it up, as I suspected from the moment I opened the thread, it's this meme video that was completely debunked (on /his/ as well)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
>>492903
sorry, I guess is should add, the pic comes at around 12min
>>492886
nah dawg. It is about glory :3
t. kebab
>Islam spread through conquest
>The crusades were defensive
If you disagree, you might be mentally ill.
>>492896
>That picture isn't factually wrong, it is a poor analysis that fixates on the most famous crusade to Jerusalem and stretches the definition of "muslim conquest battles" to the usual sparring between warlords.
Can we all just save this and use it whenever some retard like OP pops up again?
>>492831
/pol/ is not a Goblin or a Monster that pops into a thread.
The idea of calling everything you disagree with /pol/ is what I'm talking about. I'm not defending actual retards who turn discussions into Nazi or race wars.
To be honest I hardly see that happen.
>>492816
He seemed pretty triggered tho.
>>492886
>it quickly turned into expanding kingdoms, and not Islam.
>>492929
Where did I disagree with anybody on any issue in that post lad?
I used the term SJW yes, but I didn't call anybody an SJW due to a disagreement. There is a difference.
>>492911
>defensive crusades help usher in the fall of the byzantines, which enables the spread of islam across the hellespont
wew christians
>>492420
The Reconquista should be included on the 'Crusade Battles' desu.
>>492930
Think whatever you want, but being sanctioned by the pope is relevant to the idea of an crusade.
Neighboring kingdoms (Poland, HRE, Sweden etc) used christianity largely to expand their kingdoms. The situation in the holy land was largely different however, the participants often lost large sums of money due to the expenses of war (especially when that war is fought hundreds of kilometers away) and in the end had to give up their lands in Europe.
The Northern crusaders did not create christian states, but instead added to their own kingdoms.
>>492943
Retarded Venetians don't account for all Christendom, and the crusades began literally to help the Byzantines.
>>492937
It was implied, but whatever
>>492956
>crusades began literally to help the Byzantines
no, the byzzies wanted help, what was organised didn't have the defense of byzantium in mind and any benefit in terms of the weakening of muslim encroachment unto them was merely a byproduct
and it wasn't just venetians, even in the first crusade, the peasants started causing shit all the way up at Belgrade and all through the balkans, eventually trying to pillage Constantinople
Then there's the whole jewish killing thing.
And that's just the first one.
The crusades were a joke lad
>>492969
The thread was about the northern crusades..?
What are you trying to do here exactly? I even agreed with OP that the pic is not accurate, just wanted to point out that the northern crusades are questionable.
Stop trying to strawman
>>492972
It wasn't implied at all. I said this place isn't an SJW hugbox so you shouldn't expect the community to hold the values of one and if you don't like that, well that's your problem.
>>492980
The first crusade was directly started by Alexios Komnenos. He was just playing the pope for his own ambitions.
>>492991
everyone tried to play everyone else, Robby boy supposedly tried to organise an actual assault on constantinople and Raymond didn't even want to swear fealty to Alex.
>>492980
It seems like a joke because the crusaders are romanticised. Obviously the participants were a bunch of unwashed faggots who expect some booty, as always.
>>492911
And what was defensive about taking Jerusalem?
>>493018
It is good to understand that there were many Crusades and not all were against Muslims. There were quite a few Crusades agianst Christians as in the FourthCrusade when Western Christians attacked and slaughtered Eastern Christians when they sacked Constantanople. There was also the Albigensian Crusade where tens of thousands of Christians were killed to get rid of a few "heretics' known as Cathars
>>492986
Saying that this place isn't an sjw hugbox and given that the values of one are typically taken to be censorship of dissenting opinions creates the implication that the poster who did what could be construed as censorship is an sjw
But whatever
>>492420
OP, your pic can be easily explained. The western european races are parasites and Islam is the antibody.
The byzantine and persian empires that has been fucking with the mid-eastern peoples for centuries were finally shown the door. Islam came to liberate the mid-east from the parasite.
those who try to portray these wars as muslims taking christian lands, only betray their slave nature. Lands do not belong to religions they belong to people who live on them. And the semite speaking people living under the tyranny of the byzantines welcomed their semite cousins regardless of religion. the byzantines were in the process of DESTROYING mid-eastern christianity and the muslims saved them.
It is a shame that islam did not rise before the council of nicea. muslims could have saved so many different kinds of christianity from destruction at the hands of europeans.
>>493046
That's why the ME is a boring mass of Bedouin cosplayers
3000 years of culture down the drain
>>492768
Never fucking reply to me again unless you're contributing to the thread.
>>493026
Do you also consider examples like the German ww2 attack on Poland and the Winter War defensive?
>>493026
And? What was the defense of? At best, you have some muslims refusing Christians into the city. Unless you seriously believe the lies of Urban II.
And to that; bohoo. It's not your city, nor is it your country, and the majority of christians you're hoping to "free" bore zero relation to whatever a bunch of angry Normans and Franks had stake in.
>>493050
you are mistaking the mideast for europe, faggot. there is more diverity in the mideast than all of europe, america and australia put together.
Islam is an expression of the same mideast that produced the other cultures. it is the forced injection of the slave race disease, the nation state, that has caused the greatest loss of diversity in the world, not just the middle east.
>>493044
No it doesn't.
>>492513
>they chose wildly differing timespans to make their comparison
>But it can't be wrong, because it's about how bad those mudslimes are!
Sometimes I wonder if people are even capable of cognitive dissonance on this scale.
>>492980
The People's Crusade you must be talking about was not part of the official expedition organized by the catholic church. It was an unorganized mess that nobody really wanted.
>Belgrade
Belgrade's commander was confused and refused them entry, but the people had to buy food and shit to survive. I won't say them plundering the area was justified, but don't claim they started shit for no reason.
>balkans
For some mystical reason the People's Crusade was able to traverse hungary without any incident. Oh wait, it was because the hungarian king offered them to go through his country, on the condition that they behave. And they did.
The difference for bulgaria for instance was, that they got attacked. Peter the Hermit tried his best to conciliate, but the bulgarians and the people were asses to each other.
>Then there's the whole jewish killing thing
The German Crusade was in no shape or form part of the real crusade, just some assholes that decided to kill some jews. The other guys doing this were some latecomers of Peter the Hermit, but neither he nor the pope had anything to do with it. Some bishops, like the one of Speyer, protected them.
Now call me an apologetic for getting some things right.
>>493068
>on this scale
a bit of paint-ms work is kiddie stuff compared to some historical examples
>>493067
Yes it does
>>493074
That honestly looks cartoonish enough to be fake.
>Guy is about to be sawed to death.
>Needing a knife.
>Needing a gun
>>492986
It's less about expecting the community to hold our values, and more about expecting them not to shit up our humanities board with memes and blatantly false idiocy. Blatantly false idiocy here meaning: genocide denial, war crimes denial, claiming that the American civil war was fought over anything other than slavery, etcetera. Disputing historical fact isn't dissent, it's just willful ignorance. That's not to say there aren't legitimate arguments to be had about the topics I listed. The functionalism vs. intentionalism is an example of a perfectly reasonable debate about how exactly the holocaust happened. But shouting 'lol holohoax u need to be redpilled u jew' or 'what gas chambers hitler dindu nuffin' is just spouting memes so repeatedly and frequently disproven that it makes those of us who actually study history want to tear our hair out in frustration.
>>493087
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IVtRkF9qYo&t=4m20s
>>492420
It's not inaccurate it's just dishonest as a catalog of the crusades.
That's why I much prefer this image. It is inarguable that Islam's history is primarily imperialistic in nature. Anatolia, North Africa and the Mediterranean Coast of the Middle East would still be Christian lands had Islam never begun it's bloody crusade for world dominance.
>>493123
your pic is about as inaccurate as OP's
Imperialistic conquest in the name of christianity happened in europe quite a bit, it just wasn't against muzzies.
I hope that /his/ doesn't become "not /pol/" to such an extent that it just goes to the other extreme
>>493149
Waaaaay too many religious conservatives for that
>>492710
Hit the nail on the head lad
>>493149
Before the creation of /his/ there was always the concern that such a board would turn into /pol/ 2.0.
I hope they are happy now.
>>492768
Its the 4chan equivalent of "fascist", its leftist commie trash that post it,the same trash that posts in Russian threads about how the commies dindu nuffin and spout bullshit memes about how great Stalin was.
>>493141
We're not talking about intra-religious conflict you fucking mong. We're talking about INTER-religious conflict. If OPs map had had included all the times Muslims conquered each other it'd be nothing but red.
>inb4 conquests of pagans
No one gave a fuck about pagans and would conquer them at will for any reason seen as justifiable (ie everything.) This applies to both Christians and Muslims.
>>493123
that picture is bull shit. trying to portray the early days of mideastern people taking back their lands from the parasite as a religious war does not change history. there were plenty of christian tribes that allied with muslim armies and fought alongside them. and plenty of christian cities opened their doors to muslims. anything to get rid of the parasites.
the muslims are a not a race or a different species that came from another planet and began invading the poor poor byzantine and persian peaceful people's lands. the first muslims were descendents of people and related to people who had been oppressed for centuries by the two EMPIRES. spinning this act of defence and liberation into muslims attacking to spread religion is exactly what i expect from a slave race like you.
your race will go on crying about how the ancestors of your masters were robbed to their chance to further rape and pillage the mid east. but it will not change history and it will not change what is coming. the romas will fall once again and this time it will not be the arabs who will be incharge. the arab is by nature a peaceful and merciful creature. the people incharge will show no mercy. only extermination of the parasite race will equalize what has been done in the name of its values and civilization.
the wars of the 7th century had nothing to do with spreading any religion or fighting any religion. islam is the response of the mideasten immune system, after being subjected to the parasite for centuries. islam is the anti body that will always fight the parasite.
>>493168
>no one cares about pagans
well, I don't even know what to say.
It's easy to construe a certain narrative if you decide to ignore large parts of history, that's true...
>>493040
Mods, ban this fag please.
>>493173
>the arab is by nature a peaceful and merciful creature
>Byzantine lands weren't Christian for many, many generations before the rise Islam
>Arabic expansionism in the Mediterranean was justified because the Roman empire existed 500 years before the Birth of Mohammed
wew, I don't even know where to start with you lad. Honestly I'd just say that if you truly believe this Islamic destiny garbage you should probably be fighting for ISIS instead of communing with the great Satan by shitposting on an American imageboard. At-least then you could blow yourself up on a school bus for the jihad and we'd both be happy.
>>493199
>the great Satan and ISIS in the same post
>>493209
Yeah, better call them Daesh.
>>492955
Added to Christian kingdoms? Whats the difference?
>>493071
No true crusader.
>>493173
1: neither persia nor the roman empire ventured far south into Arabia, not as far as Mecca
2: the new muslim overlords were no different from other tyrants or parasites
3: even assuming what you say is true, just because someone claims to follow a righteous cause doesn't mean they are morally righteous
4: Aisha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage
>>493178
This isn't reddit friendo, you can't just ban something that offended your feelings
>>493242
>#notallmuslims
>>492420
>I'm really sick of pic related because its factually wrong and makes people with anti-Muslim sentiment appear stupid and ignorant about history.
Yet these people usually fall into this category.
A wrong map is often unnecessary, and just one of many demonstrations of ignorance.
But yes, your question.
The Crusades are often associated with the Middle East for the simple fact that ALL that have been authorized by the Patriarch of Rome were directed to the Middle East and / or fight the Saracens in general (even the Fourth Crusade, at inception, was intended to attack the Egypt)
The Northern Crusades and the Albigensian Crusade were not official, moreover, being only an informal designation, since it was ramifications of the spirit of the Christendom at the time.
>>492501
faggot
>>493248
I'm not the one using faulty logic mate.
>>493199
>Byzantine lands weren't Christian for many, many generations before the rise Islam
and your point is. the lands did not belong to byantine. they belong to the people who live on them. the byzantine were oppressin the people in these lands and were trying to expand their influence to other lands so they can oppress some more.
this is the problem with talking to slave races. your entire way of looking at history and people is fucked up.
>Arabic expansionism in the Mediterranean was justified because the Roman empire existed 500 years before the Birth of Mohammed
what does when was Mohammad's birth has to do with the fact that the byzantines had been oppressin the arabs and their cousins for centrueis and were always trying to oppress more?
should the people who converted to islam forget what had been happening to their people for centuries. should they forget what was happening to thier cousins and brother tribes ruled by romans. I already made it clear that the muslims were not some alien speicies that came from mars and began conquest of poor persians and byzantines. the fact that you would still throw mohammad's birth date at me shows how much warped the parasite's mind really is.
i will not join ISIS because it is a western created entity that is designed to satisfy western fantasies and nothing more. But i assure you when the day comes i will be the first in line to extermiate your race right after raping you women and children.
BTW, i am not a muslim. I left islam because i realized that there are different speices of humanoid creaters in this world. and some of those species are parasites. Islam insists that all humanoids are equal if they are muslim. that there is no difference. my life has taught me otherwise. your race taught me to leave islam by proving that your blood is not like the rest.
>>493247
you can be banned for shitposting tho :^)
>>493259
Wait what, there was logic in your post?
>>492768
>Why am I seeing this so often these days?
because /pol/ is constantly shitposting
>You do realise that this site has always been at best apathetic towards racial insensitivity and outright misanthropic and racist at the worst?
You can be all of that without being fucking retarded like /pol/ is
>Not trying to say this is an edgy meme site for Nazis,
/pol/ is basically an edgy meme board for Nazis
>but it most certainly isn't some SJW hugbox where people like you need to sound the alarm every time you get triggered by something.
/pol/ deserve to be called out on their bullshit, /his/ is mostly autistic retards who don't know how to handle shitposting so /pol/ gets away with a lot. You can have better discussions on /int/ for fuck's sake.
>>493260
You're delusional, m8.
Roman and Byzantine incursions into Arabic lands were extremely limited. Arabs expanded into Byzantine lands through imperialism. Claims to the opposite are historically inaccurate.
Also, your undertones of Arabic supremacy clash quite pointedly with your appeals to Arabic victim-hood. Are you a downtrodden, enslaved people or righteous rulers of men? It can't be both.
>>493244
BOTH the persians and the byzantines were trying their best to control Arabia. they simply did not send their own armies because of the giant fucking desert. both empires used proxies to control the tribes and trade in the arabian peninsula. and you are speaking as if the tribes of arabia had nothing to do with the tribes living in syria iraq and palestine. they were related in culture and in blood. you know nothing about pre-islamic history. the romand even sent an ethiopian army to arabian peninula the same year that mohammad was born. and the persians were busy fucking around in yemen.
>the new muslim overlords were no different from other tyrants or parasites
complete bull shit.
> even assuming what you say is true, just because someone claims to follow a righteous cause doesn't mean they are morally righteous
i do not even know what you are trying to say. the people of the mideast finally rose up and fucked the parasite in the ass.
>Aisha
she has nothing to do with this and yet you bring her up. just goes to show your desperation. the hadith were never meant to be historical record of events. they were only meant to be saying of mohammad. there is plenty of contradiction to the hadith about aisha in the historical texts. but i have no interest in discussing her in this thread.
>>493260
Wow, I completely forgot Orientals also read Nietzsche and go through their edgy goth/metal teenage phase just like Westerners do.
>>493278
funny i never claimed arabic supremecay. since i am not even an arab. and syria lebanon palestine were all arab lands. arab and semite are synonyms. your claims of byzantines not interfereing with arabs are laughable.
>all this takkiya
I'm not a muslim guys or a arab but a white christian and I think we have alot to learn from islam and the art of drinking camel urine like the great prophet (piss be upon him) once did.
>>493292
>arab and semite are synonyms
>>493317
do you believe that the people living in lands from syria and iraq to egypt are arabs? if you do then you believe that anyone speaking a semitic language is an arab.
>>493312
>talk about exterminating the european and he things i am pretending to be white.
fuck the white race. and the lowest scum of this race the anglo saxon sub race.
there is no takkiya expect in you dreams monkey. it is your race that is so good at lying that it won the whole world through its lies.
what the jews are to your race you are to the world. you are the jews of this earth.
>>493281
>complete bull shit.
So when your black brothers revolted against white slaveowners you acknowledge it, but when they rise up against muslim tyrants you deny it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion
AISHA
I
S
H
A
The strenght of islam comes from its will to endulge in the wisdom that the urine of a camel brings.
Our health shall be stronger and our teeth whiter as we suck out the citrus scent from a camels penis. All true muslims drink camel urine unless they are dirty dhimmis going against the will of the prophet.
>Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of camels and to drink their milk and urine to get healthy.
>Bukaki Vol 1, Book 4
>>493325
>Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Jews and Carthaginians were all Arabs
I don't think you understand just how expansive an umbrella term "Semite" is. Arabs all being Semites does not make all Semites Arabs. Are all Jews Muslims simply because they're all Abrahamic?
tbqh >>493339 makes me think you're just a butthurt mid-easterner who has an axe to grind with all white Christians for envy of their success. It's pretty obvious you either have a limited grasp of the history of your own people oir you're being willfully dishonest out of desperation. Either way it's time to hand in your keyboard and pick up a book (not the Quran, though.)
>>493260
One day, you and your entire racewill be fed bacon and wine you fucking sandnigger.
>>493292
I will bet my last penny you are Albanian. Only Albanians are this delusional
>>493366
the blacks are not my brothers. what does that have to do with my point.
over period of many centuries there are always people who have a disagreement with the ruling class. the muslim rulers mostly let the people do what they wanted and live as independent tribes. the caliphate is not a state. it does not seek to control the live of people like the byzantines did. it is the westerners that try to draw lines on maps and pretend that people are defined by land. most of the people living in the mideast were unaffected by the daily happenings of the caliphate. most people continuned to live by their own tribal customs. it is impossible to talk to slaves who think in terms of nations and boundries defining peoplehood. as if people are sheep. that is what the civilized man is. he is sheep. civilization is a glorified word for slavery.
>>493389
>it does not seek to control the live of people like the byzantines did.
laughsindisbelief.jpg
>>493377
so much desperation. not only did you take my name, you parasite, but you quoted me a hadith that contradicts other hadith.
if you are ever in the desert without water for long you would drink the sweat off my balls in return for giving me your ass.
>>493382
and who will do that monkey? your race? your race fights like jews. if you could not do it 100 yeas ago when you were roaming the mid-east, you certainly cannot do it now.
and i live in the land that is claimed by the nation state disease called "pakistan". i would love for your cowardly race to come here and feed us bacon.
do you remember the last time you tried to feed muslims bacon by lying to them and pretending to be their friends in 1857? do you remember faggot. if the punjabis had not come to your aid your race would have lost even its underwear
>>493424
>do you remember the last time you tried to feed muslims bacon
Yes, after the April Uprising in Bulgaria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwDtqrRGmo8
>pakistan
>A dirty indian muslim is being a supremacist
OHBOY.jpg
i'm also a huge faggot, please rape my face.
nice board you got there fag
>>493424
>posting from fucking Pakistan
>is literally still butthurt about some Islamic conflict from 160 years ago while claiming vehemently to not be a Muslim
>claims to be racially "superior"
Please take note, /his/. This is the type of delusion you enable with your daily Islamic praise/Christian hate threads. They're both shit for different reasons. Get over it.
>>493449
But one is less shit than the other :^)
>>493433
india comes from the masterbatory fantasies of the anglo saxon parasite. it has no basis in reality.
it use to be the greek name for the land of indus river and had nothing to do with modern day india.
there will be an accounting for everything monkey
>>493449
I just want you to realise, that to sane people, the ones on the other side seem about the same.
>>493449
>is literally still butthurt about some Islamic conflict from 160 years ago while claiming vehemently to not be a Muslim
what are you trying to say faggot? i am talking about now not 160 years ago. 160 years ago the anglo was still sucking the cock of my people in the hope that they will go to sleep after ejacualtion. so that the anglo whore can stab us in our sleep.
the nation state disease is a continuation of the anglo saxon imperialism. the europeans never left. the nation state is a proxy of the european parasite. but a slave race like you cannot see things this way. you will always be proud of your masters and kill and die for their benefit. the reason you parasites seek to impose your way of life on others is because your way of life is slavery of your masters and by imposing it on others, you seek to gain more slaves for your masters. your entire history is about worshipping at the cocks of your masters
>>493449
>daily Islamic praise/Christian hate threads
I've seen far more Islamic/Atheism hate threads than those two.
>>493435
either me or my decendents will rape your women and children, i promise you this, faggot. the army that invades europe this time will not be lead by forgiving arabs or half hearted turks. it will be lead by blood thirsty vampires.
>>493060
>>493046
Oh look
>>492420
Most of the Crusades happened in the middle East. The ones that happened in France and Lithuania were less publicized and not as many people got involved in them.
1) People in general are violent, regardless of faith.
2) Quite a few of the battles on those charts were perpetrated by different entities over the course of hundreds of years.
>>493449
>daily Islamic praise/Christian hate threads
Wait, what?
>>493479
its cause they are both more in your face compared to christfags somehow managing to piss off everyone
>>492768
4chan has always been kind of racist, but few posters were legitimately genocidal until 2010-ish
/pol/ activity peaked early last year, though
>>492991
He wanted a large contingent of Frankish soldiers, following the ancient tradition of Byzantines hiring foreign auxiliaries
He didn't want an invasion of the Holy Land
>>493026
Jerusalem had been Muslim for 400 years when the Crusades began
It's as if Morocco invaded Andalusia today, because a few centuries ago it was Muslim
>>492886
>Ottoman conquests were very much religiously motivated
that would explain why they spent most of their time and effort invading, uhh, infidel sunni muslim lands
>help we're under attack from sunni turks
>let's help by attacking shi'ite arabs who are also at war with the sunni turks
bravo urban ii
>>493677
But Jerusalem was held by the Seljuks at the time of the first crusade.
>>493650
When I started browsing 4chan in 2008 it was overwhelmingly liberal
It's just contrarianism. If the Republicans win the next election I'm fully expecting liberalism to become cool on here again
>>493691
>But Jerusalem was held by the Seljuks at the time of the first crusade.
No, it was not. The Fatimids retook it from the Seljuks about a year before the Crusaders arrived. The defender of the city against the Crusaders was Iftikhar al-Dawla, the Fatimid governor of Palestine. The Fatimids were nominally allies of the Byzantines and initially assumed that the Crusaders were Byzantine mercenaries and thus weren't going to be hostile to them. It was only as the Crusader army continued to march south after Antioch and brushed off Fatimid emissaries that they realized that these people were actually their enemy. Al-Afdal mustered an army to meet them, but he arrived too late to save Jerusalem, and then the Crusaders defeated him at Ascalon shortly thereafter.
>>494079
Ah yes, I got this wrong. So Jerusalem was held by the Seljuks at the time when the first crusade started.
>>494244
>So Jerusalem was held by the Seljuks at the time when the first crusade started.
Yes. When they set out, it was in Seljuk hands, but by the time they got there, it had been in Fatimid hands for about a year. They were perfectly aware of this, because the Fatimids had sent them ambassadors for months saying "hey great job against the Turks our dear friends, by the way we already liberated Jerusalem so no need to do that right?"
The Crusaders had honestly very little awareness of the geopolitical situation of the ME and tended to describe things in biblical, absolute terms, sometimes to the point of absurdity; one of the chroniclers on the crusade IIRC refers to the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt, inexplicably, as the "King of Persia." There's no evidence to suggest that anyone in the crusade knew a single thing about Shias and Sunnis. The great Fatimid mistake was to assume that the crusaders were essentially part of "normal" politics - the Byzantines used mercenaries all the time, after all - when in fact they were an army with no loyalty to the Byzantines dead set on taking Jerusalem, fulfilling their vows, and having their sins wiped away by God no matter which group of infidels happened to control the city.
This is why the various arguments about whether the Crusades were "defensive" or not completely miss the point. The language of "defensive" and "offensive" conflicts assumes a sort of geopolitical game totally alien to what actually seems to have motivated the crusaders.
>>492420
It's missing the Norman conquest of Africa.
>>493389
>the caliphate is not a state
>it just takes taxes
>>493424
>he is a paki
how does it feel to be a disgusting piece of human refuse that your arab masters claim to be subhuman?
>>493453
yes, pakistan is a real country that was made in 600 AD by arab conquerors with their superior semen impregnating your ancestors.
>>492420
>>492991
Yeah, he asked for a small band of highly trained knights, not a disorganized mob of dumb ass nobles and peasants
>>496065
>as if comfy, well-off, highly trained knights of status in Europe are going to go off on a crazy fucking around the world voyage to a sandy hellhole to face likely death
>>496070
they would because they would be paid top byzants for campaigning in anatolia, which is not a sandy hellhole
>>493057
No
>>496013
How does it feel to get butthurt over a stranger on the Internet?
>>492748
>jihad
>>492420
>Crusaderfags saying that the Crusades where a defensive mission against muslims to defend the holy land
>post link about how crusaders mostly attack other Christians in eastern Europe
though I agree calling Crusades "anti-muslim" is kinda a stretch really (they killed more Christians than muslims).
>>496029
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html
>>492768
Even if the apathy towards a lot of issues has been common; the islamophobia, anti-feminism, racism, nazism, transphobia and homophobia have also not been existent as explicit meme-position.
It isn't like being apathetic turns one into all these things, it is rather a new biased ideology growing on 4chan's /b/ and /pol/. Being apathetic means not giving a shit about feminism or anti-feminism.
I've lurked here for like 5 years + now, and /pol/ is the cancer.
>>496100
pretty memetic tbH
>>493696
/b/ actually raided a nazi radio host, Hal Turner, for little more than being a nazi. People say that 4chan has always been racist (which is partially true) but back in the day the people posting A Wyatt Mann cartoons were very often doing it ironically.
>>493173
>the parasite
KEK
fucking tumblr
>>493074
IS THAT MOOT
>>493168
>that doesn't count because it would make my point look bad
>>492759
>christcucks were bitches
>>493166
yeah, you belong in /pol/ allright
I 'm a Republican by the way
>>493040
I second for this anon to be banned
>>492420
The map you posted is about christians vs muslims. I don't see what northern pagans have to do with anything.
It's objective fact that Islam was created by a warlord to justify his conquests. Arabs spread from Persia to Spain and justified their conquests with their scriptures.
If you deny that you're either engaging in taqqiya or are a braindead western leftist.
>>502846
>It's objective fact that Islam was created by a warlord to justify his conquests.
If it's an objective fact can we have some sources that prove both the objective and factual elements of this objective fact please
>>492768
I wish /pol/ would leave /his/
You belong on /pol/ making threads about whether Lithuanians are white.
>>502852
You could start by reading accounts of Mohammed's life and his conquests. But I mean it's pretty fucking obvious.
Let me turn the question around : why did Arabs, all of a sudden, conquer from Spain to Persia?
>>502856
>making threads about whether Lithuanians are white.
>>502867
>You could start by reading accounts of Mohammed's life and his conquests
I can guarantee I've done far more of that than you have. Your opinion is not a source.
>>502856
And I wish plebbit would leave /his/
There are plenty of history subreddits where you can go on and on fawning about primitive african civilizations all the while derading the evil white colonialist and suppressing any dissenting opinions.
>>502874
>I can guarantee I've done far more of that than you have.
I have trouble believing that, considering you seem to be ignorant of basic facts such as the motivation behind the arabic conquests.
>Your opinion is not a source.
I didn't state my opinion, I directed you to read accounts of mohammed's life. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between "opinions" and "historical accounts". Are you mentally retarded perhaps?
And by the way, you disingenuous faggot, you didn't answer my question :
>Let me turn the question around : why did Arabs, all of a sudden, conquer from Spain to Persia?
>>502884
>why did Arabs, all of a sudden, conquer from Spain to Persia?
Because they were a unified political and military force for pretty much the first time ever. There was also a vacuum in the Levant and Egypt thanks to the Byzantines and Persians exhausting each other. The period of conquest also post-dated Muhammad's death.
>>502891
>Because they were a unified political and military force for pretty much the first time ever
That is not a justification? Why did they embark upon wars of conquest stretching from China to Spain. Why they expand? What was the justification for their expansion?
>There was also a vacuum in the Levant and Egypt thanks to the Byzantines and Persians exhausting each other.
You are stating things which facilitated the arab conquests. You are not stating the reason behind the arab conquests.
>The period of conquest also post-dated Muhammad's death.
Irrelevant.
>>502899
>Why did they embark upon wars of conquest stretching from China to Spain. Why they expand? What was the justification for their expansion?
>implying expansionism needs justification
I trust you'd question the motives of the expanding Assyrian, Hittite, Babylonian, Judean, Egyptian, Carthaginian, Roman, Bulgar, Viking, Norman, Mongol, English, Russian, Japanese, German polities etc no doubt equally thoroughly
>>502914
>I trust you'd question the motives of the expanding...
Well obviously
Since I'm not a simplistic moron like yourself, my answer as to why those respective civilizations expanded isn't always "lol because they were unified".
>>502922
>Since I'm not a simplistic moron like yourself
>"It's objective fact that Islam was created by a warlord to justify his conquests. Arabs spread from Persia to Spain and justified their conquests with their scriptures."
I think reductivism on that scale is pretty simplistic desu senpai
>your civilization is attacked for hundreds of years
>retaliate
>become the prime example for racism and evil church doctrine
Picture the gestapo.
Now look back at the inquisition.
By now you've probably noticed that they were pretty much the same thing.
>>492726
Reconqista is factually not a crusade and has little to do with Europeans fighting each other.
>>503023
>Reconqista is factually not a crusade
Clement IV circulated a bull calling for a general crusade in Spain in 1265
>>492420
>see people defend crusades
>"fuck off pol"
>literal pol shitposter creating huge replies with nothing to contribute but his bias on what the crusades were
>no fuck off pol, most replies take him seriously
This board has cognitive dissonance.
>>502867
because the parasite race had to be checked after centuries of interference with the people of the middle east. and the arabs were invited into spain by people who hated the parasite as well. the armies that invaded spain were made up of arain christians and jews and other religions as well. the majority of that army was not even muslim.
if islam was about force converting people then why did the muslims no invade deep into the heart of africa. africa was populated by complete primitives who had no metal weapons and no horses. they did not even wear clothes. why did the arabs no invade them. they were easy prey. they muslims ruled in north africa for almost a thousand years before the christians showed up in black africa. in those thousand years the muslims could have easily used their vastly superior armies to subjugate all of africa and converted them to islam. why did they not do that ? how hard was it for the european parasites to convert the blacks to christianity?
>>503205
>why did the muslims no invade deep into the heart of africa
there are costs to every expedition: manpower, logistics, permanence or presence. Weakness of the adversary is not what wins wars. It's the same reason the romans nor the Ottomans moved further south; they preferred to inherit already established conquered lands.
I would go on and express my disregard to you as well as your comrades on the other side of the spectrum, but I respect that this is not /pol/
>>495076
hm, I wonder if those conditions are bearing any similarity to current events...
>>503223
the same logistics and manpower problems were no hinderance to the european. even thought the euros were even farther away from the heart of africa than the muslim north africans.
if islam was truly about winning converts they would have mounted an effort to invade africa regardless of costs to themselves at some point in the last 1400 year history. it is not as if the early wars of islam against romans and persians were something that arabs thought would be easy. who would have thought that desert nomands from arabia could simultanously take on two super power empires of their times and succeed.
your explanation for why the muslims did not touch africa is delusional nothing more.
>>503223
>permanence or presence
permanence OF presence
>>503255
>the same logistics and manpower problems were no hinderance to the european
except it wasn't the same problems; you are referring to the era of european colonisation which commenced about 500 years later, with better weapons and better navigating.
>they would have mounted an effort to invade africa regardless of costs to themselves at some point in the last 1400 year history
there are many reasons why they didn't, primarily because the arabian empire ceised to exist. But even if we referred to a muslim conquest, the main vehicle would be the ottoman empire. Which would cause them to overexpand to lands from which, at the time, only the slave trade would be beneficial. Additionally, they chose to expand towards the balkans and further north with dubious results.
So the reason they didn't colonise sub-saharan Africa was not because they didn't want to subjugate infidels. You are explaining history through metaphysical spectra (i.e. religion), when in fact empires are built and destroyed on far more earthly reasons.
>>503280
the muslims were in north africa, it was much easier for them to make their way to south over land than it was for euros to take ships to foreign lands with strange environments. i simply do not buy your premise that the muslims did not do it because the cost benefit ratio was too high. it makes no sense. the weapons of the muslims were plenty superior to the black african weapons. also in the beginning of european colonialism 400 years ago, there was not much difference in weapon technology between euros and muslims.
the muslims trying to take over africa would have been similar to christian rome taking over europe. there was nothing to gain and it was a hard fought victory for them. but it did not stop the romans from converting europe. if the muslims wanted converts they would have done the same thing. infact it would be easier for muslims to take black africa than it was for romans to take north europe.
>>492483
This, it completely ignores things like reconquista.
>>503280
>You are explaining history through metaphysical spectra (i.e. religion), when in fact empires are built and destroyed on far more earthly reasons.
it is the europeans who want to explain the early wars of islam as guided by religious zeal to take more land for the sake of Allah. the absurdity of this becomes even more apparent when one realizes that the armies of early islam had plenty of non-muslim tribes among them.
it is the european interpretation of history to look at everything as a war fought simply because of different religion. a simple look at what has gone one in the middle east in the last 100 years can prove it.
the last time the shia and sunni fought over different in ideology was more than a thousand years ago. but look at the western news how it is filled with looking at religious interpretation of events. when the american genreal took iraq in 2003 the first thing they did was go on camera and caution people about the coming civil war between sunni and shia. what would make him say that. the last time sunni and shia fought in iraq was more than a thousand years ago. it is the west that has brought its enlightenment and civilization, which is the cause of the current predicament of this world, not just the mid east.
the nation state is a disease that killed millions in europe and then this disease was planted in the whole fucking world. the period between 1850 and 1950 saw wars in germany and eastern europe alone that killed 100 million europeans for fucking NOTHING. and this is the disease that the west has brought to the muslims and wants the muslims to follow in place of islam. this is the new religion of the west that it is shoving down the throats of the world.
>>492420
>Red Dots
>Past Battle
>White Dots
>New Battle
>Death of Muhammad 632
>>493474
> Middle eastern nation states are slaves to European imperialism
> Europeans are a "slave race"
I'd like to know the literature you read that supports your opinions. In all seriousness.
>>503545
i am simply a student of history. I have formed my own opinions about things based on my understanding of truth.
europeans most definitely are a slave race. and there are many slave races in the middle east as well. but the current slavery of mideastern peoples is a result of two things.
1) the treacherous lying nature of the europeans.
2) the gracious nature of the noble races of mideast that fooled themselves into thinking that europeans were humans, just like themselves. the europeans used the goodness of the noble races as a weapon against them.
but the problem for europeans is that this will not last much longer. when the nation states were created around 70 years ago, the majority of people living in the borders of respective states were not at all effected by them. as the decades went by the people incharge of these states expanded their power outward by lying further. a nation state is an entity founded on lies that is maintained by lies and spread further by lies. it is no surprise that a race such as the euroepans would invent such an idea. the nation state is the highest form of feudalism. it is utter slavery in its most disgusting form.
as the mid eastern nation states spread out words over the decades by playing on the good nature and noble feelings of the majority rural populations the people came under their control. this process of spreading outwards from the cities to the rest of the area, defined on a map by the nation state, is infact still going on. this process happened faster in oil rich areas where the enormous wealth enabled the states to spread quickly and provide some benefits to the rural populations as well. but now the time has come and with every passing day more and more of the noble races are waking up to what has been done to them. this process of waking up will still take a couple of decades, but once it begins it will quickly spread.
>>503643
(cont)
the nation state disease is the ultimate destroyer of truth. it destroys people language, culture, true histories and replaces it all with a single centralized language, culture and false history. without doing this a nation state cannot be formed. this is what WWI and WWII were about. this is why hitler invented all those myths about Aryans and shit. he was trying to forge a german nation. and to define this nation he had to denigrate the slavs.
before the great enlightenment and civilization of the nation state came to Hungary, the hungarian capital was filled with many different cultures and languages and religions. After the great enlightenment and civilization everything was hungarian and one religion. the same thing happened in russia and other eastern european countries in the last few hundred years. today the new religion of capitalism forced upon all the people living within the nation state.
the poles and so called germanic people had been living side by side keeping to their traditions and languages. but no they had to fight two world wars and move entire millions of people from their ancestral lands just because some faggot in a capital decided that he had created an entity that represents all germans or all poles. all the great diversitites of history and culture and langauges of eastern europe and germany were destroyed in the last 300 years.
and what has been done to africa is horrendous. but the black of africa being a slave race have no motivation to keep to their traditions and fight on. and that is why they starve and die and are filled with so much disease. the nation state turns humans into sheep that are at the will and pleasure of their feudal masters.
>>503717
(cont)
and for what purpose was the nation state created. it was created to protect the central bank. before there was the nation state there was the bank. all the institutions of the nation state police, courts, prisons, welfare, army etc are created around the bank to strenghten its walls for defense.
have you ever wondered why the europeans went around the world creating the same instituions that exist in your land, when they were trying to control the people in these lands. could it be that these institutions are really slavery and that you are not free but slaves. and that is why your masters set about the world creating the same institutions they use to lord over you. the instituitons that you are so proud of the democracy the courts the laws, if they were for freedom then why would your masters go around the world creating this same model everywhere.
remember before the nation state was created, people had to be enslaved to currency that was controlled by europeans. and then banks were established in these nations.
>>503342
Sunnis and shias have been blowing up eachother's mosques in Iraq since the invasion
>>503758
it is all a western conspiracy. for two years the west tried to get the civil war going in iraq after the invasion. it did no work. then someone blew up an important shia mosque and it started. before that it was just agents of the west blowing up iraqis and pretending it was sunnis doing it. the sunni and shia of iraq did not fight each other when the ottomon empire died and they did not fight when the british left.
there are tribes in iraq that have bot sunni and shia members. these tribes intermarried with each other regardless of sunni or shia. they even had rules about what religion the children would be. the first born child get s the religion of the father and the next one get the religion of the mother. in the tribal society people do not choose who they marry. it is chosen by the family and the family takes into account the greater cultural opinion of the greater family. the fact that these people were marrying each other only proves that iraqis had no problems between sunni or shia. infact which tribe a certain tribe chooses to marry is established by centuries of tradition. the sunni and shia marriage in iraq was centuries old tradition. and suddenly when the war starts we are suppose to believe that these people began fighting and killing each other. they are the same people, related to each other.
much of the middle east is composed of groups that only marry among each other, otherwise known as endogamous groups. in the middle east the distinction between who is mine and who is outsider was never determined by land or religion but by whoever was or was not in the endogamous group.
>>503787
there is no book that says the things i say. but I am sure there may be some book out there that speaks out against the nation state. there is a book called "DEbt the first 5000 years" by David Graber. it goes into some detail about euroepans trying to con africans and south american tribes into accepting their currency as the only currency.
the language of slavery is debt. and today all currency that is issued is debt. the europeans are proud of their claim that they have ended slavery. but in reality they made slavery global. slavery has never been more rampant and wide spread as it is now. slavery has become universal. mankind was never so miserable as it is now. these are truly the dark ages of human existence.
>>503800
>sunni-shia emnity is a western conspiracy
I didn't realize the Americans were behind the Battle of Karbala in 680
>>503853
Not even the depths of time can protect you from the eternal Anglo
>>492420
I would just say that crusades and jihad were both bad. There is no reason to glorify them.
>>503853
read my post again. there had been no war between sunni and shia for almost a thoussand years. this is beacuase the political differences between the two stopped being relevant long ago. and that is what those wars were, about politics.
>>503853
..That's actually why we stopped doing time travel.
you know that kids cartoon time cops? It's actually based on what wee were doing in the 90s.
The soviets were gone, we got bored, and... yeah.
>>503317
>also in the beginning of european colonialism 400 years ago, there was not much difference in weapon technology between euros and muslims.
I meant between different time periods, between the crusades and the period of colonialism.
>>503317
>the muslims trying to take over africa would have been similar to christian rome taking over europe. there was nothing to gain and it was a hard fought victory for them
that's what I was arguing for. I thought you said that the reason they didn't expand south in Africa was because they didn't want to convert the less-equipped africans.
>>503890
>that is what those wars were, about politics
that is what all wars are about.
>>503342
>look at the western news how it is filled with looking at religious interpretation of events
didn't argue against that.
>the nation state is a disease that killed millions in europe and then this disease was planted in the whole fucking world. the period between 1850 and 1950 saw wars in germany and eastern europe alone that killed 100 million europeans for fucking NOTHING. and this is the disease that the west has brought to the muslims and wants the muslims to follow in place of islam. this is the new religion of the west that it is shoving down the throats of the world.
I agree more or less
>>503717
>some faggot in a capital decided that he had created an entity that represents all germans or all poles
and what faggot made the entity that makes you call africans a slave race?
Or is it that you only care to look to history whenever it suits you?
I bet you 're with all the other wankers of your age, saying to them "ha, those europeans couldn't refute me because they cower under the shame now that I exposed them".
>>503733
we are slaves, no sane person would argue that we don't have to wander in the desert of the job market, nor that we can't be coerced to fight for the wars of the capitalists or not be sent to their jails.
If that realisation doesn't make us free, it doesn't make you anymore free, because you are under an influence.
What is your allegiance? Isn't it a hierarchical structure? What guarantees do you have for your post war future? How do you know you are not being manipulated by the same west you claim to fight?
>>503967
i was trying to show that the muslims were not looking for forced converts. because if they were they would not have left black africa untouched.
>>503988
there are many races in africa. unfortunately, they are slowly being wiped out and replaced with centralized identities. most of the blacks of africa, specially the western africans, are slavish in nature. this view is informed by my understanding of history and how people think.
>>504028
>i was trying to show that the muslims were not looking for forced converts
The jizya literally exists for the purpose of making converts out of the unwilling via taxation and humiliation.
>>504006
I am enslaved but i am not a slave. the majority of people living in pakistan and afghanistan did not like in hierarchical societies. we lived as equals amongst ourselves. we lived as with any government or structure. we have been anarchists since the beginning of recorded history.
>>504042
that is another delusion of the west. you are implying that non-muslims were forced to pay a tax and the muslims did not have to. if fthat is the case then what government on earth wants to see a decrease in tax revenue. why would the ruling muslim families and clans be wishing to see more converts under such circumstances? if everyone converted there would be no one left to pay taxes to them.
>>504044
*we lived without government or institutions
>>504052
>that is another delusion of the west. you are implying that non-muslims were forced to pay a tax and the muslims did not have to.
The jizya is specifically for dhimmis. This isn't debatable.
It was also often carried out with ritual humiliation-grasping men by the bear and stroking their cheeks was common.
The poll taxes placed on muslims were nowhere near as humiliating.
>>504044
>the majority of people living in pakistan and afghanistan did not like in hierarchical societies
what about woman equality?
If I understand correctly, you are aligning with isis, right?
How do you explain fighting the Kurds?
What is your position on the Palestinian issue?
>>504068
>It was also often carried out with ritual humiliation-grasping men by the bear and stroking their cheeks was common.
and that is suppose to make people want to convert to islam?
the taxes were mostly paid by people living in the cities. the majority of people living in rural areas. as for jizya dhimmis and all that it was entirely dependant on how the people treated the first muslims armies when they invaded. there were many christians that opened the gates for the muslims and threw out their roman oppressors. for them there were no taxes. then there were instances where people put up a fight initially but then surrendered. for them the taxes were different. and then there were people who kept on fighting till the end and were finally subdued by force. for these people the taxes were the highest. there were even non-muslim tribes in the armies and they paid no taxes either.
what is a dhimmi ? a dhimmi is someone for whom muslims are responsible to protect. nothing more.
this whole schtick about jizya and dhimmis being a conspiracy to convert non-muslims is a westerners wet dream. in the beginning the western scum simply believed that muslims had forced people to convert. but about 80 years ago when some westerns decided to provide proof of their claims from history they could not find it. then they invented the claim that the muslims infact did not want to convert people at all. because they wanted to collect non-muslims taxes from them. and that is why there were no forced conversions. but there were some deluded westerners who could not accept this view of history. they could not believe that so many could have converted to islam with out any force when the deeds of christianity are well known. so decided to dream up a scenario where muslims were really taxing people so they would convert. as if such a thing has ever happened. where people leave their traditions behind because the tyrant is taxing them. tyranny makes people cling to their traditions
>>492420
Your pic obviously refers to christian muslim clashes
>>504165
cont...
even 40 years ago Bernard Lewis was still trying to explain to the west that muslims did not force people to convert. In one of his books he says that it took him decades of research to come to this conclusion. in other words the retard could not let go of his forced conversion meme for decades. even today there are people in the west regurgitating this horse shit.
>>504104
the issues of woman equality are western issues and have nothing to do with us. we did not have laws and did not have rights or prohibitions. everything is determined by the culture of the people. the laws of nature are the only true laws and they have made men and women different from one another. when people are not ruled by a state, they live by a set of principles that you in the west would call culture. the opinions about women maybe very different for even two villages a few miles apart or even for different clans living in the same village.
i do not support ISIS. it is another state. it is a thoroughly western phenomenon. the original caliphates were never states. much less nation states. isis is trying to create a nation state where there is only one national identity and that is islam. isis is an instrument of the west.
the palestinians have every right to fight. it is upto them if they want to give their land to the european. but as long as they fight i will support them.
>>504210
>isis is trying to create a nation state
No, they aren't. State, yes, but not nation state. What would their "nation" be? They're obviously not Arab nationalists.
>>504210
>isis is trying to create a nation state where there is only one national identity and that is islam
i think that's called a "caliphate"
>>504165
It's not a "conspiracy". It was the case whether intended or not.
>>504239
they are trying to create a nation state. where the national identity is islam. many western nation states were also defined by religion and not just language. what ever isis is trying to do is just a ruse. they are really working for the americans. that is why the chechens occupy the top military posts. the americans have been allied with the chechens for decades now. i have a suspision that the russians even have evidence of what i say.
>>492835
>/pol/ would leave /his/
No, /pol/ is like SJW but anon and right wing.
>>504284
>/pol/ is like SJW
>>492483
Not only that but also negates other wars fought ostensibly in the name of christ (or spreading of Christianity) such as the spanish and portugese conquests of the new world.
>>504251
what is that pic even trying to say. that is totally retarded. the percentages do not even make any kind of sense.
what converted the majority of chritians to islam were the crusades. when the crusaders arrived in the levant they found most people still christians after so many centuries of muslim rule.
the same thing happened when the europeans came 100 years ago. they found over 20 % christians in the levant. and now the christians in that area is barely 5%. both times it is the interjection of christian west that was the greatest cause of the decline of christian populations from the mid east. but this time something more has happened. the european jew also arrived and with his arrival the jewish populations that lived among the muslims for centuries have also mostly disappeared.
both times it is the coming of the european that portends the end of his coreligionists. the city of nazareth was over 80% christian when the british were ruling there. now there is barely a christian to be found. it is not islam that is responsible for this and similar occurrences.
>>504300
and i forgot to give the example of what happend to the millions of christians of iraq after the american invasion in 2003. and what is happening still in that area.
>>504299
>the quest for gold and silver and areas to grow cash crops was done primarily in the name of god
/lit/ please go how fucking stupid are you?
>>504300
I like how you don't know the difference between correlation and causation.
>>492420
Wait does the reconquista not count? What about the European colonies in North africa?
>>504300
>the city of nazareth was over 80% christian when the british were ruling there. now there is barely a christian to be found.
You're literally talking out of your ass. I've been to Nazareth and it's a very visibly Christian city with a large and very visible Christian population
>>492886
>expanding an empire was religiously motivated
>not baser desires like wealth, prestige, and glory.
>>504316
To be fair, if you look at the rhetoric conquistadores and other explorers and early colonialists used, it's all "god this" and "god that" but we dismiss it as rhetoric and say "oh well it was really about resources"
yet when an Islamic source says they're doing something for God it's suddenly irrevocable proof they're all fanatical raving fundies out to stone all heathens to death
>>504350
this is true
I 'm still a little confused over God of War's rhetoric
>>504310
...muslims attacked and killed or expelled them?
Big shock.
>>504320
the causes of what has happened in the last 100 years and is still happening are right in front of us. you simply chose to interpret them differently.
>>492420
I didn't know northern europe were muslims?
>>504330
it is nothing like what it used to be. the same thing has happened to jerusalem and is still happening. when israel is dead the euroeapns will say that it is the muslims that drove all the jews and chritians out of the mid east. nothing changes.
>>504382
>Big shock.
that area was the capital of islamic power for centuries. if the muslims wanted to kill or expel non muslims they would have done it long time ago. the fact the there were still millions of christians in that area when american invaded is proof that muslims expelling non muslims from any area is shocking.
>>504350
Colonisation was to acquire the wealth of the new world. Islamic invasion was always aimed at apostate cities as the goal wasn't bringing gold back to the motherland it was the extension of the caliphate.
For Islamists god was the primary motive, for conquistadores god was the secondary motive.
>>504265
>many western nation states were also defined by religion and not just language.
Religion was never a sufficient definition of a nation in any western nation-state. There have been nation-states which were Catholic, but has never been a "Catholic nation-state" in which the national identity was only Catholicism without any ethnic qualities.
>what ever isis is trying to do is just a ruse. they are really working for the americans.
When are Muslims ever going to accept responsibility for their own culture instead of saying every Muslim that makes them look bad is part of some western false flag conspiracy?
>>504420
[citation needed]
>>504316
>strawmanning this hard
"wars fought ostensibly in the name of christ" is not the same as "done primarily in the name of god"
>>504425
>When are Muslims ever going to accept responsibility for their own culture instead of saying every Muslim that makes them look bad is part of some western false flag conspiracy?
When they win.
Otherwise never
>>504316
1st off, you do know what the word 'ostensibly' means, don't you?
2nd off, almost all wars are fought for ostensible reasons. the spaniards spread christianity, but gold was their proper goal. The arabs fought in the name of god but expansion was their real goal. they didn't even force islam on their conquered like the christians did.
That map is also missing Charlemagne's battles against the Saxons, the Danish campaigns against the pagans in the Baltics or the catholic crusades against dissenting christians in france.
>>504455
In addition, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge is missing.
>>504469
>Battle of the Milvian Bridge
Really had nothing to do with Christianity.
>>504425
>When are Muslims ever going to accept responsibility for their own culture instead of saying every Muslim that makes them look bad is part of some western false flag conspiracy?
when the muslims are allwoed to practice their culture in their own lands. it is funny how the europeans claim that muslims want to impose their culture on the west when that is exactly what the west has done to the muslims. the nation state with its institutions of police courts jails and banks etc is a western invention. yet every muslim land is modelled after it. the europeans claim that muslims want to force them to islam when it is the europeans tha thave been forcing people to their religion for over a centuary. when the west left christianity they adopted a new religion and now the world must change to this new religion. the religion of progressivism founded on the myth of human progress.
the europeans always accuse their intended victims of doing what they themselves are doing. and they accuse their victims of wanting to do what they want to do to their victim. that is why i take the european claims about muslims wanting to kill all non muslims very seriously. it implies that the euroepans want to kill all muslims. i know you souls better than you know your selves.
>>504455
>That map is also missing Charlemagne's battles against the Saxons, the Danish campaigns against the pagans in the Baltics or the catholic crusades against dissenting christians in france.
Because the point of the video that map comes from is whether the crusades against muslims were offensive or defensive in nature. Religious wars against Pagans or catholics vs christians is irrelevant to the point he was making.
>>504478
Then why isn't the Reconquista depicted?
Also, many of the Muslim battles depicted are from an era when Christianity and Islam were just two sects of the same abrahamic religion.
>>504478
Invasions are by definition offensive and the Crusades were invasions by every dictionary definition.
This is not A Bad Thing.
The Crusades don't have to be "defensive" to be "justified" and that's what pisses me off about these endless threads.
Islamic polities want to expand into the Levant? Good for them.
Franks and Germans want to migrate en masse to the Levant to have a crack at them? Good for them.
>>504425
>Religion was never a sufficient definition of a nation in any western nation-state
what you just said is completely wrong.
>>492501
I don't like muzzies baka
>>492420
>I'm really sick of pic related because its factually wrong and makes people with anti-Muslim sentiment appear stupid and ignorant about history.
Whats wrong about it? The muslims DID make offensive battles into europe. The resulting counter offensives were not "crusades" by any definition, and they were not endorsed by the church.
Now you're right that there were two "crusades" against pagan europeans in Spain and modern day Berlin...
At the time the contemporaries called them failures but they resulted in converting the major population centers and turning these areas Christian, namely Spain and Germany.
We all know that Christianity is preferable to Islam, so why are you attacking Christianity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18gMWhXrRao
>>502772
Republicans and Demorcrats can both kills themselves. American trash in general.
>>504476
So what would you have instead of police, courts, jails and banks? These institutions are not western constructs they are evolutions of more basic systems of law and order which is why they now exist in every country on Earth.
>the europeans claim that muslims want to force them to islam when it is the europeans tha thave been forcing people to their religion for over a centuary.
The leaders of both religions want to see their own expand as it means the expansion of their sphere of influence, don't pretend your own shit doesn't smell just as foul.
>i take the european claims about muslims wanting to kill all non muslims very seriously. it implies that the euroepans want to kill all muslims.
>I think the Europeans want to kill all Muslims because the Europeans think the Muslims want to kill all Europeans because the Muslims think the Europeans want to kill all Muslims because the...
Nice circular logic you got there.
>>504476
>police copurts and jails
>western inventions
Asia had these as well.
And courts existed under muslim rule long before the crusades.
Only banks and jails are unique to western influence. Banks aren't even special, they're just a better system than individual moneylenders that preceded them, for all involved.
>>504519
the youtube video you posted is totally retarded. i have only watched five minutes and already the man is creating straw man arguments to respond. he claims to have studied islam for 30 years but he does not know that hadith and sunnah are not central to islam. the hadith and sunnah are disputed and were never meant to be anything more than historical record. the muslims themselves were always aware that these things were not accurate. the man has created his own delusions to respond to.
as for your claims that muslims arabs were fighting offensive wars. i have already made it clear in the earlier part of this thread that the arabs of the mid east were finally defending themselves against your parasite kind.
>>504597
>arab
>defneding
Except roman and persian interactions with the arabs wee extremely limited and almost never occured.
when they did, it was usually arabs raiding their more civilized neighbors, reprisals for such, or mutually beneficial trade.
