Why are the Crusades used as an arugment tactic by the left when trying to refute ant-islamic arguments from the right,
>but but, the crusades
even though the crusades were not initaited in a bubble and can be seen as a reaction of centuries of muslim agression/encroachment into Europe
Because the modern left works solely off of "emotional truths"
Nobodies say this seriously except some /pol/ boogeyman
its literally brought up all the time
when the right criticizes
because leftism has subsumed the guilt and shame parts of christianity, and they get a feeling of moral superiority when they frame the west as evil, and non-whites as innocent victims.
i've heard it irl
when the right often criticizes the violence of Islam
the left will always bring up "yeah but christianity has a history of violence look at the crusades, the inquisition etc."
Because it's a pointing out hypocrisy, though it is a false equivalence. Islamic Imperialism is more comparable with European Imperialism in the modern era, while the Crusades have more in common with the Turkic Ghazi culture that arose around the same time in India and spread westwards with wave after wave of nomad migrations.
The only goal of the left is to justify by any mean the islamic invaders even the most irrationa ones
its not a hypocrisy though
the crusades were a RESPONSE to islamic imperalism
How was Germany threatened by the Seljuk Turks migrating into Anatolia?
ahhh so its ok for Islam to invade Europe like they did in Spain
but europe can't do the same?
christendom was under threat as a whole
you know the middle east and north africa? that used to be all christian
>the crusades were a RESPONSE to islamic imperalism
But it wasn't. Basic warfare between various Muslim emirs and Western dukes were the response to Islamic Imperialism. The Crusades were a different phenomenon.
This isn't about what's ok and what's not. The claim was that the Crusades, launched from Western Europe, were a RESPONSE to Islamic imperialism.
The only "Islamic" (which isn't even an accurate description considering that the Muslim Seljuks had just finished conquering Muslim Iran as well as the Caliph himself) imperialism occurring at that time was in Anatolia.
So tell me again how Germany was threatened by the Seljuks conquering Anatolia?
"Christendom" is as arbitrary a term as "Muslim world". You know the Egypt that used to be Christian preferred Muslim rule over Roman rule? You know the people of Jerusalem, who the glorious crusaders massacred when they "liberated" the city from the Muslim yoke, preferred Muslim rule?
The Crusaders didn't seem to give a fuck about "Christendom" when they betrayed the Romans countless times. In fact, it can easily be argued that the Crusader sack of Constantinople is what opened the gate of Eastern Europe to the Turks.
The Crusades were nothing more than a massive Frankish chimpout.
by the way, the only truly decent crusade was the first crusade
every other crusade was either a failure or a direct attack at other christian powers (the fourth crusade was essentially just christians beating the shit out of byzantium, softening them up to get swallowed up by anatolian muslims)
>, preferred Muslim rule?
Nice BS you got there
Even the Muslims prefeered Christian rules cause their tribunal were more just.
Because Christianity undermines the lefts ability to seize the moral high-ground as an entirely "secular" narrative.
>haha i don't like what you said so i'm just gonna call you le /pol/ xD that'll show you :P
The crusades were a reaction to an internal strife in Europe because there were two many nobles/knights and not enough land or wars for them to fight in. This plus the generalized chaos in the time following the Seljuk conquests meant that it became harder for pilgrims to travel to the Holy land.
Only the Byzantine plea for help can be seen as a direct Muslim Christian agression that lead to the Crusades.
>This is what my marxist teacher told me
Are you Canadian ?
No I just not idiotic enough to believe that the crusades were in response to events that happened 400 years earlier.
Also the Muslims that had been raiding Italy and parts of France were not the same Muslims who were attacked in the crusades. How do explain that?
>Why are the Crusades used as an arugment tactic by the left when trying to refute ant-islamic arguments from the right,
Because the Crusades are superfically similar to Islamic expansion so they offer a quick counterpoint that is complicated enough that it can't be quickly refuted.
That being said, they definitely weren't a reaction to Islamic expansion. They came over 300 years after the end of Islamic expansion into Europe, and were aimed away from areas that directly threatened Christendom.
There's a better case for the Crusades being an attempt to help Alexios Comnenus than a defense of Christendom.
...
Why is Islamic terrorism used as an arugment tactic by the right when trying to refute pro-islamic arguments from the left,
>but but, Islamic terrorism
even though Islamic terrorism was not initaited in a bubble and can be seen as a reaction of centuries of Western agression/encroachment into the Muslim world
>If it goes against what I believe it must be marxist
Agreed. The fact that European christfags literally genocided three entire continents of their natives is a much better argument.