Santorum goes Crusading

[Brittain33]

It's historically inaccurate to see the Crusades as purely Christianity vs. Islam, although that was the main theme.

Crusaders also massacred Jews up and down the Rhine Valley and sacked Byzantium in the early 1200s. It's a detail that's part of the bigger picture. I think Santorum would benefit from examining all angles of the crusades, not just "they were a good thing with good intentions."

[Brittain33]

The fact that people here decided to now demonize the crusaders is just as telling.

The truth has a liberal bias, Colbert said.

I don't care to demonize individuals from the 11th century who were behaving as people tend to do when given leeway to kill others and told there were bad people within swords' reach. It's ugly but that's human nature. I don't think it's too much to ask to have an honest discussion of the facts and history of the Crusades without being accused of "demonizing" individuals for not taking an unrealistic sunshine-y view of an ugly episode in human history.

My ancestry is Ashkenazi Jewish. A lot of my ancestors' relatives were surely killed by crusaders--maybe some direct ancestors themselves if they were old enough to have children.

[Brittain33]

The fact that people here decided to now demonize the crusaders is just as telling.

The truth has a liberal bias, Colbert said.

I don't care to demonize individuals from the 11th century who were behaving as people tend to do when given leeway to kill others and told there were bad people within swords' reach. It's ugly but that's human nature. I don't think it's too much to ask to have an honest discussion of the facts and history of the Crusades without being accused of "demonizing" individuals for not taking an unrealistic sunshine-y view of an ugly episode in human history.

My ancestry is Ashkenazi Jewish. A lot of my ancestors' relatives were surely killed by crusaders--maybe some direct ancestors themselves if they were old enough to have children.

The very fact that you wished to lump the Crusaders into one category is demonization and a stereotype. I blame multiple parties, but there were people fighting for good things. These people were not exclusive to one religion. You can kindly kiss my Catholic rear end.

Sorry if "the good things" aren't obvious to me and that you prefer confrontation to reasoning. If you could make the case for the awesomeness of the Crusades while acknowledging the bad things, that would be a start--or you could just tell people to kiss your ass.

[Brittain33]

The fact that people here decided to now demonize the crusaders is just as telling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was responding to your post in which you introduced the concept of "the Crusaders."

Go back to my first post, I didn't lump them in--I said "Crusaders."

You've got your own issues here you're projecting onto me. I'm not playing some kind of game where discussing the Crusades is an attack on your faith and I'm some ridiculous caricature of a zealot. Sorry. 

[Brittain33]

Thanks for your response, I appreciate it.

[Brittain33]

Why the confusion? I never claimed that the Crusades were all bad nor that the intentions were completely bad--only that a lot of bad things happened as part of them, really bad things, and also that it wasn't just Muslims who have reason to feel estranged from them.

[Brittain33]

How is this strategy going to win? The ONLY thing he's done for a year now is psis people off.

He's attacked every single potential candidate multiple times, and makes comments like these. He turns people off constantly and makes SURE nobody wants him as their second or third choice which is crucial to a win.

It seems like he is going for the hate spewing furthest of the far right bats*** crazy award.

Alan Keyes successfully used this tactic to increase his speaking fees on the lecture circuit. Maybe that's Santorum's goal?