Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

My point is: Someone made a comment about the crusades, I don't remember who and I can't be bothered to scroll back and check). You then responded to that comment. Then someone responded to your comment, and you said you didn't mean those crusades. I was just pointing out that according to the definition that you supplied, the term "the crusades", could not mean any other crusades.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

Bazbo wrote:

The Christians got their asses handed to them in the Crusades so your original assertion is still just patent nonsense.

Changing the subject will not change that. Maybe you should take your history lessons in an actual school, not from your pastor or Fox.

Sheeesh...

Bangee wrote:

It would hurt for you to learn about the Crusades either...

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm#.VV6YAOnbJhE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Bazbo wrote:

And neither of these references refute nor undermine my assertion. The Crusades were an utter failure. If you compare the results with the objectives one can reach no other conclusion.

You must remember the original argument: Steve40 said that the Crusades held back the wave of Islam and had it not been for the Crusades, and Columbus would have discovered America under the auspices of the caliph.

In fact, just the opposite is true. The Christians were the invaders and the Muslim armies held back the invading armies of the Christians. Saladin is still considered on of the great generals in military history.

Although the Moors were driven from the Iberian peninsula, this was hardly the liberation of the Holy Land. And it led directly to the Inquisition--congratulations, by the way.

Any other snide comments about what you think I shod learn?

Bangee wrote:

Have you ever seen the Movie "Kingdom of Heaven"?

Yes, it does appear that the Crusades were a failure. I wasn't being snide. I was pointing out that you didn't know everything there was to know about the Crusades as I am sure that there is much more to learn.
Did you know that Palestine and Jerusalem was under British Control up till 1948 when Israel became a political State. I wonder what Crusades brought that about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

BTW: I wasn't trying to refute nor undermine your argument.

Bazbo wrote:

WWI which precipitated the final collapse of the Ottomon Empire brought about the partition of the Middle East. The crusades had nothing to do with it.

Bangee wrote:

I didn't say that it did... you misunderstood the use of the word crusade. That was not a one time event, like ISIS today is on a crusade. Don't be so closed minded. I am trying to help you as much as I can.

Bazbo wrote:

As much as you think I need your help, let me try to clarify a few things.

The word Crusade (capital c) is a specific historical and cultural reference. That is why the word is so offensive in the Islamic world. When they refer to us as "Crusaders" it is not a compliment. ISIS is not on a Crusade. They are in the middle of a religious war within Islam, and like all religious wars it will end only after it burns itself out.

Bangee wrote:

Crusade (I hope this helps)

NOUN
a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries.

VERB
lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue:

"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"

Bazbo wrote:

The difference between the capital C and the small c, which I have already pointed out.

Bangee wrote:

Same word but look, this is silly. we could go at this all day and you wouldn't have learned anything more then when you first began. So, you win - I am done with you on this one.

Then you show up with:

If you precede any word with "the", it's going to be a noun.

And then me again with; "what is your point?