Osama bin Laden's view of the Crusades

[Ned]

Originally posted by BeBro


Well, Saladin being a noble guy is a contemporary view of the 12/13th century. Traces of it can be found in European literature of that time.

He made a honourable peace with crusaders of the 3rd crusade (Richard Lionheart), and granted access to Jerusalem (which the crusade failed to regain after it was lost 1187 - IIRC) to Christian pilgrims.

Yes he did. Perhaps his portrayal is largley accurate. But the portrayal of the Catholics is disdainful to the extreme. The anti-hero in the end gives a speech to rally the troops and essentially says they have no reason to fight, no reason for being in Jerusalem except there own greed, etc., etc., etc. This is more than bizzare. It was pathetic.

[Ned]

Just for the sake of a good movie, there has to be "some" tension. Both sides must be fighting each other for a reason.

[Agathon]

Yes he did. Perhaps his portrayal is largley accurate. But the portrayal of the Catholics is disdainful to the extreme. The anti-hero in the end gives a speech to rally the troops and essentially says they have no reason to fight, no reason for being in Jerusalem except there own greed, etc., etc., etc. This is more than bizzare. It was pathetic.

So he essentially told the truth?

Ned, Xtianity was a degenerate and intolerant cult for most of its history. Islamic civilization was the centre of world culture for nearly 1000 years, just as Roman civilzation was before that and Xtian civilization was afterwards.

The Muslims were more forward thinking, more tolerant and more cultured than our ancestors at the time. I know this annoys the right, but it's a fact and you should just deal with it.

There's a reason the renaissance happened – classical texts that had been lost to the west were reintroduced to it via encounter with the Muslims who still had them.

[Agathon]

Why do right wing Americans think that the rest of the world should share their myopic, provincial and ill-informed views?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


So he essentially told the truth?

Ned, Xtianity was a degenerate and intolerant cult for most of its history. Islamic civilization was the centre of world culture for nearly 1000 years, just as Roman civilzation was before that and Xtian civilization was afterwards.

The Muslims were more forward thinking, more tolerant and more cultured than our ancestors at the time. I know this annoys the right, but it's a fact and you should just deal with it.

There's a reason the renaissance happened – classical texts that had been lost to the west were reintroduced to it via encounter with the Muslims who still had them.

Maybe. But the very reason for the crusades was "what?"

[pchang]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why do right wing Americans think that the rest of the world should share their myopic, provincial and ill-informed views?

Too....Easy.....must.....resist..........

[DinoDoc]

Sometimes I think he purposefully leaves such bait to see if anyone reads his posts.

[BeBMan]

Agathon, I think you're overplaying the "dark" aspect of the middle ages a bit. That's a bit cliche, which came up during the enlightenment. No doubt elements of it are correct, but then there are differences between the dark ages and the high middle ages.

Also the character of the crusades changed. Esp. the first was mass movement as well as mass hysteria. Motivation may have been a lot of different things: naive belief as well as hope for a better life or simple greed, not to mention "bigger interests" of the pope, Italian trade cities like Venice or Genoa, Byzantines etc, etc.

Later crusades (at least those to the middle east) became much more "professional" war campaigns, often to win prestige for certain kings or emperors, "aggressions" if you will, but as such nothing special in those times, and not much different from other medieval wars.

[Agathon]

Agathon, I think you're overplaying the "dark" aspect of the middle ages a bit. That's a bit cliche, which came up during the enlightenment. No doubt elements of it are correct, but then there are differences between the dark ages and the high middle ages

This is set in the late 12th century. Of course the 12th century renaissance was in full swing, but that relied on texts from the East.

The Carolingian renaissane was probably the highlight in the west before that, but those people were smelly barbarians compared to the Islamic world at the time.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sometimes I think he purposefully leaves such bait to see if anyone reads his posts.

[Nostromo]

The Last Samurai bored me

Riddley Scott didn't direct that one

[Imran Siddiqui]

A (somewhat) contrary opinion:

http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=5694

However, the movie offers the extremely curious notion that, under the European conquerors of the First Crusade, Jerusalem was a shining, democratic city on a hill -- a kingdom of fair play and amicable relations between the differing faiths. It was a place where religious fanaticism has been conquered by social tolerance and where, Godfrey promises his son, ''You are not what you are born but what you have it in yourself to be."

That's right: Jerusalem is America. Or, rather, the ideological America of blue states and pious Hollywood producers. The openhearted Balian fits right in, befriending the leprous King Baldwin of Jerusalem (Edward Norton under a dime-store tin mask) and his adviser Tiberias (Jeremy Irons, playing a heroic variation on Scar from ''The Lion King"). All three want to preserve the delicate peace, as do the approaching Saladin and other Arab nobles before their hands are forced.

Against them are the foaming fundamentalists of either side, including Knights Templar Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and Reynald de Chatillon (Brendan Gleeson), the former sneering, the latter doing a mincing little dance in one scene as if he didn't know the cameras were rolling. The priests are even worse, urging the infidel slain without mercy, then suggesting a quick conversion to Islam when the chips are down. The Saracens have their fanatics as well, but at least they're well groomed, since the filmmakers are desperate to avoid even a hint of Arab-bashing.

Granted, this results in a refreshingly evenhanded portrayal of Muslims for a mass-market movie: As charismatically played by Massoud, Saladin is a past master of Middle Eastern detente. Something tells me evangelical Christians won't be quite as pleased.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
You got it. I loathed Chicago.

Ned an I finally agree on something!

It was a morally bankrupt flick, exaulting murder, promiscuity and perjury.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was a morally bankrupt flick, exaulting murder, promiscuity and perjury.

Did you totally misunderstand the movie as well?!! Who'd have thunk?

There is a reason the movie/show was based in Chicago.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
It was a morally bankrupt flick, exaulting murder, promiscuity and perjury.

Yup, you didn't get it. Anyone paying attention would realize it wasn't exalting these things at all. When did you become a mindless Republican moral drone?