Were the woman and children somehow deserving of the Christian's rape and slaughter?
You really are not terribly bright. Your little brain has locked onto "the Chiiilllldren" without parsing out the important details that plainly distinguishes the Crusades from the uniquely wanton murders of islam. I don't defend the slaughter of the children or of anyone else. But these children were not moral agents who could have made up their own minds whether to stay in the confiscated lands or leave. Their parents made up their minds for them, putting them into the confiscated region and this act was itself part of the infraction that led to their slaughter. These children were attached innocents, slaughtered not merely because they were muslims, but most directly because their parents put them in an area where their enemies thought they ought not be. Urban II did not go to slaughter muslim children in Africa or some other region. He slaughtered them in the areas where they ought not have been. He did this because their parents, the true moral agents here, refused to remove themselves from those regions. He might easily argue that the blood lies on the children's parents' heads and not on the heads of the Crusaders. While I do not condone the killing, his position makes infinitely more sense morally, than what islam does, which is to murder outright unattached innocents, people who have no dealings with muslims at all, who do not even know of their issues, who are not in their lands, who do not even so much as support their enemies. Muslims, unlike the Crusaders, are murdering moral agents who could make up their minds to try and work with the muslims, but who never get the chance to apply their thinking identities because the muslims are murdering them. No one else is doing this without challenge. Only islam.
What about the Jews of the city? Their crime was simple: being a Muslim or a Jew in a city overrun by Christians.
You're a friggin' numbskull. There is no way around this. You act as if I am trying to justify the killing here when I am only showing how they are much more understandable, even much more morally acceptable, relative to the wholesale barbarism practiced by islam.
See. You completely ignore the reality, because it didn't fit your argument.
I am quite attuned to reality. You are just such a leftist numbskull that when someone you hate kills a child you have a knee-jerk reaction that automatically (and gleefully) lumps them into a category with islamic savages. But when a mother hires an abortionist hitmam to murder her own child, you think this is a human right. Friggin' hypocrite.
The reality here is the Crusader's actions have quite a good deal more of a moral foundation underneath them than is first apparent to the small leftist mind, certainly more of a foundation than murdering people completely unattached from the dispute.
I might also call you a friggin' numbskull for such an statement, but I can see that it is systemic.
Well fine. Call me what you wish. You're still a friggin' numbskull. You can't even follow an argument that isn't put to you in blatant "yes/no" terms. Dang numbskull.
Congratulations. By altering reality to fit your theories, you qualify as a true neocon.
And by failing to follow an argument that really isn't that complex, you qualify as a friggin' numbskull. |
