Hey, Obama: About Those Crusades

If there’s one thing which irritates me about the left – in general – it is their rank ignorance of history. It is hard to get someone on the left to properly understand what happened even a few years ago – when they were alive and presumptively noticing things happening – let alone anything which happened more than a few decades ago. Now, to be sure, there are a few historical events that the left has latched on to in order to justify their world view…one of them is the Crusades.

To the left, the Crusades were just wanton cruelty – hordes of Christian bigots went into Muslim lands to kill, steal and destroy everything in their path. This was done in the name of religion and, so, religion is bad. This isn’t even a childish view of history – this is a view of history entirely divorced from historical fact. Bring up to a liberal the fact that, for instance, Egypt was once entirely Christian and only became Muslim after the Muslims conquered Egypt in an imperialist war – and then forced, over time, the population to become Muslim, or suffer – and you’ll get a blank stare, or immediate reference to one of the other things liberals heard about: the Inquisition (we’ll deal with that issue some other time). There is just no knowledge on the left of what happened – nor any desire to know what happened because the facts just get in the way of the Narrative.

But, still, I just want to enter into the record, as it were, that the Crusades were a defensive war against a rapacious, cruel enemy who attacked Christian civilization without reason. To give an idea of the flavor of the Muslim way of war, here’s a passage from The Hapsburgs: Portrait of a Dynasty by Edward Crankshaw:

The Turks were not nice fighters. They burned and massacred for the love of it, not in the heat of battle or victory, not in drunken rioting, but in cold blood and under precise instructions from their command. In Perchtoldsdorf, for instance, just outside Vienna, the townspeople and refugees from the surrounding countryside had taken refuge in the church and barricaded it. The Turks first burned down the little town, then sent an envoy to the church to promise safe-conduct to all inside on payment of a certain sum. The pasha in command sat himself down on a red carpet in the ruins of the village square and demanded that the keys of the church and the ransom money be brought to him by a fair-haired virgin who should carry a flag of truce and wear a crown of flowers. The village bailiff’s seventeen-year-old daughter was chosen to lead the way. As the villagers emerged into the light of day they were disarmed and seized. The men were slaughtered on the spot. The pasha reserved to himself the pleasure of killing the unfortunate young girl. The rest of the women and children were sent back to Turkey to be sold as slaves…

That was in 1683, quite a long time after the Crusades – but conquering Muslim armies were like that from the start. Just read up a bit on the captures of Constantinople or Famagusta. At Famagusta, after enduring a siege of 13 months, the Christians were offered terms – surrender and be allowed to leave. And so, in good faith, they surrendered. Nothing doing. Marco Antonio Bragadin, the commander, was flayed alive and his skin stuffed with straw and then sent on to the Turkish Sultan as a trophy; the rest of the Christian population was massacred. It is small wonder that when faced with enemies like this, Christian armies were often ungentle with Muslims when they defeated them.

The Crusades, themselves, were a counter-attack. For four hundred years the Christians had been attacked and forced ever back. One Muslim army made it to central France before being turned back. Muslims were continually boasting of their desire to conquer all of the Christian west – and often making good on their boast as one Christian nation after another fell to Muslim arms. The immediate spur to the Crusades was the Muslim victory over the Christian Greek Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071…with that defeat, the Byzantine Empire was rocked on its heels and no one could say that the Greeks, who had barred the door to Muslim conquest in Europe for 400 years, would be able to stem the tide. An army was needed to redress the balance – and an army was provided: the Crusaders.

In the end, the stated purpose of the Crusades – the recovery of the Holy Land – was a failure. But by projecting power into the heart of Islam and fighting them there, Europe received some breathing room. Time to continue the reconquest of Spain and time for Europe’s nations to become powerful enough to repel the Muslim onslaught when, at long last, the Muslims finally conquered the Byzantines in the middle of the 15th century. They still made the running for a while – conquering Greece, Serbia and Hungary before running up against the rock of resistance known as Vienna. In 1683 they made their last try, as described in that quote above. Only the timely arrival at Vienna of a Polish army commanded by the hero-King Jan Sobieski saved the day, and in the nick of time – Vienna’s defenses were breached the day before the Poles rode in to battle and scattered the Muslim army.

All of that was a long time ago. Let no one say that what happened in the 11th century justifies any action taken in the 21st century. The Muslims have their gripes, but the graves of Europeans in Austria and France attest to the fact that non-Muslims also have their gripes.

16 thoughts on “Hey, Obama: About Those Crusades

  1. Retired Spook February 6, 2015 / 2:38 pm

    OT, but Bwahahahahaha!!

    A new survey of scholars ranks Secretary of State John Kerry dead last in terms of effectiveness in that job over the past 50 years.

    • shawny2011 February 8, 2015 / 3:04 pm

      While I actually enjoy John Kerry being recognized as the “dead last” kinda human he has always been, he has not yet on his watch been responsible for the tragically unnecessary deaths of 4 Americans on his watch or the potentially disastrous “reset” we currently have with Russia, the “we came, we saw, he died” classy diplomacy. He can’t possibly have done worse, however “effectiveness” is measured by these scholars, than Hillary Clinton.

    • Amazona February 9, 2015 / 11:44 am

      Isn’t it odd that suddenly Hillary is being touted as one of the four most “effective” Secretaries of State, with Kerry the “worst”?

      Not that I am arguing with the “worst” placement, though it seems to me they are tied. I can’t think of a single (good) thing Hillary accomplished.

      I noticed that the list included Albright, another I never thought of as very “effective”. Albright and HIllary made the list, Rice did not?

      So, having noticed the blatant bias of the list in general, I looked at it a little more closely. Awfully coincidental, isn’t it, to suddenly have Hillary Clinton, of all people—– the woman who made such a fool of herself with her juvenile and embarrassingly misspelled “RESET” button telegraphing a junior high level concept of international diplomacy even if it had not been mangled, the woman whose State Department was an active participant first in the sale of weapons in Libya and then in the abandonment of our people there and then in trying to perpetuate a lie concocted to try to shield her from the truth about what a failure the whole thing was—–suddenly celebrated as one of the FOUR MOST EFFECTIVE SECRETARIES OF STATE IN HISTORY?

      Coincidental in its timing as she is also being constantly named as the best and brightest of the Democrat Party, as the one who is already whupping every possible Republican candidate in every poll, as the one who will be our next president?

      In a similar vein, has there been much made of her Brian-Wiliams-like claim of landing in Iraq while under enemy fire?

      No, the Complicit Agenda Media have gathered around Hillary, chattering about how to cover up her lengthy and sordid history of gaffes, lies, and general misdeeds, about how to recast her failures as successes, and how to brainwash American into thinking she is so obviously the only possible choice there isn’t much of a reason to compete with her. She is clearly the next Anointed One.

      And BTW, this “survey” also served to deflate some of Kerry’s ambition, as he has undoubtedly been eying a run of his own.

      • M. Noonan February 9, 2015 / 12:07 pm

        Oh, you can rely on it – everything the MSM reports about Hillary is designed to boost her. While proving it would be difficult, I really have no doubt that it is all coordinated with Team Hillary…she’s got so many people who are in tight with the MSM that it doesn’t even have to be ordered or discussed…someone on Team Hillary who is close to someone senior in the MSM just makes the offhand suggestion, and next week a puff piece about Hillary appears. It’ll be like that all through 2016.

        This is why whom we select is so crucial – it has to be someone who is the un-Obama and the un-Hillary. It can’t be a well known (ie, worn out) face. It can’t be someone tied too closely to the Establishment. It can’t be someone tied to closely to money. It has to be someone who is Joe Average but who can also effectively bring a message…that is why, more and more, I’m thinking Scott Walker is our best chance.

  2. j6206 February 6, 2015 / 5:37 pm

    He’s just trolling you guys now.

    • M. Noonan February 6, 2015 / 8:19 pm

      A lot of what he’s doing is trolling – but the Crusades remarks are from the heart…he just does not know what happened in the past.

    • Amazona February 7, 2015 / 10:09 am

      js, you appear to be quite knowledgeable about “trolling” so I bow to your greater expertise. The only trolling I have ever done has involved a boat and a fishing pole, but evidently, based on your own life experience, you can identify some other kind—not that there’s anything wrong with that.

      I just wonder what about this article, or anything else for that matter, prompted you to share.

      On the off chance your reference to “trolling” does not involve prowling bus stations or park restrooms, perhaps you are saying that the President of the United States is purposely making outrageous, false and insulting assertions just to get people riled up. For any other President, this would be dismissed out of hand. However, upon reflection, if it refers to outbursts of the petty and petulant Boy King, it’s certainly possible. It’s just that there is quite an archive of equally stupid and bigoted comments, leading to the more likely assumption that he just blurts out what he thinks, no matter how hateful or disrespectful or ignorant or blatantly untrue it may be.

    • M. Noonan February 8, 2015 / 12:45 am


  3. shawny2011 February 8, 2015 / 2:19 pm

    Thanks for this history primer Mr. Noonan. The left has been rewriting history for so long that it’s no wonder so many are ignorant of the facts enough to buy what Obama is selling. He was indoctrinated into both Islam and Communism at a very early age so if his is ignorance it is a very dangerous mixture of the worst and most violent totalitarian ideologies. But someone should remind Obama and others what century it is and who, currently, are the only ones still practicing that kind of barbarism, how ridiculously far back in history Obama had to reach to pull that example out of his behind. In your spare time, perhaps you could tackle the history of Communism that so many of our starry-eyed youth mistakenly believe might be some great solution when only a few generations ago it was the biggest threat to the free world in existence. It seems that’s been rewritten/rebranded out of history as well. Thanks again!

    • Amazona February 9, 2015 / 11:21 am

      shawny, I don’t know if you read this blog often enough to know that I have become very interested in the concept of Natural Born Citizen, and whether this is the same thing as Native Born Citizen. I have come to the belief that they are not the same thing, for many reasons we don’t need to rehash here, but the underlying reason is the conviction of the Founders that we should never have a president who did not grow up as an American.

      The idea, at the time, was that citizenship was conveyed through the parents, or more often just through the father, with the purpose being assuring that no legitimate candidate for the presidency would have grown up with divided loyalties, being influenced by the loyalties of his father as well as any loyalty to the United States.

      We are seeing the wisdom of this belief, as we now have a man as president who evidently did not have divided loyalties at all, but rather a very strong dislike for the United States (other than what the country could give him) and absolutely no childhood experiences or traditions of sharing in the American experience. He didn’t even set foot in the continental United States till he was 18, and has always been only technically an American citizen, by quirk of law rather than by culture and experience and loyalty.

      The first serious male influence in his life, his adopted father, came to respect the United States, and the result was that his anti-American mother yanked him out of the home and packed him off to Hawaii, to live with his anti-American grandparents and be “mentored” by a card-carrying, America-hating, Communist. We tend to forget (and historically illiterate Lefties never knew) that Hawaii in the 60s and into the 70s had a very strong anti-American taint, with a lot of resentment at statehood being (as the radicals saw it) imposed on it. There is a reason his grandparents, and Frank Marshall Davis, found it such a compatible place to live when they could not stand living in the United States any more. Technically, it was part of America, but in many respects only on the surface.

      An analogy might be someone born in the barrios of Los Angeles, growing up in Mexican culture, surrounded by people who had never chosen to learn to speak English, with no participation in American culture, learning only twisted Leftist versions of American history in which white people are always the villains, with his only political influences those of La Raza and the Reconquistas and the seething hatred and resentments of these groups toward the United States. American? Technically. Culturally and emotionally and intellectually? Probably not. The kind of person likely to have the best interests of the United States at heart? Not likely at all. But get a bunch of Latinos who will vote for him just because of the color of his skin, and bunch of squishy Dems eager to prove how open minded they are, and someone like this could attain great power and the ability to use it to weaken the country he grew up hating.

      Sound familiar?

      The question asked by about half of Americans, and which will be repeated by all historians, is “how the hell did this guy get to the Oval Office?” Well, even now the Complicit Agenda Media are doing their best to avoid discussing any of this, after working so diligently to get the guy elected, hiding and covering up every aspect of his life that might make people wonder if he was the best guy for the job, or even legally qualified for the job.

      I understand Obama’s antipathy toward this country—it was bred into him and carefully nurtured, and is as much a part of him as real citizenship is to someone reared as an American. The Complicit Agenda Media’s eager promotion of him is harder to understand, as theoretically most of their members did grow up as Americans.

      • shawny2011 February 10, 2015 / 6:27 am


        Yes, I have done quite a bit of research on both the Native and Natural born issue. I think it was so important to the founders to make sure of where the loyalties of our top leadership lies that the requirement of Natural Born Citizenship only applies to the President and Vice Presidential candidates. But even if that were not the case, Obama, because of his past affiliations (which continue to this day) there is no way he could even get a lower level security clearance. How in the world can this be allowed to happen? This man ran on the New Party ticket to get elected to the Senate. If any of his heredity is to be believed, the Obama family are devout Muslims, the Dunhams Communists and today he surrounds himself with and supports both. Any way you look at it Obama’s deeply ingrained beliefs prevent him from loyalty to this country or or any Constitutional Republic founded on Christian principals. I’m in my 60’s and don’t recall a time in my life when so many of our allies have been flatly betrayed as by this president either. If a foreign enemy had come to power in this country, it’s very hard to imagine what the difference would be.

    • M. Noonan February 9, 2015 / 12:10 pm

      But to Obama it wasn’t a stretch. When he was in college, that is what he was told: the Crusades were pure evil and the Muslims were entirely justified in being angry over them…just as, for instance, an African-American in 2015 is supposed to be justifiably angry over slavery which ended in 1865…for people like Obama, guilt and victimhood do transfer across generations and until the victim feels that the guilty has properly atoned for his guilt, it continues on. As we Christians – in the eyes of Muslims – have still not atoned for 1099, they are still justified in being angry…and we’re not even allowed to bring up things like 1453.

      • shawny2011 February 10, 2015 / 6:30 am

        Obama has made partial reparations to blacks and native Americans. Surprised he has not already deemed that some repayment be made to Muslims.

Comments are closed.