Cool News
Okay... Just To Clear Up This CRUSADE(S) Thing...
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
No. The movie that Ridley Scott is talking about making is not the same film that Arnold Schwarzeneggar and Paul Verhoeven have long harbored the dream of making.
Walon Green wrote that script, and you can click here if you want to read a script review for it.
According to VARIETY's Michael Fleming, Ridley Scott's project is something else entirely:
"Twentieth Century Fox, which last fall signed an overall deal with Ridley and Tony Scott's Scott Free banner that calls for each brother to direct a film there, has hired screenwriter William Monahan to create a film about the Crusades, when Christians were directed by the church to forcefully spread their faith across Europe and into Jerusalem."
Right now, Scott's film sounds like the merest hint of a concept. He wants to start the film by this winter, according to the article, so it looks like Monahan's got his work cut out for him.
So if you were hoping to see Arnold finally slip into the character of Hagen, looks like you've got some more waiting to do. And if you want to hear Ridley Scott talk about what he's up to, tune in to Wednesday's "Fresh Air" on NPR. Maybe he'll discuss this himself.
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
Mar 06, 2002 5:17:32 AM CST
You know, it's difficult to get excited about the prospect o
by st buggering
Except possibly "King Conan". And even there, I'm not getting more than cautiously optimistic. Let's face it, Arnold has lost his uncanny ability to latch onto interesting projects. Ridley Scott, on the other hand, has a little bit of my respect again after "Blackhawk Down". Still, his career is only about 50/50 for me.
-
either you're been reading too much E.E. Cummings, or you need to lay off the crystal meth. Either way, you're STILL making more sense than some talback regulars.
-
well I dunno about anyone else but I'm hoping this don't turn into another Islam/middle east-bashing movie...that and considering current sh!t going on in the middle-east area I'm not so sure hollywood should be aiming for a 'christian-West against the heathens' approach to entertainment just yet.
-
We all know how Hollywood has habit of taking a historical topic and skipping the "history" bit. So let's see if they show how the crusaders butchered, looted and killed all the way to jerusalam where they put 100,000 civilians to the sword!! and started the animosity between the two great faiths for ages to last and not the "noble" crusaders that fillms have romanticed so far.
-
...this looks like it's gonna be another 'black hawk down'-style cast of thousands deal. no a-listers, lots of semi-names. could work if the script's any good but you know ridley doesn't really give a shit about any of that anymore. (did he ever?)
-
As I mentioned to Harry when I met him at Borders last Friday, I wonder whatever happened to the Moustapha Akkad's Saladin starring Sean Connery which was mentioned here years ago? Now that would be a film I would very much like to see but I guess post-September 11th it is probably impossible for Hollywood to depict a great Muslim hero. Shame!
-
Mar 06, 2002 8:26:30 AM CST
Oh, please! This is just the movie the world needs these days...
by wardog
What better way to rub salt in the old wounds and monumentally piss off the whole fucking Muslim world. I don't ever want to see this movie filmed. Also, because Hollywood would fuck it up by revising history, probably making the Crusaders the bad guys. Okay, they were invading the Holy Land to take it back from the Muslims, but they WERE NOT trying to force their faith on others, just drive out the non-believers from the Holy Land. And, 19th, as for this being the start of the great conflict between Christianity and Islam, that's bullshit. Muslims were butchering "infidels" long before the Crusades. Go read Paul Fregosi's excellent book,_Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries_ if you don't believe me. Hell, Islam had conquered ancient Palestine a hundred years after the death of Muhammad. It's Islam that converts by the sword, not Christianity, for all those in the past who have perverted Christianity. It's just too damned easy for Muslims to convert "jihad" as a personal struggle against evil into war against anything or anyone who may be regarded as evil. And if non-believers are thought of as a threat and thus evil, well, kill them off too! ******* But, all in all, this movie would just be a mishmash revisionist POS and piss off Muslims anyway, so why bother. We already have Terry Jones excellent series, _The Crusades_ as a basic primer for anyone who wants to learn about the real impetus for them. I recommend people read that too, and for God's sake, be informed before you open your mouths.
-
You forgot "Thelma & Louise", by the way, one of the best...
-
"and started the animosity between the two great faiths for ages to last and not the "noble" crusaders that fillms have romanticed so far"
Well, along those lines, I wonder if they'll mention what prompted the Crusades. You know, the Turkish invasion the Byzantine Empire, the Emperor's appeal to the pope for help. And the animosity goes back before the Crusades. The Muslims invaded Europe, occupied Spain, damn near occupied France before being defeated and driven out. But if you know your history, at the time of Columbus the King of Spain still had not totally driven out the Muslim invaders from his country. Although I'm not justifying what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem, it is very understandable why this thing was started. Europe had by the time of the first Crusade witness two attempted Muslim invasions. To put this in Elementary terms: they started it. And long after the Crusades were over, they still continued to attempt to invade Europe, finally succeeding in destroying the Byzantine Empire, occupying what is now Yugoslavia (setting up the war that lasted most of last decade in the Balkans and still has US troops stationed there as peacekeepers--yes, ancient history still affects us today), virtually depopulated much of Austria when they invaded it later, those that weren't killed were taken back as slaves when the massive besieging army was forced to retreat because it had ravaged the land so bad it couldn't even support itself any more.
Anyway, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this reaction on this board. It just isn't politically correct to make a movie showing exploits of the West, or especially America. It's the "in" thing to look at people who hate you as the good guys. And that's not an anti-Islam statement in general (although I do strongly disagree with Islam), but the fact is the Crusades were sparked because the Turks were trying to force their will on Europe. Granted, the Crusaders did commit wrongs as well, but that's true in every single war that's ever happened. Never is one side completely angelic. War just does not lend itself to that kind of behavior. But the fact is, the concept of democracy that I believe most of us enjoy today would never have happened had the Turks succeeded in conquering Europe. Not convinced? Name one predominantly Muslim country with a non-secular government that has the freedoms of Europe or America, or for that matter a truly working democracy. And at the time of the Crusades, European tactics were not very good, so we really should be grateful the Crusaders kept the Turks busy for a while to give Europe a little time to improve it's military prowess (they did fight a lot in that era, but they in general didn't fight particularly smart, which is one of the reason the Turks defeated the Crusades, and why much of Eastern Europe got handed it's ass by the Mongols). Else there is a good chance we would not be sitting here, typing on the internet, bitching about Hollywood movies.
Anyway, people keep interuppting me and I keep losing track of where I was going with this, so I'll stop now. -
Although I like RS, he's prone to long, dull scenes focussing on long, dull scenery. 1492 was full of that, and the only really good thing about that film was Michael Wincott. I personally felt that Black Rain was fairly xenophobic, but its a point I can't be arsed to defend. Anyway, The Yakuza is a much better film. Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator are excellent. Duellists was a bit ponderous. GI Jane and Legend are entertaining fluff. White Squall and Black Hawk Down don't interest me. Hannibal: I liked the book well enough, was put off by Scott's remarks while making it. You missed off Thelma and Louise.
-
the only reason Islam is criticised is because whenever there's any publicity (films/news etc) its always bad..people representing Islam that are bad don't = Islam bad..if that were the case, then you could say alot for people like Hitler and their faiths..
and the very notion that a film would be made about the crusades is merely to keep the Gladiator-vibe going instead of any kind of historical accuracy angle.. hell past experience should be a bloody big warning siren to you all concerning Hollywood+accuracy:
A Beautiful Mind,U571,Gladiator etc..
-
It's the in thing (I'd hope) not to hate them anymore, and realize that there are circumstances and context around everything. The King of Byzantium, when begging for help to Rome, charged the Muslims with, among other things, cannibalism--charges that were more-or-less false. On the other hand, such a charge became more truthful of the crusaders themselves, who were often not well-supplied, and who were reported (by both Islamic sources as well as Christian chroniclers of the time) to resort to cannibalism of the three-or-four-day-old dead to survive. The Crusaders made no effort to protect the Jews who lived peacefully and without persecution in Islamic cities--those Jews were treated just like the Muslims--often killed, cause,you know, anti-semitism was endemic in Europe and England pretty much kicked its entire Jewish population out by the 1200s. Making yourself aware of history makes it clear that strict heroes and villains are not available (though I still get a visceral charge out of the smitings in "The Song of Roland"), and that, ultimately, as a friend of mine says: wouldn't these people get along better if they just realized that there isn't a God? Not sure if I'm kidding about that last point.
-
They will probably make some point about the Christians misunderstanding the Muslims and vice versa.
The last film I saw on the subject(Robin Hood Prince of Thieves) portrayed the arabs in Jerusalem as blood thirsty savages. There was a muslim character--but he was a dark-skinned Moor. Three Kings may be the only film in recent memory that tried to personify the Arab--but for every three Kings, there is a half dozen Executive Decisions and the truly racist Rules of Engagement.
Since conspiracy theories are all the rage--I just wonder if Columbia's idea to dust off Sinbad the sailor and put Singleton at the helm was motivated by that Government meeting to use Hollywood to show the Middle East how caring the US is about them and their culture. "Hey! We respect Islam! We make Sinbad movies!...OK dropping daisy cutter on Iraqi water treatment facility...three two one BOOM"
-
Mar 06, 2002 10:05:19 AM CST
My favorite Ridley Scott Films...by Mr. S. O. Baldric
by sod off baldric
In no particular order: Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and Hannibal (flame away). Black Rain, while not a bad film, was a bit dull and overlong (I've never been able to make it to the end). Legend...well, I still can't make my mind up about that one. Some great performances (Tim Curry especially), but ultimately the story had no focus and I really didn't feel anything for the characters. The rest I can pretty much do without.
-
I saw an interview with Scott on TV yesterday, he was asked about this possible movie. He laughed and said that while he's developing something like that, it's way off in the future and not his next project.
-
It will be interesting to see how this film plays out, knowing its producers are more than likely Jewish. The truth about the Crusades should not be veiled, how they were devastating to the Arab peoples. I just hope that this is not a vain attempt by RS to go for another H'wood epic a la Gaydiator, overdramatic and historically a nice little make-em-up. It's a good chance to show that we (the west) recognize that the Crusades were a terribly hypocritic and ruthless time for the Christian world, and that faith can rip the fabric of this earth.
-
I hope Ridley gets this done, even if the finished product will be 4 hours.
Are Arnold and Paul trying to get a flick made about the Crusades, as well? -
I'd say he's batting under .500. I loved Duellist, Alien, and Blade Runner. But then it was a dry spell there until Black Hawk Down. I found movies like Legend, 1492, Someone to Watch Over Me, and even Thelma and Louise to be unimpressive, and even visually pedestrian, by Scott's standards. I don't know anything about the Crusades project. As far as I know, there's no script, no cast, just a germ of an idea. Everyone's dreaming if they think this'll be out anytime in the near future, if at all. I thought Scott was doing a Captain Kidd film next. As for Columbia's Sinbad project. I hope it's not the Bob Gale script I heard about a few years ago. That was truly awful.
-
..the thought of a new Ridley Scott movie is no longer the big deal it used to be. Scott nowadays seems just content to knock 'em out for the big studios and sit back on the laurels of Alien and Blade Runner. He makes beautifully filmed and composed no-brain fillers...the merest look at the peice of fluff that was Black Hawk Down and the extremely disappointing Hannibal confirms this. He has no world view, he has no fire in his belly, he's just keeping himself in cigars. Fine, you can't fight the battles all the time but if youre reading this Ridely then prove us wrong. Make our jaws drop the way you did with Blade Runner, Legend and with Alien. Stune me. Suprise Me. Enthrall Me like you used to. A man of your skill allied to a script of intellect and meaning would be a killer way to cap your career...you just ain't doin' it to me no more, sorry.
-
Read the `98 script review for this just now. For the most part it sounds like another finely produced piece of fiction for Hollywood. I have absolutely no trouble with tinseltown doing 'Crusade', but I sincerely wish they'd do it right. The Crusades were for the most part, a defensive war that turned into a corrupt pooch screw, courtesy of an overzealous urge on behalf of the Catholic church. (Remember folks, it's okay to have an utterly evil villan, so long as he white male head of the church. When was the last time you saw a GOOD Pope on screen?........exactly, I can't remember either.)
Remember that speech in 'True Romance' on how the "Moors conquered Sicily"? Well, I know you fan boys do, because some of us certainly don't recall history. The Moorish empire at one time stretched as far as Spain until they were stopped by the English. If they hadn't been stopped, they might well have run hog wild across the rest of Europe.___________________________
The Church turned back the tide, then, heady from their initial victory, proceeded to lose the seven major crusades thereafter in an attempt to covert a centuries old religious people who were as devout in their faith as they were theirs. To say this was arrogance, is an understatement, but to absolve the Muslims any wrong doing, would be equally heinous. Any land gained against them, was soon lost. The Crusades stand as just one of the many footnotes of bad blood on both sides between Europe and the Mideast (the result being basicly Christianity running amok on itself, as they sacked fellow Christian cities). So if they do a flick on this, paint it in grays, not black and white...for me. Please. -
Mar 06, 2002 3:14:07 PM CST
Anything that keeps Ridley away from that God-awful IAM LEGEND s
by cash bailey
God knows what Harry sees in that draft. Probably the same thing he sees in Sam Hamm's utter shit first BATMAN draft.
-
I've heard talk of both 'Perfume' and 'Alien 5'. I hope he's keeping his current pace, I've thoroughly enjoyed his last three films. 'Blade Runner' is still his greatest, though.
-
I was really looking forward to that one! I supposed a film about the Crusades will be worth the disappointment of not seeing another battle with my favorite slime monster, I'm game!
-
I have no idea what Zombiehunter is blabbing on about, obviously an ill informed moron. If mainstream Islam was fanatical and wanted us dead we'd probably be dead. You know why? Cuz there's like 1 BILLION MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD. I guess that means nothing to you cuz you're too stupid to understand numbers. I'll try and explain it simpler, for every 6 ppl on earth 1 is a muslim. Understand dumbass? Most of them are nice normal folks unlike yourself. As for the Crusades, both sides were vicious so it would be best to show that in the movie. The muslims killed what they termed infidels but so did your wonderful christians, hell they even sent children to fight in something called THE CHILDREN's CRUSADE. About the only innocent folks were THE JEWS who were harrasssed and murdered by both like they've always suffered throught history. Who's to blame? Hell I dunno, the muslims spread their religion with Muhammad through Europe cuz they thought Allah wanted that and the christians tried to win bkack the holy lands cuz they thought God wanted that. Bottom line is religion if f*cked up.
-
I have no idea what Zombiehunter is blabbing on about, obviously an ill informed moron. If mainstream Islam was fanatical and wanted us dead we'd probably be dead. You know why? Cuz there's like 1 BILLION MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD. I guess that means nothing to you cuz you're too stupid to understand numbers. I'll try and explain it simpler, for every 6 ppl on earth 1 is a muslim. Understand dumbass? Most of them are nice normal folks unlike yourself. As for the Crusades, both sides were vicious so it would be best to show that in the movie. The muslims killed what they termed infidels but so did your wonderful christians, hell they even sent children to fight in something called THE CHILDREN's CRUSADE. About the only innocent folks were THE JEWS who were harrasssed and murdered by both like they've always suffered throught history. Who's to blame? Hell I dunno, the muslims spread their religion with Muhammad through Europe cuz they thought Allah wanted that and the christians tried to win bkack the holy lands cuz they thought God wanted that. Bottom line is religion if f*cked up.
-
seriously. i love the man. i love his work. i love his style. and i can't wait to start looking forward to his next picture.
-
Well, it's fun for me at least. To begin with, rabid republican, it was the Franks who halted the Muslim advance on Europe from the West, not the English.------------Further, for those who keep stating that had the Muslims conquered Europe it would basically be a shithole (much as , in all honesty, the predominantly Muslim nations are today) would do well to take severl things into account. First, there is a big ass difference between the Middle Eastern economies based largely upon the export of a single product and the arable, mineral rich lands of Europe. That said, your premise is based on flawed logic anyway. Western Europe was just as autocratic at that time as were the Muslim countries; at that point the only lands in which the individualistic political thought which so influenced Europe in later centuries existed to any great extent were the Germanic lands. Actually, the greatest threat to this type of political thought was most likely not the spread of the Muslim faith but the Roman Empire way back in the day.
-
Mar 07, 2002 2:16:37 AM CST
Missed "Fresh Air"? go to http://freshair.npr.org/dayFA.cfm?tod
by ambrose chappell
enjoy
-
All those who say Muslims started it - get this straight and read your history from authentic books before showing going into a verbal diarrhea. I agree muslims invaded Europe but please we are talking about Slaughter of thousands of civilians. the likes of Zombiehunter (who might as well be a zombie) get that when Saladin captured Jerusalem back he could have done the same and he didn't! Crusaders were just a bad escuse for looting. They ransacked Constantinapole who BTW way were Christians too. Killed the Chrsitians and Jews of Jerusalem as well. So don't tell me who started what. If Muslims ruled spain for 800 YEARS by sword then there wouldn't be any christians in spain at that time, so technically all the present spanish population are invaders as well. So get your head out of CNN and smell the coffee.
-
but they seem to be on this talkback. I've never seen such a one-sided perspective of history, current affairs etc. It makes me glad the Church is in decline. Go the Buddhists. Now I'll leave some of you to keep frothing. Hey, how about a healthy debate on creationism, or wether women have souls? *** ZombieHunter, do you live in a trailer?
-
Mar 07, 2002 6:24:24 AM CST
Well thank you for blessing me with your wisdom, ZombieHunter
by spacepervert
Your problem is that you argue like a Jehovah's Witness, which ultimately makes you look like a rabid, barking lunatic. You're also extremely abusive, which is neither big nor clever. Well done, you've read a few books. Have a medal, no have three. It appears that you've only absorbed facts which conveniently fit a highly prejudiced and dogmatic world-view. The trailer remark is based on the fact that frankly, I think you're paranoid. But prove me wrong, please. If your reasoning is really so balanced and informed, then like any competent historian you should be able to consider multiple viewpoints. Are you capable of that, or are you just a religious bigot seeking credibility by portraying opinions as facts?
-
Mar 07, 2002 8:59:08 AM CST
By concentrating on the exactities of the causes of the crusades
by aggregatescore
These events have the potential to be converted into superb narratives. Especially the first crusade, which would require a huge ensemble cast (Godfrey, Bohemund, Hugh, Raymond, Kerbogha, Tancred, the Pope, Alexius etc. etc.). Hell, you could make a whole movie just about the siege of Antioch. If they do this well it could be fantastic. Sadly they'll probably do a half-arsed job and make up a ficticious central character. I hate Hollywood sometimes.---------------------------Rabid_Republican, how on earth can you relegate the cruasades to being a mere "footnote"? For good or ill, these campaigns were some of the most extraordinary and improbable ever to be fought.----------------On the subject, why can't Hollywood take the initiative and start exploiting some non-20th century wars: The Peloponnesian wars; the Punic wars; The hundred years war; the Napoleonic wars; the American Civil war etc. etc. Why instead must we be force fed a continuous diet of WWII films (admittedly very important) and 'Nam films (a very insignificant war in terms of 3000 years of world history?
-
Mar 07, 2002 9:45:57 AM CST
ZombieHunter, you must be the star of the debating society.
by spacepervert
Here's a few free tips to sharpen your technique. If you're as smart as you think you are, you'll review your own statements in that light, rather than going off on another rant. You punctuate every sentence with an insult. This devalues your argument. You ramble. This devalues your argument. You can't make a point succinctly and coherently. This devalues your argument. Now, the reason I called you paranoid is because you seem to be constantly looking for an enemy. Why is that? This isn't a debate, it's a shouting match. But I apologise for assuming you were a fundie - salvos like "for ever 6 people on this planet...there are almost TWO Christians" sure make you sound like one. That's a pretty dumb remark, by the way. Have you been round and asked all of them? Population demographics are not evidence of belief. Furthermore, agreed, facts aren't prejudiced, but their use to support a one-sided argument is. Now, I will try to wade through your post, but forgive me if some of it actually goes over my head. Sadly, I'm just not on your wavelength. "Christians were directed by the church etc." well, given the threat of excommunication if they didn't engage in a costly and bloody land war, where's the confusion? Pope Urban II, 1095, correct me if I'm wrong. Now, no-ones defending massacre, invasion or religious/philosphical intolerance, by anyone against anyone. Are you denying that the Crusaders enacted atrocities, or are you simply trying to point out similar crimes by invading Islamic forces? My issue with you is that you seem to imply a strain of evil in all moslems, and that's ignorant, racist and also not true. I hope I've misunderstood you. You may simply be stating that government based on religious principles is prone to repressive behaviour, in which case I wholeheartedly agree. Now, I haven't read Sun Tzu, but I've read Lao Tzu, the Tao Teh Ching, does that count? Anyway your point is lost on me. As for the Children's Crusade, I'm aware that they went of their own will, led by "Stephen" and "Nicholas". Seemed to be some kind of mass hysteria. I suppose they were coerced as much as the good people of Jonestown. Ah shit, just run out of attention span..er... PHANTOM MENACE SUCKS! LOTR RULES!
-
zombie hunter, i dont know what u r trying 2 do, there must b some other way 2 project ur opinion without making it look like ur trying 2 attack some1 with it. U do present a valuable point of view..and u can make an argument ( i dont know y this is just a talkback session not a debate)..it is just how u present it....adjust ur delivery..and u can convince any1 of anything...p.s. pls try not 2 b so abusive...i have no doubt in my mind that u offended a few ppl here..who cares who started it?...just b man enuff 2 end it..
-
There were indeed great differences between the structures of their politcal systems which allowed Europe to progress towards democracy while Muslim lands...festered. That said, I'm sure you know that there was a time when the Muslim societies were the pinnacle of civilization, and Europe picked up a great deal of knowledge in mathematics and the sciences from them. Though the Muslim faith was spread with the sword it was extremely tolerant of those faiths which still existed in the areas which it ruled, and many conquered peoples later converted of their own free will. So the Muslim world hasn't always been ass backwards, and I think, not quite deserving of complete condemnation.
-
Not quite as inflammatory a subject for a Talkback as Star Wars, but close. It's simultaneously entertaining and disturbing to see just how many people can be wrong about the same thing in so many different ways. On of the few one-eyed men in this particular country of the blind is ZombieHunter, who reeks of bigotry against Islam and Muslims but does at least bother to get his facts right more often than not, which is more than I can say for most of the posters on here. Since the rest of you are doing such a feeble job of disagreeing with him, I'll just point out that, for all the sound and fury he's been producing, the fact remains that the Crusades were often downright vicious, even by the standards of the time, while the Muslim response to them tended to be (by those same standards) noticeably humane. Saladin didn't get his chivalrous reputation from nowhere, you know. Consequently his "Why you cound (sic) never make any movie about the Crusades" point is not just wrong, but ludicrous. Less silly, but also untrue is the suggestion that the Crusades were some sort of defensive response to Muslim aggression in Europe. The only Islamic aggression that played any significant part in triggering them was the Turkish conquest of Anatolia, and even with regard to that, although relieving the beleagured Christians of the east was a major part of Urban's original agenda, as far as those who actually went on crusade were concerned it was all about Jerusalem. And what was all that drivel about France and Germany about, anyway? Also, I have no idea where that date of 800 AD he keeps waving around like a banner comes from, but it's certainly not from anything to do with the Muslim invasion of Spain. Try 711 and you might be getting somewhere. Elementary fact, but he somehow managed to get it wrong. The scary thing is that most of you make this guy sound reasonable and well-informed. Oh, and remission of penance is not the same as remission of sin. Small point, but there it is.
-
Back off, I haven't created any environments. You're making a lot of assumptions yourself, like the one that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, a bleeding-heart liberal or an apologist. You've insulted, bullied and thrown tantrums at some fairly moderate people here. So, on to your two lovely posts. If you are irritated and sick and tired, go to sleep, think of your heart, eat an orange or something. As previously stated, just because people don't agree with you, doesn't mean they haven't thought about their answers. Life must be hard and lonely for you, being the smartest person on the planet. Have you considered a career as a supervillain? So anyway, its the repercussions of this kind of bullshit that create a spirit of understanding like the Reconciliation Walk. Christians and Moslems; justify your figures please; they seem a little arbitrary to me, ie (guess what) an opinion unsupported by evidence. Now, Urban's speech; Oh boy are you quoting out of context. Here's a bit you missed out: "you will surely lose the reward laid up for you with God. And after you have been bitterly scourged with remorse for your faults-, you will be fiercely overwhelmed in hell, the abode of death." here's the rest;http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-fulcher.html. Now, in defence of moslems (can I just ask, is there a particular reason for your venom? you seem to have a personal issue which clouds your reason) we've all had an age of empires, and the exterior motive has almost always been to "conquer and civilise" - Roman empire, British empire, Ottoman empire, Persian empire, and also North American settlers. You'll always get greedy people further exploiting the indigenous people they're supposed to be ruthlessly civilising. Moslems behaved a lot better towards conquered states than your country or mine. The Romans actually brought huge benefits as well as all the usual raping, looting and pillaging. We still couldn't wait to get rid of them. Moving on. Race and religion are less interchangeable than they used to be, which is one reason why your point about numbers is nonsensical. And yes I know that Arabs (and many North Africans) are caucasoid. The distinction is biological, not cultural. Page two: I don't know what account you've read of the crusades, but most legitimate historical sources (ie the ones without a political agenda, which excludes Samuel Huntington right away) flatly disagree with you. It's not actually my field, and besides I've just spotted the excellent and lucid post by Seepgood further down, so I'll leave it at that. Ask me about Anglo-Saxon culture, or National-Socialist german economics and society. Oh yes, the Japanese. The comfort women, treatment of POWs and even Unit 731 are well-publicized, and in now way secret history except in Japan, where there's a constant battle to teach their own history accurately. This does not excuse the internment camps. Despite these horrendous crimes, the vast majority of Japanese are pretty decent people, and their culture contains a lot to admire. Nazis? Did you know senior members of the German army tried to assassinate Hitler twice? Try reading the story of Max Schmeling sometime, it deserves a wider audience. Now we get to American Indians. Are you honestly suggesting that native Americans have done more environmental damage than generations of immigrants? Perhaps you'd like a little time to consider your answer... Slavery; the Roman economy depended on slavery. British fleets started the slave trade to America, and stopped it after we got a guilty conscience in 1807 and 1833. If there's a focus on one aspect of the history of slavery, its because a country tends to teach its own history, not anybody else's. But it does sound like you get a kick out of stirring things up. C'mon on, did you really expect any other response when you raised that point? Anyway, you make it sound as if you offered an excuse for slavery, or at least a mitigating circumstance. I'm sure you'll agree that there's no such thing.
Your last point on accusations, political correctness and the ruining of peoples lives and careers. None of this justifies your adherence to an opposite extreme. In fact here's a pearl of wisdom. Whatever point you're making, because of the violence of your argument and your opinions, drives people to the opposite end. You defeat yourself because nobody wants to agree with an extremist and you, my friend, are an extremist, just as much as the apolgists, revisionists and pinkos that you despise. As it happens, your statements cause no suffering at all. I'm beginning to enjoy this.
-
Mar 09, 2002 1:30:42 PM CST
Hey, ZombieHunter, don't you just hate it when Talkbacks dis
by seepgood
I do, because it generally means people stop reading them, and it's irritating to be cut off in mid-argument, even when you're arguing with idiots. However, there's a chance that you might come back to bask in the glow of the frankly jaw-dropping superiority complex revealed in all its glory by your last post, so I'll say this anyway. Firstly, the Franco-German shebang - how exactly did you manage to misunderstand what I said so spectacularly? In what way did my post imply that any mention of French or German involvement in the Crusades (or in conflict with Muslims in general) was drivel? It didn't. I don't see how anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the English language could think that it did. What I was trying to say was that *the specific things that you said about that subject* were drivel. What could possibly have unified such different peoples, you ask. Do you mean the unity of the kingdom of the Franks? Because if you do, that unity was created not by some Islamic threat but by the military power of the Merovingian Franks about a century before the time of Muhammad. Later on, Merovingian central power deteriorated and their territories broke into three segments, Neustria, Austrasia and Burgundy, which were themselves decentralised and vulnerable to further fragmentation as areas such as Aquitaine and Bavaria broke away to form effectively independent duchies. Now, had you been talking about the reversal of that process of decay you would have been onto something, since the Islamic threat was a major catalyst of the restoration of central authority in the Frankish lands under Charles Martel and his Carolingian successors. But to talk in terms of a split between French and Germans at that time is nonsensical - territories approximating to "France" and "Germany" didn't even come into existence until the next turn of the wheel, when Carolingian power broke down in the course of the 9th century. Even after the territorial split became permanent, the idea of distinct French or German identity took some time to emerge and replace the old Frankish identity and the various tribal loyalties that underlay it. Beware the muddying of the waters by historians trying to interpret those times through a prism of later national identities and ideologies. Secondly, as for Otto I, you might be well-advised to get into detail about him, because I'm pretty sure he never fought Muslims in his life (except maybe in Italy and I doubt that) - I presume the incident you refer to is the Battle of the Lechfeld in 955, where he defeated pagan Hungarians who wouldn't have known a Muslim if he bit them on the nose. Thirdly, you really are even further up yourself than I thought if you imagine that I don't know what chivalry is, or that I didn't use the word deliberately. I used it because it was in terms of their own codes of chivalry that Christian writers of the time described Saladin's conduct - and when even your enemies think that you're at least as good a practitioner of their own values as they are themselves, you know you're doing something right. Fourthly, the first sentence of your post didn't make much sense, but I think you were taking issue with my assertion that Muslim aggression besides the invasion of Anatolia did not directly cause the Crusades, and that even that soon faded from view. You see, the really silly thing about your insistence on clinging to "around 800" as a start date is that the main thrust of Islamic conquest had long since ceased by that year. There were a few islands grabbed after it, some short-lived raiding bases in France and Italy, but the main tide had ebbed decades before. There was no further major Islamic advance in Europe until the rise of the Ottomans from the 14th century - a time which, at the risk of stating the obvious, was not "around 800" either. By the time the First Crusade set out the Muslim offensive in Europe was history three-and-a-half centuries old. Furthermore, if the crusaders had been fighting some sort of strategic campaign for the interests of their faith they would have directed their efforts into the reconquest of Spain, or else into a sustained effort to drive back the Turks in Anatolia, as Alexios and to some extent Urban had originally intended. They didn't. They went to Jerusalem, a place of supreme irrelevance for the defence of Christendom and an absurd starting-point for any general counter-offensive against Islam. Every one of the mainstream crusades against the Muslims was directed at regaining or protecting the Holy Places. The crusaders were not warriors pursuing the territorial and security interests of their faith in the manner of Muslim ghazis, or the Spanish soldiers of the Reconquista. They were military pilgrims, driven by the conviction that the holy sites of their faith should be in Christian hands. And no, none of it would have been necessary if Jerusalem hadn't been taken by the Muslims in the 7th century - but nobody in western Europe was much bothered at the time, or for centuries afterwards. The crusading movement grew out of social and religious developments in the 11th century West and its fuse was lit by the conquest of Anatolia. The Muslim invasion of Europe just wasn't in it. And finally, the question of bigotry. "Telling it like it is" involves not simply ensuring that any strictly factual statement you make is verifiably correct (something you haven't exactly done with a great deal of reliability but there we are). It involves the impartial assessment of all the evidence before you. It involves giving credit where it's due and condemnation where it's deserved. It involves not simply quarrying the evidence for facts that suit a conclusion arrived at in advance and ignoring, denying or twisting out of recognition anything that contradicts your preconceptions. In other words, it bears little resemblance to what you've been doing on this subject. "Bigotry" may have been to strong a word, but "prejudice" is not. Whether your dislike of Islam or the more general chip on your shoulder about criticism of the West (which can admittedly get pretty daft, as some of the posts here testify) is the main source of your bile I don't know, but they're both there and they both distort your understanding of the matter in hand. This has been a very long post, which will probably never be read, but I wouldn't have had to make it if you'd understood my first one.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts