but.......THE CRUSADES!

[crispybits]

awww and I was just getting revved up too.... now I'm sat here with my pants round my ankles and no JGL photos to climax to....

Edit - nvm found a good one...

[notyou2]

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

What do you mean? The eastern Roman Empire, aka Constantinople lasted more or less until the 13th century. You are just being a snot. But that it what you are. Oh well ... Carry on then.

The eastern Roman Empire is debatable whether it was even part of the traditional Roman Empire.

Where's a 'cringe' emoticon when you need it? Like saying Ireland was not a part of the UK, or Texas was not a part of Mexico (along with several other Western states), or that China was once ruled by ancient, rabid, Bronies.

The Byzantine Empire when part of the Roman Empire WAS THE ROMAN EMPIRE. The Roman Empire collapsed. The only part of it that was left that was still somewhat intact was the Byzantine Empire. There is a reason it is called the Byzantine Empire and not the Roman Empire. It was once part of the Roman Empire but it wasn't at the time that Dr Hatemongering was referring. The empire WAS GONE.

[muy_thaiguy]

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

What do you mean? The eastern Roman Empire, aka Constantinople lasted more or less until the 13th century. You are just being a snot. But that it what you are. Oh well ... Carry on then.

The eastern Roman Empire is debatable whether it was even part of the traditional Roman Empire.

Where's a 'cringe' emoticon when you need it? Like saying Ireland was not a part of the UK, or Texas was not a part of Mexico (along with several other Western states), or that China was once ruled by ancient, rabid, Bronies.

The Byzantine Empire when part of the Roman Empire WAS THE ROMAN EMPIRE. The Roman Empire collapsed. The only part of it that was left that was still somewhat intact was the Byzantine Empire. There is a reason it is called the Byzantine Empire and not the Roman Empire. It was once part of the Roman Empire but it wasn't at the time that Dr Hatemongering was referring. The empire WAS GONE.

Actually, "Byzantine Empire" wasn't even used by it's citizens. They called it the Roman Empire, since you know, it had been a part of the Roman Empire for centuries before the split, and after was simply called the Eastern Roman EMpire? Just read through the 1st paragraph there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

[tzor]

Also, all of the following are also true:
- "Hindus have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Confuscianists have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Roman Catholics have been growing and fighting Anglicans on a fairly steady basis"

I don't think that is true. In fact, I'm fairly certain of it.

While Hinduism and Christianity has had conflicts, there has not been an expansionist movement of Hindus into Christian lands by violence. In fact, the opposite has occurred. The Hindus around my Christian area are the nicest people I've ever met. It's a harder question on whether or not there was force on the Chrisian side because Christianity in India is almost as old as Christianity itself.

The same can be true with followers of Confucius. I don't see them waging holy wars of expansion.

And the situation between England and Ireland is somewhat unique and multidimensional. It is more than just Catholic / Anglican, the English at one time sold the Irish as slaves, while they never sold the English Catholics as slaves. There was never a movement to turn the Irish into Anglicans, merely a movement to completely crush the Catholic Church in Ireland, leaving behind a people without any religious whatsoever.

[saxitoxin]

Also, all of the following are also true:
- "Hindus have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Confuscianists have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Roman Catholics have been growing and fighting Anglicans on a fairly steady basis"

I don't think that is true. In fact, I'm fairly certain of it.

While Hinduism and Christianity has had conflicts, there has not been an expansionist movement of Hindus into Christian lands by violence.

Likewise, there has not been an expansionist movement of Muslims into Christian lands by violence.

As previously noted, in the last 1200 years there were two single incidents (not "movements") of military forces from a Muslim-majority nation entering an historically Christian territory (compared to 9+ of the reverse), and in each instance the causes were routine political and economic motivations, rather than religiously-inspired. Further:

I - In one of those two instances, Washington Irving posits the backwards Christians living in that area (Spain) achieved a net benefit from the technologically and culturally superior Arab government. (You've indicated you consider Bill, the math teacher with a YouTube account to be the intellectual superior to Washington Irving and that's okay.)



As conquerors, their heroism was only equaled by their moderation, and in both, for a time, they excelled the nations with whom they contended. Laying the foundations of their power in a system of wise and equitable laws, diligently cultivating the arts and sciences, and promoting agriculture, manufacture, and commerce, they gradually formed an empire unrivaled for its prosperity by any of the empires of Christendom. They diffused the light of oriental knowledge through the western regions of benighted Europe.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xK1AA ... 22&f=false



II - In the second of those cases, the Ottoman invasions, the architect of that attack - Suleiman the Magnificent - was so admired that his bust was permanently etched into the U.S. capitol between bas reliefs of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason in 1949. (No crusaders have been so honored.)

http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/relief- ... s/suleiman

[tzor]

Likewise, there has not been an expansionist movement of Muslims into Christian lands by violence.

I'm going to skip the Muslim conquest of Egypt (hint they weren't worshiping the old Egyptian gods at the time) as well as Turkey. And just look at Europe.
652: Sicily is attacked by Muslims coming out of Tunisia
700: Muslims from Pamntelleria raid the island of Sicily.
711: Battle of Guadalete
715: By this year just about all of Spain is in Muslim hands.
716: Lisbon is captured by Muslims.
725: Muslim forces occupied Nimes, France.
730: Muslim forces occupy the French cities of Narbonne and Avignon.
732: Battle of Tours
735: Muslim invaders capture the city of Arles.
813: Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome.
827: Sicily is invaded by Muslims
831: Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Palermo and make it their capital.
838: Muslim raiders sack Marseille.
841: Muslim forces capture Bari, principle Byzantine base in southeastern Italy.
846: Muslim raiders sail a fleet of ships from Africa up the Tiber river and attack outlying areas around Ostia and Rome.
849: Battle of Ostia
859: Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Castrogiovanni (Enna), slaughtering several thousand inhabitants.
869: Arabs capture the island of Malta.
870: After a month-long siege, the Sicilian city of Syracuse is captured by Muslim invaders.
876: Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy.
884: Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground.
909: Sicily came under the control of the Fatimids' rule of North Africa and Egypt until 1071.

No violence here.
No expansionism.
I mean it's not the direct command of their prophet.

[saxitoxin]

Likewise, there has not been an expansionist movement of Muslims into Christian lands by violence.

I'm going to skip the Muslim conquest of Egypt (hint they weren't worshiping the old Egyptian gods at the time) as well as Turkey. And just look at Europe.
652: Sicily is attacked by Muslims coming out of Tunisia
700: Muslims from Pamntelleria raid the island of Sicily.
711: Battle of Guadalete
715: By this year just about all of Spain is in Muslim hands.
716: Lisbon is captured by Muslims.
725: Muslim forces occupied Nimes, France.
730: Muslim forces occupy the French cities of Narbonne and Avignon.
732: Battle of Tours
735: Muslim invaders capture the city of Arles.
813: Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome.
827: Sicily is invaded by Muslims
831: Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Palermo and make it their capital.
838: Muslim raiders sack Marseille.
841: Muslim forces capture Bari, principle Byzantine base in southeastern Italy.
846: Muslim raiders sail a fleet of ships from Africa up the Tiber river and attack outlying areas around Ostia and Rome.
849: Battle of Ostia
859: Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Castrogiovanni (Enna), slaughtering several thousand inhabitants.
869: Arabs capture the island of Malta.
870: After a month-long siege, the Sicilian city of Syracuse is captured by Muslim invaders.
876: Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy.
884: Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground.
909: Sicily came under the control of the Fatimids' rule of North Africa and Egypt until 1071.

No violence here.
No expansionism.
I mean it's not the direct command of their prophet.

Like I said, there were two incidents: the Ummayyad invasion of Hispania, and the Ottoman invasion of southeastern Europe. You've presented a timeline of one of those incidents, and that's nice. You've indicated you consider Bill the YouTuber the intellectual superior of Washington Irving. That's also nice.

[saxitoxin]

Religious Views on Dinosaurs

Islam

Islam does not deny that these creatures existed or that they were of this great size, but the fact remains that when they speak of their lifespans and the details of their forms and lives, this is the field of science. The Muslim should not be preoccupied with that and he should not waste time discussing it or believe that it is a matter that has any impact on his religious commitment or belief, because he knows that the Qur’aan and Sunnah were revealed to guide people and show them the right way; their focus is not history, geography, earth science or biology.

Christianity

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonexistingdinosaur/

[tzor]

I should point out that the European invasions of the Middle East in the 19th century was not a "Christian" invasion. Europe had already fallen to the secular enlightenment area of the "Age of Reason." It was a "secular" invasion, not a "christian" one.

[tzor]

Like I said, there were two incidents: the Ummayyad invasion of Hispania, and the Ottoman invasion of southeastern Europe. You've presented a timeline of one of those incidents, and that's nice. You've indicated you consider Bill the YouTuber the intellectual superior of Washington Irving. That's also nice.

Two incidents? It's two hundred years of constant warfare and pillages. Not "TWO INCIDENTS." It's the entire history of the European Dark Ages!

[saxitoxin]

I should point out that the European invasions of the Middle East in the 19th century was not a "Christian" invasion. Europe had already fallen to the secular enlightenment area of the "Age of Reason." It was a "secular" invasion, not a "christian" one.

I should point out that the Arab and Bedouin invasions of Hispania in the 8th century were not a "Muslim" invasion. Historians agree* the reasons were economic and political and that the Arab government granted practiced religious tolerance and non-conversion. It was a "secular" invasion, not a "Muslim" one. (Actually I've pointed that out four times already.)

* Bill the YouTuber from North Carolina excluded

[saxitoxin]

Like I said, there were two incidents: the Ummayyad invasion of Hispania, and the Ottoman invasion of southeastern Europe. You've presented a timeline of one of those incidents, and that's nice. You've indicated you consider Bill the YouTuber the intellectual superior of Washington Irving. That's also nice.

Two incidents? It's two hundred years of constant warfare and pillages. Not "TWO INCIDENTS." It's the entire history of the European Dark Ages!

This is beyond silly. I'm actually arguing with someone whose position is based off what he saw in the YouTube rants of a snarling old rando from North Carolina who claims there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades. Tzor, do you really believe there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades? Also, do you believe the Earth is 4,000 years old and that UFOs are abducting cattle in Wyoming?

[notyou2]

Morty, it's like arguing with retards. I give up.

[tzor]

This is beyond silly. I'm actually arguing with someone whose position is based off what he saw in the YouTube rants ...

What is with it with you? I cite one your tube video because I liked all the dots and you think that is the only place where I get my info?

Well if I am going to be accused to citing wackos I might as well cite the best ... how about Wikipedia. That's really wacky.

According to traditional accounts, the Muslim conquests (Arabic: الغزوات‎, al-Ġazawāt or Arabic: الفتوحات الإسلامية‎, al-Futūḥāt al-Islāmiyya) also referred to as the Islamic conquests or Arab conquests,[2] began with the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the 7th century. He established a new unified polity in the Arabian Peninsula which under the subsequent Rashidun (The Rightly Guided Caliphs) and Umayyad Caliphates saw a century of rapid expansion of Muslim power.

They grew well beyond the Arabian Peninsula in the form of a Muslim empire with an area of influence that stretched from the borders of China and India, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees. Edward Gibbon writes in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

Under the last of the Umayyads, the Arabian empire extended two hundred days journey from east to west, from the confines of Tartary and India to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. And if we retrench the sleeve of the robe, as it is styled by their writers, the long and narrow province of Africa, the solid and compact dominion from Fargana to Aden, from Tarsus to Surat, will spread on every side to the measure of four or five months of the march of a caravan. We should vainly seek the indissoluble union and easy obedience that pervaded the government of Augustus and the Antonines; but the progress of Islam diffused over this ample space a general resemblance of manners and opinions. The language and laws of the Quran were studied with equal devotion at Samarcand and Seville: the Moor and the Indian embraced as countrymen and brothers in the pilgrimage of Mecca; and the Arabian language was adopted as the popular idiom in all the provinces to the westward of the Tigris.

Yea, the invasion of Spain was secular. Right. Tell me another funny story.

Precisely what happened in Iberia in the early 8th century is subject to much uncertainty. There is one contemporary Christian source, the Chronicle of 754 (which ends on that date), regarded as reliable but often vague. There are no contemporary Muslim accounts. What Muslim information there is comes from later compilations, which are much coloured by the writers' sense of what was proper, and by contemporary politics—the most prominent such compilation is that of Al-Maqqari, which dates from the 17th century. This paucity of sources means that any specific or detailed claims need to be regarded with caution.

On the first stage of the invasion the armies were made up of Berbers and different Arab groups. These peoples clustered around the banner of the Umayyads didn't mix together, but remained in separate towns and boroughs. The Berbers, recently subdued and superficially Islamized, were usually in charge of the most difficult tasks and the most rugged terrains, similar to the ones found in their homeland of north Africa, while the Arabs occupied the more gentle plains of southern Iberia.

I think that the best argument was the invasion was not "secular" but the Islamic commitment (or the weak commit) of the primary invading force (the Berbers) as well as constant internal strife among the ranks made it difficult for the leaders to establish any firm grip on the indigenous peoples.

And why did it end? (For the time being?)

The Safavid Empire ended with the death of its last ruler Ismail III who ruled from 1750 until his death in 1760. The Mughal Empire struggled with exhausting wars with the Maratha, internal strife, corruption and revolts, and fractured after 1719; the remaining loyal Mughal territory shrank throughout the next century and a half at the hands of the expanding British Empire until it was finally absorbed into the British Raj in 1857. The last surviving Muslim empire, the Ottoman Empire, collapsed in 1918 at the hands of the British Empire and its allies, in the aftermath of World War I. On March 3, 1924, the institution of the Caliphate was abolished by President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as part of his reforms in creating Turkey as a secular republic and a Turkish nation state from the remnants of the collapsed Islamic multi-ethnic Ottoman realm.

And now we have ISIS and the whole cycle begins again.

[muy_thaiguy]

Like I said, there were two incidents: the Ummayyad invasion of Hispania, and the Ottoman invasion of southeastern Europe. You've presented a timeline of one of those incidents, and that's nice. You've indicated you consider Bill the YouTuber the intellectual superior of Washington Irving. That's also nice.

Two incidents? It's two hundred years of constant warfare and pillages. Not "TWO INCIDENTS." It's the entire history of the European Dark Ages!

This is beyond silly. I'm actually arguing with someone whose position is based off what he saw in the YouTube rants of a snarling old rando from North Carolina who claims there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades. Tzor, do you really believe there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades? Also, do you believe the Earth is 4,000 years old and that UFOs are abducting cattle in Wyoming?

PLEASE. That's Colorado. And by "UFOs", you mean Colorado and Colorado State students that are high as a kite. And by "abducting" you mean molesting.

On a more serious note;

Religious Views on Dinosaurs<br abp="798">Islam

Islam does not deny that these creatures existed or that they were of this great size, but the fact remains that when they speak of their lifespans and the details of their forms and lives, this is the field of science. The Muslim should not be preoccupied with that and he should not waste time discussing it or believe that it is a matter that has any impact on his religious commitment or belief, because he knows that the Qur’aan and Sunnah were revealed to guide people and show them the right way; their focus is not history, geography, earth science or biology.

Christianity

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonexistingdinosaur/

So, take a small group of idiots (which runs in every group, as idiocy does not know religion, race, culture, nationality, or political ideology) and lump all groups that have a small thing in common with them. BRILLIANT! Not. You should feel ashamed of yourself saxi. Here's a nice read for you saxi. A little bit better than a random facebook group you purposely searched out for your own reasons.
http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/cath ... ionism.php

[saxitoxin]

This is beyond silly. I'm actually arguing with someone whose position is based off what he saw in the YouTube rants ...

What is with it with you? I cite one your tube video because I liked all the dots and you think that is the only place where I get my info?

I keep asking this and you keep shucking 'n jiving and doing jazz hands and yelling "look over there!"

Do you, or do you not, believe the YouTube video you cited (the only "source" you've cited prior to this post in the thread) when it says there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades?

You entered into this thread referencing a YouTube video anyone with a high school diploma should immediately realize contained highly suspect information, presenting this YouTube video as a refutation of common knowledge. One's ability to successfully identify reliable sources speaks directly to one's gullibility, susceptibility to being conned and hoodwinked, and the likelihood one can comprehend and process information. This is a relevant question and you continue to refuse to answer it.

Yea, the invasion of Spain was secular. Right. Tell me another funny story.

Since we are each presenting information that is 180-degrees opposite in terms of content, the only thing we can do is to compare sources to establish which has a more reliable origin.

Again, my source is Washington Irving, George Washington's biographer and arguably one of the greatest scholars of early 19th century America (I can provide more sources, if you like), who spent four years in Spain researching the topic. Your source is a YouTube video by a snarling retired math teacher in North Carolina who got his information by watching other YouTube videos.

[Phatscotty]

awww and I was just getting revved up too.... now I'm sat here with my pants round my ankles and no JGL photos to climax to....

Edit - nvm found a good one...

wait a damn minute, how the hell did you know everyone says I look like Randy Orton? At least since I started body building a year ago, I don't get Matt Damon'd anymore

[Phatscotty]

Religious Views on Dinosaurs

Islam

Islam does not deny that these creatures existed or that they were of this great size, but the fact remains that when they speak of their lifespans and the details of their forms and lives, this is the field of science. The Muslim should not be preoccupied with that and he should not waste time discussing it or believe that it is a matter that has any impact on his religious commitment or belief, because he knows that the Qur’aan and Sunnah were revealed to guide people and show them the right way; their focus is not history, geography, earth science or biology.

Christianity

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonexistingdinosaur/

as an aside, just after tears appeared on my lover's eyes when I told her I don't believe in hell, I asked her about dinosaurs, and she said they were a hoax. I still love her, I just have some work to do

[saxitoxin]

Religious Views on Dinosaurs

Islam

Islam does not deny that these creatures existed or that they were of this great size, but the fact remains that when they speak of their lifespans and the details of their forms and lives, this is the field of science. The Muslim should not be preoccupied with that and he should not waste time discussing it or believe that it is a matter that has any impact on his religious commitment or belief, because he knows that the Qur’aan and Sunnah were revealed to guide people and show them the right way; their focus is not history, geography, earth science or biology.

Christianity

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonexistingdinosaur/

as an aside, just after tears appeared on my lover's eyes when I told her I don't believe in hell, I asked her about dinosaurs, and she said they were a hoax. I still love her, I just have some work to do

[saxitoxin]

Religious Views on Dinosaurs<br abp="798">Islam

Islam does not deny that these creatures existed or that they were of this great size, but the fact remains that when they speak of their lifespans and the details of their forms and lives, this is the field of science. The Muslim should not be preoccupied with that and he should not waste time discussing it or believe that it is a matter that has any impact on his religious commitment or belief, because he knows that the Qur’aan and Sunnah were revealed to guide people and show them the right way; their focus is not history, geography, earth science or biology.

Christianity

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonexistingdinosaur/

So, take a small group of idiots (which runs in every group, as idiocy does not know religion, race, culture, nationality, or political ideology) and lump all groups that have a small thing in common with them. BRILLIANT! Not. You should feel ashamed of yourself saxi. Here's a nice read for you saxi. A little bit better than a random facebook group you purposely searched out for your own reasons.
http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/cath ... ionism.php

Well, the point is, the reason Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world probably has something to do with the fact that it (generally) has never tied itself to the physical world. Primitive religions like Christianity, Judaism, Druidism, Totem Worship, etc., try to explain why the sun rises in the east, how old the Earth is, and so forth. As science progresses, these religious explanations have to be constantly modified to keep pace, putting the entire religion itself on uneven keel, or they adopt irrational extremes like the "Christians Against Dinosaurs" Facebook page.

Islam has never attempted to claim answers best left to the pure sciences. It largely confines itself to ethics and eschatology. In the past, this is why medieval Arabia easily surpassed medieval Europe in advances in astronomy and medicine and mathematics; there were no superstitious impediments to free scientific inquiry. Only with the dawn of the Age of Reason was this situation reversed. Today, it is why Islam is growing faster than Christianity or Judaism; it offers concrete consistency instead of dogmas that have to be modified with each new peer-reviewed journal article that torpedoes a previously sacred truth.

[Dukasaur]

Also, all of the following are also true:
- "Hindus have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Confuscianists have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Roman Catholics have been growing and fighting Anglicans on a fairly steady basis"

I don't think that is true. In fact, I'm fairly certain of it.

While Hinduism and Christianity has had conflicts, there has not been an expansionist movement of Hindus into Christian lands by violence.

Likewise, there has not been an expansionist movement of Muslims into Christian lands by violence.

As previously noted, in the last 1200 years there were two single incidents (not "movements") of military forces from a Muslim-majority nation entering an historically Christian territory (

Interestingly arbitrary choice of benchmark, since the great wave of Muslim conquests took place around 1300 years ago.

Even with the arbitrary cut-off point, your statement still remains untrue, as incursions into Europe continued long after the main wave of conquest had ended.

Muslim Conquest of Sicily: 827 to 902
Muslim Sack of Marseille: 838
Muslim attempt to capture Rome: 846
Most recent Muslim attempt to conquer France: 920
Muslim sack of Pisa 1004
Muslim conquest of Armenia 1064
Muslim conquest of Asia Minor and the Eastern Roman Empire: 1068 to 1453
Muslim wars on Serbia: 1344 to 1913
Muslim conquest of Bulgaria 1382
Muslim conquest of Albania 1385
Muslim wars on Croatia: 1443 to 1878
Siege of Rhodes 1420
Conquest of Greece: 1371 to 1500
Attempted Muslim Conquests of Poland and Ukraine: 1444 to 1699
Siege of Vienna 1683

[saxitoxin]

Also, all of the following are also true:
- "Hindus have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Confuscianists have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Roman Catholics have been growing and fighting Anglicans on a fairly steady basis"

I don't think that is true. In fact, I'm fairly certain of it.

While Hinduism and Christianity has had conflicts, there has not been an expansionist movement of Hindus into Christian lands by violence.

Likewise, there has not been an expansionist movement of Muslims into Christian lands by violence.

As previously noted, in the last 1200 years there were two single incidents (not "movements") of military forces from a Muslim-majority nation entering an historically Christian territory (

Interestingly arbitrary choice of benchmark, since the great wave of Muslim conquests took place around 1300 years ago.

Even with the arbitrary cut-off point, your statement still remains untrue, as incursions into Europe continued long after the main wave of conquest had ended.

Muslim Conquest of Sicily: 827 to 902
Muslim Sack of Marseille: 838
Muslim attempt to capture Rome: 846
Most recent Muslim attempt to conquer France: 920
Muslim sack of Pisa 1004
Muslim conquest of Armenia 1064
Muslim conquest of Asia Minor and the Eastern Roman Empire: 1068 to 1453
Muslim wars on Serbia: 1344 to 1913
Muslim conquest of Bulgaria 1382
Muslim conquest of Albania 1385
Muslim wars on Croatia: 1443 to 1878
Siege of Rhodes 1420
Conquest of Greece: 1371 to 1500
Attempted Muslim Conquests of Poland and Ukraine: 1444 to 1699
Siege of Vienna 1683

You and Ol' Snarling Bill from YouTube, keep talking about this weird fantasy you've become fixated on in which Muslimland attacked Christianland. There was not some monolithic Muslim entity led by the Chief Muslim who decided to attack Christian territory which was defended by the Head Christian.

"The Muslims" didn't all get together in the secret Muslim lair and decide to attack Christian territory. Individual states, for a variety of economic and political reasons, engaged in war against other individual states, and engaged in alliances with other states. In some cases it was Muslim states attacking Muslim states, in some cases it was Christian states attacking Christian states, in some cases it was Muslim states attacking Christian states, in some cases it was Christian states attacking Muslim states.

But the idea of routine international war that has occurred between nations of all faiths for millennia doesn't fit in the narrative you're trying to promote - that Muslims are inherently savage, vile beings hell-bent on world conquest; the neo-cons "Clash of Civilizations" frame. Ergo, this ridiculous, factually shaky thread.

Interestingly arbitrary choice of benchmark, since the great wave of Muslim conquests took place around 1300 years ago.

This should underscore how morally bankrupt this thread is ... it's premised on Ol' Snarling Bill from YouTube's idea of using events from 1,000 years ago to declare how a certain group routinely behaves today. You wouldn't describe black people as prone to cannibalism, but you think this nonsense is somehow socially acceptable.

I don't think you and Tzor are racist, it's just clear you're not that bright and very easily hoodwinked. I mean, you both gulped down Snarling Bill's Kool-Aid without pausing - even when he coughed-up the side-splitting line that there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades (I'm going to keep bringing this up as long as you two clowns keep sheepishly refusing to either own or refute it).

[saxitoxin]

Siege of Vienna 1683

Led by Suleiman the Magnificent, whose bas relief is permanently engraved in the U.S. House of Representatives ... thank God Snarling Bill from YouTube wasn't involved in designing the U.S. Capitol. If he was, instead of Suleiman and George Mason, you'd have bas reliefs of Pat Robertson, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, and Larry the Cable Guy. And the Senate chamber would be a double-wide trailer on cinder-blocks with a pregnant 16 year-old and her 3-legged pitbull working as sergeants-at-arms.

[Dukasaur]

There was not some monolithic Muslim entity led by the Chief Muslim who decided to attack Christian territory which was defended by the Head Christian.

"The Muslims" didn't all get together in the secret Muslim lair and decide to attack Christian territory. Individual states, for a variety of economic and political reasons, engaged in war against other individual states, and engaged in alliances with other states. In some cases it was Muslim states attacking Muslim states, in some cases it was Christian states attacking Christian states, in some cases it was Muslim states attacking Christian states, in some cases it was Christian states attacking Muslim states.

Of course something as big as Islam isn't a single monolithic entity, any more than Communism is a single monolithic entity. Of course Turks are different from Arabs, just as the Russians are different from the North Koreans. Of course Sunnis and Shiites will disagree with each other, and even kill each other on occasion, just as Leninists will disagree with Trotskyists, and even kill each other on occasion.

Bottom line, though, is that they will continue pursuing their central goal despite sometimes turning aside to engage in a family feud or two. Stalin and Mao may have hated each other's guts, but on the central ideal that Communism must eventually conquer the world and hang all the capitalists, they agreed without question. The Fatimids and the Seljuks may have gone at each other's throats from time to time, but neither would ever question that their common goal was to subjugate the "kaffirs" and bring all the world to kneel towards Mecca.

A movement doesn't need to be monolithic to be devoted to a common goal.

I mean, you both gulped down Snarling Bill's Kool-Aid without pausing - even when he coughed-up the side-splitting line that there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades (I'm going to keep bringing this up as long as you two clowns keep sheepishly refusing to either own or refute it).

Nah, I don't need to own or refute it. I'm not the author of the video, and in fact I got bored about half way through and shut it off. It probably does have factual errors, but I didn't post here to support the video. I posted here to refute your very specific lie that:

in the last 1200 years there were two single incidents (not "movements") of military forces from a Muslim-majority nation entering an historically Christian territory (