Quote:


What a load of revisionist rubbish. Richard I captured Acre in the Holy Land, and then had his allies Philip and Leopold head home. He realised that even if he could captured Jerusalem he couldnt hold it, so he signed a peace treaty with Saladin, and returned to Europe.

King Richard I was never 'decisively whipped' by Saladin, or anyone else as it happens. And his motto is still on the NSW coat of arms, 'God and my right' which hangs in all courts.

King Richard wasnt even there when Saladin captured Jerusalem. Have a read of the Battle of Arsuf. Richard did the whipping on that one.

Overall, the armies of Saladin and Richard attacked each other to stalemate until Richard deserted of his allies, and grievously ill, had to return home. Saladin also had good things to say about Richard. Those quotes tend not to stay on wiki for long, as Religion of Peace fanatics eagerly remove them.

Calanen wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 6:49am:


Richard went to Palestine to capture Jerusalem...not Acre. He failed miserablly.....did not even get close to capturing Jerusalem. So yes....Salah al-Din did whip his ass. He successfully defended Jerusalem against Richards far better armed forces.

Lets also not forget Richards evident butchery...where in one day he killed over 3000 muslim prisoners, for no apparent reason.

Lets compare this to Salah Al-Din, who, when he he captured Jerusalem promised all the Christians and captured prisoners safe passage out of Jerusalem.

Of course...if you feel that Acre was the prize that the crusaders were after..then you might have a point. However...Acre was never the goal, it was Jerusalem, and Richard didn't even get close.

Wow...he's motto (its actually his coat of arms) used by NSW. What exactly is your point. Whats that supposed to prove.

Oh, and Abu made no mention that Salah al-Din captured Jerusalem from Richard, so I'm not sure what your on about there.

More lies I gather.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 3:51am:

Thanks for the reply. I would still put my trust in a secular and democratic state, though. A Caliphate is by definition a religious dictatorship, however benignly you may perceive it. 

Within this theocracy, I believe Muslim 'fundamentalists', like all religious zealots, would become oppressive and intolerant towards non-Muslims and even 'liberal' Muslims. When supported by organs of state, they would no doubt become even more so and soon gain considerable influence both within government and as political and cultural demagogues. This is human nature, not 'Muslim nature' or Islamism, and is precisely why separation of church and state was conceived. Religious institutions have proven they cannot be trusted to be equitable towards those who do not follow their tenets. Sooner or later they will discriminate and there will always be the sense that adherents to the state religion will have advantages not available to non-adherents.

As is evident, Islamist organisations are fundamentally pernicious and murderous in thought and deed. I don't believe there is any reason to think that this psychological energy within a Caliphate would not transmogrify into religious chauvinism, nor do I believe that the organs of government would be equipped to constrain them.

Lestat wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 8:52am:


What a load of revisionist rubbish. Richard I captured Acre in the Holy Land, and then had his allies Philip and Leopold head home. He realised that even if he could captured Jerusalem he couldnt hold it, so he signed a peace treaty with Saladin, and returned to Europe.

King Richard I was never 'decisively whipped' by Saladin, or anyone else as it happens. And his motto is still on the NSW coat of arms, 'God and my right' which hangs in all courts.

King Richard wasnt even there when Saladin captured Jerusalem. Have a read of the Battle of Arsuf. Richard did the whipping on that one.

Overall, the armies of Saladin and Richard attacked each other to stalemate until Richard deserted of his allies, and grievously ill, had to return home. Saladin also had good things to say about Richard. Those quotes tend not to stay on wiki for long, as Religion of Peace fanatics eagerly remove them. [/quote]

Quote:


If Saladin had destroyed his army or killed Richard I might agree with you. But Richard was able to return to England with his army intact, after conquering Acre and with an agreement to permit the pilgrims to go to the Holy Land unmolested.

Quote:


Not quite true. He killed the captives not for 'no reason' but because Saladin wouldnt (or couldnt) pay the ransom for them. There were so many of them, that if Saladin attackd they would also attack the Crusaders, so Richard ordered them executed. Execution of prisoners occured on both sides.

Quote:


Maybe not all. He killed the Knights Templar and Hospitallers he captured.

Quote:


It's a bit different to having his 'butt whipped' nor was he decisively whipped. That's just more muslim hyperbole, like Hamas claiming a great victory after they huddle in the dust and rubble, cowering in the basement of a hospital.

Quote:


It's not his coat of arms, its the motto ON his coat of arms. His coat of arms is three lions. Thats not the coat of arms of NSW. 'Whats that supposed to prove,' - I know you have no respect for this country's heritage or this state's heritage, or the courts, so it's not supposed to prove or mean anything to you. To the good people of NSW, the coats of arms that hang in the courts mean something, and they respect them.

Quote:


I'm saying that Richard had nothing to do with the loss of Jerusalem. He wasnt there when it was captured.

Calanen wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:


Returned to England without achieving his goal, which was the capture of Jerusalem. In fact he didn't even get close. This is a defeat in anyone's language, and unfortunately for you, most creditable historians all agree.

And you also fail to mention that he was 'allowed' to return with his army...you see, Saladin was a great man, with great morals and ethics. If he was a Christian leader, then no doubt Richards army would of been attacked during its retreat....decimating his army.

Unlike the crusading leaders (for example - Count Raymond of Toulouse ), Saladin actually upheld his agreements.

Calanen wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:


Many Crusader soldiers were also captured and held prisoner by Saladin...Richard did not pay ransom for them, and guess what, they were not murdered in cold blood. On the contrary, many married muslim wives and reverted to Islam.

As long as they promised to not fight against the muslims, they were allowed to either leave Palestine, or convert to Islam and live in peace.

I know which option I would rather.

Calanen wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:


What a complete load of nonsense. The majority of the Knights Templers left Palestine and returned to Europe. They were killed by Philip (with assistance from the Pope) in 1307 (Friday 13th).

Some Hospitallers were killed due to the role they played in the murder of Saladin's sister by Count Raymond of Toulouse, when they killed 200 pilgrims on their way to Haj, despite an agreement between the King of Jerusalem and Saladin that Pilgrims would be allowed safe passage.

Calanen wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:


His goal was the capture of Jerusalem, and he didn't get close to achieving his goal. This is a butt whipping in anyone's language.

To add insult to his wounds, he was captured en route to England by Austrians...and held to ransom. Its safe to say his whole campaign in Palestine was a disaster which really didn't achieve much at all.

Calanen wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:


Tell me once again what link does Richard the Lionheart have with NSW's heritage?

Like I said...having a lion in the NSW coat of arms is irrelevant.

Calanen wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:


No one ever claimed that he was.

".....Rewriting history is a major enterprise for jihad apologists, and an eminently successful one: the myths of the tolerant, pluralistic Muslim Spain, and the tolerant, pluralistic Ottoman Empire have entered the popular consciousness, despite mountains of evidence to disprove both...."


".......In all the cultures where Islam has become ascendant, the Muslim authorities have attempted to rewrite the history of the conquered lands to obliterate the memory of anything that went before Islam. By this method the cultural contribution of civilizations that preceded Islam — during jahiliyah, “the days of ignorance” — is minimized, denigrated, and distorted.
The destruction of physical evidence is part of the revisionist task. To the average Western scholar, the Bamiyan Buddhas and the archeological artifacts buried in the ancient rubble under the Temple Mount are priceless treasures which must be preserved, restored, studied, and admired. But to a Muslim they are abominations and must be destroyed....."


"......To the untrained eye the damage is barely visible. Yet within the handbound pages of books charting how Europeans travelled to Mesopotamia, Persia and the Mogul empire from the 16th century onwards, the damage caused by one Iranian academic to a priceless British Library collection is irreversible.
Leading scholars at the library are at a loss to explain why Farhad Hakimzadeh, a Harvard-educated businessman, publisher and intellectual, took a scalpel to the leaves of 150 books that have been in the nation's collection for centuries. The monetary damage he caused over seven years is in the region of £400,000 but Dr Kristian Jensen, head of the British and early printed collections at the library, said no price could be placed upon the books and maps that he had defaced and stolen."

sourced from.....


http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/024486.php




++++++++++++





Posted by: Alaskan
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023681.php#c602782

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 1:18pm:



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You must be getting seriously desperate if your including entries from yadda.

Why don't you just remove the lot and provide a link to Jihadwatch and be done with it.

your a funny man Freediver. :D

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 2:41pm:


lol..did you even read the link. Or the rubbish that yadda posted.

No evidence, nothing to back up its claim, just incorrect dribble.

how do you explain the fact that many western historians accept the 'arabic' versions of history. For example, without fail, all western historians agree that before the advent of Islam in arabia, the arabs were in fact living in ignorance.

But hey...forget it.

Doesn't matter what I am saying....please, carry on. Please, include it in your wiki.

Please do...if people thought it was a joke before, this will just confirm it.

:D