History Channel's Propagandist Piece on the Crusades

From: janice matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon Nov 07 2005 - 11:12:06 EST

Hi all,

Here is BSR against the propaganda piece aired on the History Channel last
night, (which you will find referenced below this):

<http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/661560/posts>The Real History of the
Crusades http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/661560/posts
Comment: "...This [2002] article was published in SPECIFIC response to Bill
Clinton's outrageously arrogant Sept. 2001 speech at Georgetown Univ. in
which [he] put forth the brazenly distored historical LIE (!!) that the
Sept. 11th WTC & Pentagon attacks were (get this) caused by the
Crusades!! <http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/661560/posts?page=27#27>27

My post is here: http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/661560/posts?page=105#105

Janice

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts>History Channel's
Propagandist Piece on the Crusades
History Channel | November 8, 2005 | History Channel
Posted on 11/07/2005 6:06:05 AM EST by
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164//~zulu/>ZULU
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts

Did anybody see that vile piece on the Crusades Sunday Night? I had to
turn it off. It was a politically pile of propagandist crap attacking the
Crusades, the Christian Church and heroizing Ilsamic fanatics.

* Some replies:

I did not watch it because I had a hunch that it would be that
way. <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=2#2>2

No, I avoided it and the cartoon propoganda piece on CBS about the end of
the world due to evil Christians, Republicans, and big oil.

I watched War Stories about the Berlin Airlife and went to bed.
Consequently my blood pressure remains
normal. <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=4#4>4

This is History as told by the unbiased voice of Prince Charles. Can't we
all lay down our arms and return to the stone age? Can we at least
capitulate to a superior religious philosphy and pay jizrah under
dhimmitude?
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=5#5>5

To paraphrase Rush, I know what they're gonna say befrore they say it. I
didn't bother to be offended by this one.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=7#7>7

I figured that out from the commercial.

Me too.

"It started with a belief..."

No, it started with 100 years of radicalization of Islam, murdering
pilgrims, burning of churches including the Holy Sepulcre etc. until Pope
Urban II decided to do something about
it. <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=10#10>10

It started before that - when the Muslims initially overran Christian
Palestine, Egypt and North Africa. When they invaded Christian Sicily and
southern Italy, when they sewpt over the Iberian Peninsula and plunderd,
looted and killed as far north as Tour - which is in northner France not
far from Paris.

Even today these vicious killers are trying to Islamicize Ethiopia - which
became one of the first Christian nations in the 300's, trying to totally
Islamicize the once Christian south of the Sudan, spreading into Christian
Nigeria, threatening and killing the few remaning Christian Copts in Egypt,
blwoing up Islraeli civilians, trying to Islamicize the Phillipines,
threatening and killing Buddhists and Hindus in southern Asia, trying to
excport their evil creed into the U.S., etc. etc.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=13#13>13

Thanks for the review, when there was post about it the other day, I said I
wouldn't watch it because I figured it would be a "Why they hate us" show.
If I was wrong, I'd watch it later. Another "thing to do" crossed off my
list! <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=15#15>15

I saw the first half hour.

It was awful. Pure anti-western, anti-Christian garbage.

Every scene of Christianity was shot in some dark damp room with a light
beam coming in through a solitary window. Christian leaders were either
hooded or ugly and somber. Every Muslim scene was shot in bright sunlight.
The murderous conquests of the Muslims were shown as a wave speading across
a map - but no battle scenes.

It claimed the Crusades were the result of Rome's need to "legitimize" itself.

I HAD to turn it off when one so-called "historian", from some second rate
college, explained that the reason knights and nobles left their wealth,
comfort and families to risk their lives with little chance of any payback
was because Pope Urban was a great motivational speaker ("better than Billy
Graham").

Garbage. Garbage. Garbage.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=16#16>16

I had to turn it off. It was a politically pile of propagandist crap
attacking the Crusades

On the contrary, I had to both watch and record it to document the extent
and sophistication to which the Saudi propaganda money has infiltrated our
national consciousness.

How else are you going to document it?

I think Congressional probes into the financing of enemy propaganda shown
on our national television is appropriate.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=20#20>20

.... Please take 5 minutes and educate yourself:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/661560/posts
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=25#25>25

The area of the Middle East was mainly Christian at the time the Arabic
moon-whorshippers moved in. After conquering Palestine, Syria and adjacent
areas, they moved on to conquer predominantly Christian Egypt and North
Africa and attack and invade Christian Iberia, Sicily, Southern Italy and
France. They attacked and invaded monotheistic Zoroastrian Persia.

Savage horse nomads from Central Asia invaded Arabic Islamic lands,
including the Holy Land, converted to Islam and began persecuting Christian
pilgrims. Tehn they moved on to attack, invade and conquer Christian Asia
Minor.

The Crusades, despite this propagandistic piece were also a reaction to the
spread of Medieval militant Islam. A negative point was the fact that they
ulimately failed - not through Islamic persistence but more through the
loss of interest of western Europe and the development of European nation
states more interested in fighting each other than kicking the Muslims out
of lands they had stolen.

Some of the Crusaders did slaughter innocent Jews and non-Latin Christians
which was also a negative. But that was not something either the Pope or
the western Christian desired and they did try to stop it whenever they could.
But on the whole the Muslims DID deserve getting their butts kicked and
they still
do. <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517164/posts?page=27#27>27
Received on Mon Nov 7 11:13:43 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 07 2005 - 11:13:43 EST