Re: History Channel's Propagandist Piece on the Crusades

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Mon Nov 07 2005 - 12:45:17 EST

I object to this as it has no relevance to the ASA.

Please can spammers stop

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: janice matchett
  Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:12 PM
  Subject: History Channel's Propagandist Piece on the Crusades

  Hi all,

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

  The Real History of the Crusades
  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!! 27

  My post is here:


  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 ZULU

  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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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! 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. 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. 20

  .... Please take 5 minutes and educate yourself: 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. 27
Received on Mon Nov 7 13:48:49 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 07 2005 - 13:48:49 EST