Something for Osama Saeed..............

Osama Saeed has managed to get himself quoted in the Times today, decrying David Cameron's use of the word 'Crusade'. Osama, doing his best Winston Smith impression, wants the word consigned to the 'dustbin' forever.

I came across this website recently. Perhaps Winston, sorry Osama, should have a read of it, learn some history, and drop the ridiculous rhetoric about the Crusades being some sort of mass proto-colonial Holocaust:

1. Some authors contend the Crusades were wars of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. What is your position in this matter?

It is difficult to see how anyone familiar with the sources could make such a claim. The original goal of the First Crusade, as it was annunciated in the papal call as well as numerous crusader charters, was to respond to Muslim aggression against Christians in the East and to restore those lands taken by Muslims to their Christian owners. [...]

3. Some accuse the Crusades of being a sort of medieval colonialism disguised in religious trappings. Is this true and could you comment on this?

Colonialism, if it is to have any meaning at all, requires certain things: most importantly a mother country that funds and directs the colonial expansion, a colonial government linked to a home government, and policy of colonization or exploitation in the colony. The Crusades had none of these things. No mother country supported the Crusades. Rather they were funded and undertaken by individuals across Christendom for the benefit of their souls and their co-religionists overseas. The governments in the Crusaders States were independent, with no direct ties to any European countries. And the Europeans had no policy of colonization or exploitation in the East. Rather, the overriding purpose of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was to safeguard the Holy Places and the lives of Christian pilgrims coming to visit them.