Two days after a Jordanian pilot was burned alive by ISIS terrorists, Obama shamelessly compared the terror army’s acts to violence committed by Christians in the Crusades.
Giuliani said the president’s statement is the “absolute wrong thing at absolutely the wrong time.”
“He’s as weak a historian as he is a president, and as weak a theologian,” said Giuliani, as he laid out why the president’s argument is actually inaccurate historically.
Giuliani argued that ISIS actions now “can be justified by words that I can pull right out of the Koran and show you.”
The Crusades were not acts of unprovoked aggression by Europe against the Islamic world, but a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression. One of the most potent myths of our age is that the Crusades were little more than an unprovoked attack by a barbarous Europe against a quiescent and cultured Islamic world. The Crusades, far from being an unprovoked act of aggression on the part of Christian Europe, was part of a rearguard action aimed at stemming the Muslim advance which, by the start of the eleventh century, was threatening as never before to overwhelm the whole of Europe.
Obama diverted the subject from ISIS and began to express his hatred against the Christian Crusades. The reason for this is because Obama hates Christians and Christianity, and is himself a Muslim jihadist. He continues to support Islam while hating Christianity, and heavily funds and supports the jihadists in Syria. His own family are Muslims and work with terrorists.
In order to end the Islamic persecution over Christian lands in the East, it was necessary for the crusaders to take the city of Antioch in Syria which had fallen to the Turks ten years before Urban commenced the First Crusade. Syria acted as a bridge by which the western and eastern legs of the Islamic empire would communicate and bring armies behind the Crusaders’ radar. It provided a free passage for Muslim armies going north from south and vice versa, and it connected Mesopotamia, Persia and all Muslim lands even unto the Indus, with the religious center of Mecca. Should this link be broken, the Muslim power would have bled to death by such a wound.
So crucial was Syria in this war that Hilaire Belloc wrote that “Islam would not have survived had the Crusade made good its hold upon the essential point of Damascus.”
To control Syria is to control the Muslim world, and the same applies today despite of our technology; our airplanes and petrol.
Such is the reason why that Turkey even till this day, in reviving its wounded Islamic empire, wants to take Syria. The Syrian revolution was praised at its beginnings, but the end result will only be a revival of the Ottoman empire, and a pool filled with the blood of the saints.
Why this modern day “revival” of Islamic conquest resemble the eleventh century and the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries? Contrary to popular belief, the tenth and eleventh centuries constitute a period of massive expansion by Islam, an expansion felt all along Islam’s boundary with Christendom. The Crusades were clearly part of an attempt to stem this aggression.
[youtube TMGRGtiO9Ro nolink]
[youtube savR4rg-8cE nolink]
[youtube OxnDT89JslI nolink]