Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 34:
Line 34: + +
Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad? (view source)
Revision as of 06:38, February 24, 2007
, 06:38, February 24, 2007→Good: question about term "Mohammedans"
If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims "Mohammedans"? We don't call Americans "Washingtonans" or Jewish people "Abrahamans". I'm not saying the term "Mohammedan" is necessarily incorrect. It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West. But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)
==Bad==
==Bad==