Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
no edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:  
==Good==
 
==Good==
   −
The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to  [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back. Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was aslight exception but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)
+
The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to  [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back. Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was aslight exception but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)
    
==Bad==
 
==Bad==

Navigation menu