Tag archieven: In English

Bridgerton Colorblind-casting/Relaxing, Inspiring, Uplifting/Third Comment of Astrid Essed

1x01-5

Share

More Info

1×01-5

See full size image

ANTHONY BRIDGERTON AND HIS CLOSE FRIEND SIMON BASSET,
DUKE OF HASTINGS
BRIDGERTON COLORBLIND-CASTING/RELAXING, INSPIRING, UPLIFTING!/THIRD COMMENT OF ASTRID ESSED
READERS!
You owe me a THANK YOU!/HAHAHAHA
For this is my THIRD Bridgerton post in a week, what was not planned by me!
But there is so much interesting to tell about these Netflix series, that
my writing about it ”comes with the job”’
My first Post was about the strained, complex, but loving relationship
between Lady Violet Bridgerton and her eldest son Anthony [1]
I expect to tell more about this, so keep following my posts!
My second Post [recently written] was about the reason I am so
much in favour to this Bridgerton story, based on the books, but with some
important, fascinating changes! [2]
There are some changes in the series [for example, in
the books the bond between Lady Violet and her son Anthony was less
strained and more loving [in the film she loves him dearly too, but also
scolds and critizes him sharply, sometimes even cruelly, stemming from
a number of causes, that have nothing to do with lack of love for him] [3]
However, the biggest difference between the books and the series is,
that while in the books, the characters are all British-white, in the series
black aristocrats mingle with white aristocrats and even intermarry.
So the ”black” Duke of Hastings, Simon Basset, is the very close friend
of Anthony Bridgerton [the Anthony who has that strained, but loving
relationship with his mother, Lady Violet] [4] and Simon marries,
out of love, with Anthony’s sister Daphne Bridgerton. [5]
Then there is a powerful black Lady, Lady Danbury, close friend of
Anthony’s mother Violet and that Lady is a favourite of Queen Charlotte,
who is also black in the series [some scholars say, she indeed had African descent] [6]
HISTORICAL REALITY
And I must confess, that when I first heard about Bridgerton I had my
doubts and I’ll explain why.
I learned that the series were about a noble Family in England in the Regency era [7] [so far, so good] and the cast was colorblind.
Which meant, that white and black nobles were part of the series on
equal stances.
I thought firstly:
What is that about?
In the Regency Time England, in which slavery and slavetrade flourished,
white and black aristocrats mingled and stood shoulder to shoulder?
That’s historically seen, nonsense.
And since I am an historian, I could know.
Of course there were already black people in England since the 16th century,
[8] but eventually they either left or mingled with the white British population.
And ”black aristocrats” even when they were in England in the Regency Time, were rare.
What happened was that there were a minority of rich black people
in England that time, mostly children of plantation owners and a black slave mother, who were sent to England by their fathers for education. [9]
SO FAR, SO GOOD
FAIRY TALE
But then I decided to step away from historical reality and look at the
storylines an sich, forgetting that black-white thing.
Because, so I thought:
What would it be beautiful if the history had gone another
way and indeed black and white aristocrats would have mingled with each
other in England, without the curse of racism?
Why the world should not be a Fairy Tale, at least for the time
watching the series?
And when you look at it from that perspective, the world, for a while,
is much more relaxed and then the Story an sich is relevant, not
the colour of people.
Would that not be a Relief in the real world?
Then let’s assume, for a moment, that it IS the real
world and black people regained their dignity again, which
was token from them by the nasty historical reality.
That was the moment, the Bridgerton Story, with a color blind cast,  began to fascinate me.
COLORBLIND CAST/IDEA
RELAXING AND MORE EXCITING
SHORTLY SAID:
That colorblind idea [in the Bridgrton books, all the personae are,
of course, white] [10], is relaxing and makes the series more
interesting and exciting.
STORYLINES
Since the story is not ”hindred” by race and color issues, it is not
only more entertaining and relaxing, but there is more
room to focus on the Story Itself
And the storylines are fascinating:
Themes are forbidden love, unresolved trauma’s, warm, loving
motherhood, the Cinderella theme, strong family bonds, warm and intense
male friendships [like Anthony and Simon Basset], scandals, social
prejudice, great Family Stories and yet, the racism thing passes also,
but on a more relaxed way.
You see all aspects of human life pass the review.
Because you know?
Although racism and unequality do exist and the fight against it must
continue, it sometimes can overshadow human relations and certainly
in TV series, for entertainment, it can be boring and disturbing.
Let we fight the fight against racism in the streets, not in TV series!
FINAL
Sometimes race issues distract from an otherwise beautiful story.
Constantly emphazising on race issues [I mean in TV series even
if for entertainment] is not only boring, it can even dehumanize black people in films and series, as if black
people must always be the victim.
Bridgerton offers the opportunity to depict black people
in all their dignity, humanity and on equal, sometimes higher
level than white people [for example Anthony’s close friend,
Simon Basset, is a Duke, while Anthony is a Viscount] [11]
COLORBLIND-CASTING IN BRIDGERTON?
RELAXING, INSPIRING, UPLIFTING!
Untill the next Post!
ASTRID ESSED
NOTES
NOTES 1 T/M 5
NOTE 6
NOTES 7 T/M 9
NOTE 10
NOTE 11

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Bridgerton Colorblind-casting/Relaxing, Inspiring, Uplifting/Third Comment of Astrid Essed

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Astrid Essed about Bridgerton/Second Comment on the Netflix series Bridgerton/Astrid Essed is all in Favour of Bridgerton!

1x01-5

Share

More Info

1×01-5

See full size image

ANTHONY BRIDGERTON AND HIS CLOSE FRIEND SIMON BASSET,
DUKE OF HASTINGS
ASTRID ESSED ABOUT BRIDGERTON/SECOND COMMENT ON
THE NETFLIX SERIES BRIDGERTON/WHY ASTRID ESSED IS ALL
IN FAVOUR OF BRIDGERTON
Readers!
Here she is again!
Actually I would do this Post following week, but since I am
really excited over the Bridgerton series and I have much to say about  it,
I start tonight with my second comment!
Perhaps you remember my first comment in which I revealed something about the
storyline itself, the loving, but complex relationship between one of the main characters, Lady Violet Bridgerton and her eldest son Anthony [1]
A very fascinating part of the series, that relationship which I will
come back to in subsequent comments.
But in this Post, which will be short, I like to share with you why
this Story, Bridgerton, fascinates me.
COSTUME DRAMA’S
I have seen a lot of costume drama’s, some were interesting, others good,
others boring.
And some [like Pride and Prejudice] [2] I saw so many times, that I was
tired of it, although interesting.
So I didn’t look anymore.
HISTORICAL REALITY
And I must confess, that when I first heard about Bridgerton I had my
doubts and I’ll explain why.
I learned that the series were about a noble Family in England in the Regency era [3] [so far, so good] and the cast was colorblind.
Which meant, that white and black nobles were part of the series on
equal stances.
I thought firstly:
What is that about?
In the Regency Time England, in which slavery and slavetrade flourished,
white and black aristocrats mingled and stood shoulder to shoulder?
That’s historically seen, nonsense.
And since I am historian, I could know.
Of course there were already black people in England since the 16th century,
[4] but eventually they either left or mingled with the white British population.
And ”black aristocrats” even when they were in England in the Regency Time, were rare.
What happened was that there were a minority of rich black people
in England that time, mostly children of plantation owners and a black slave mother, who were sent to England by their fathers for education. [5]
SO FAR, SO GOOD
FAIRY TALE
But then I decided to step away from historical reality and look at the
storylines an sich, forgetting that black-white thing.
Because, so I thought:
What would it be beautiful if the history had gone another
way and indeed black and white aristocrats mingled with each
other in England, without the curse of racism?
Why the world should not be a Fairy Tale, at least for the time
watching the series?
And when you look at it from that perspective, the world, for a while,
is much more relaxed and then the Story an sich is relevant, not
the colour of people.
Would that not be a Relief in the real world?
Then let’s assume, for a moment, that it IS the real
world and black people regain thed dignity again, which
was token from them by the nasty historical reality.
That was the moment, the Bridgerton Story began to interest and even
fascinate me.
CHARACTERS
And then beautiful characters came to live.
Like Lady Danbury, an impressive black noblewoman [6]
Simon Basset, Duke of Hastings, Anthony Bridgerton’s best
and closest friend [7], who would marry Daphne Bridgerton, sister
of Anthony [the same Anthony who had a warm, but complicated
relationship with his mother, Lady Violet Bridgerton] [8]
And so more important black aristocrats and others.
And not to forget the historical figure Queen Charlotte, grandmother
of Queen Victora [9], who was black in the Bridgerton series, andwho by the way is the subject of a discussion, whether she was of African descent. [10]
COLORBLIND CAST/IDEA
RELAXING AND MORE EXCITING
SHORTLY SAID:
That colorblind idea [in the Bridgrton books, all the personae are,
of course, white] [11], is relaxing and makes the series more
interesting and exciting
STORYLINES
Since the story is not ”hindred” by race and color issues, it is not
only more entertaining and relaxing, but there is more
room to focus on the Story Itself
And the storylines are fascinating:
Themes are forbidden love, unresolved trauma’s, warm, loving
motherhood, the Cinderella theme, strong family bonds, warm and intense
male friendships [like Anthony and Simon Basset], scandals, social
prejudice, great Family Stories and yet, the racism thing passes also,
but on a more relaxed way.
You see all aspects of human life pass the review.
Because you know?
Although racism and unequality do exist and the fight against it must
continue, it sometimes can overshadow human relations and certainly
in TV series, for entertainment, it can be boring and disturbing.
Let we fight the fight against racism in the streets, not in TV series!
FINAL
Bridgerton is a strong and fascinating Story, with many aspects of
human life, you see the main characters eat, drink, cry, be happy or
unhappy, love, hate etc, just as if they were real.
I like it
I think it fascinating.
And I will post more about Bridgerton.
See you at the next Post
ASTRID ESSED
NOTES
NOTES 1 T/M 6
NOTES 7 AND 8
NOTES 9 T/M 11

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Astrid Essed about Bridgerton/Second Comment on the Netflix series Bridgerton/Astrid Essed is all in Favour of Bridgerton!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

ICE OUT!/Bruce Springsteen/Streets of Minneapolis

Cover art for Streets of Minneapolis by Bruce Springsteen

IN GRATEFUL MEMORY OF RENEE GOOD AND ALEX PERETTI
MAY THEY REST IN PEACE
ASTRID ESSED

YOUTUBE.COM

Bruce Springsteen – Streets Of Minneapolis (Official Lyric Video)

Bruce Springsteen – Streets Of Minneapolis (Official Lyric Video)

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN
STREETS OF MINNEAPOLIS
[Verse 1]
Through the winter’s ice and cold
Down Nicollet Avenue

A city aflame fought fire and ice
‘Neath an occupier’s boots
King Trump’s private army from the DHS
Guns belted to their coats
Came to Minneapolis to enforce the law
Or so their story goes[Verse 2]
Against smoke and rubber bullets
In the dawn’s early light
Citizens stood for justice
Their voices ringin’ through the night

And there were bloody footprints
Where mercy should have stood
And two dead, left to die on snow-filled streets
Alex Pretti and Renée Good[Chorus]
Oh, our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Singing through the bloody mist
We’ll take our stand for this land
And the stranger in our midst
Here in our home, they killed and roamed
In the winter of ’26
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
[Verse 3]
Trump’s federal thugs beat up on
His face and his chest

Then we heard the gunshots
And Alex Pretti lay in the snow dead
Their claim was self-defense, sir

Just don’t believe your eyes
It’s our blood and bones
And these whistles and phones

Against Miller and Noem’s dirty lies[Chorus]
Oh, our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Crying through the bloody mist
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis[Harmonica Solo][Verse 4]
Now they say they’re here to uphold the law
But they trample on our rights
If your skin is black or brown, my friend
You can be questioned or deported on sight

In our chants of “ICE out now”
Our city’s heart and soul persists
Through broken glass and bloody tears
On the streets of Minneapolis
[Chorus]
Oh, our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Singing through the bloody mist
Here in our home, they killed and roamed
In the winter of ’26
We’ll take our stand for this land
And the stranger in our midst

We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis[Outro]
ICE out (ICE out)
ICE out (ICE out)
ICE out (ICE out)
ICE out (ICE out)
ICE out (ICE out)
ICE out

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor ICE OUT!/Bruce Springsteen/Streets of Minneapolis

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Bridgerton/My first Comment on the Netflix series Bridgerton/About the relationship of Lady Violet Bridgerton and her son Anthony

Violet-S3E4

LADY VIOLET BRIDGERTON
Anthony_2x07-4
ANTHONY BRIDGERTON
LADY VIOLET’S SON

BRIDGERTON/MY FIRST COMMENT ON THE NETFLIX SERIES BRIDGERTON/ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF

LADY VIOLET BRIDGERTON AND HER ELDEST SON ANTHONY

[Readers, later I will explain more about this]

IN THE CLASHES WITH ANTHONY, LADY VIOLET BRIDGERTON DID NOT
SHOW HERSELF A WARM AND LOVING MOTHER, NOT EMOTIONALLY BEING PRESENT, WHEN HE NEEDED HER MOST
Lady Violet Bridgerton never realized, that Anthony was just a boy of 18 years,
when his father died, fresh from Eton and now having to carry all responsibilities
of a great noble Estate.
Instead of encouraging him, she constant scolded him, no friendly word and
comparing him with his father, which was unfair, since his father was the yearlong
Earl [Count?] of the Estate.
And….a good mother is tender to all her children, instead of seven and left the eldest
in the cold.

And take for example her different reaction regarding her daughter Daphne, marrying

Anthony’s best friend Simon, Duke of Hastings [apart from the duel drama from which
mother Violet, happily, was unaware], in comparison with her attitude regarding
Anthony”s love [otherwise a relationship, although on and off, doesn’t last at
least six years]for opera singer Siena Rosso.
And YES
I know and realize that in the Regency Time a marriage or openly relastionship
between a Viscount and an opera singer was not appropriate and was not accepted.
I realize Lady Violet couldn’t support that.
But at least she could have shown some compassion and comfort to her son,
who needed her as a mother too, instead of harsh disapproval and only
pointing out to his duties, for him to believe, that to his mother, only social
status weighted and that she didn’t see him as her son, but only as
the Head of the Household.
He was just a boy and needed his mother too.
Besides, it must have hurt her emotionally too, that she and her son always
clashed.
In some things she told him she was right, of course, but she didn’t criticize him
with love, always hateful and stern
VIOLET”S PERSPECTIVE
And don’t get me wrong.
I don”t say she did not love him, because watching the show I noticed that
she loved him deeply and warmly, also in Season 1.
But she didn’t show it.
Admitted:
She mourned her husband very much and thereafter she had a traumatic
childbirth, was so depressed [which she could help either] that she
couldn’t be there for Anthony and the other children, laying all the weight on
Anthony.
But she did not appreciate everything what he did, untill in Season 2
And I do understand the impossibility of their both positions.
Anthony now being the head of the Household [immediately after
her husband’s death she had to leave the marital bedroom, that now belonged
to Anthony as new Viscount and he had to make the medical decision at her
childbirth to ”choose” between the life of his mother and the unborn baby, which
was traumatic to her and also Anthony]
That shift of positions  gave them both an unnatural relationship from mother and just the eldest son to the Head of the Family and
she as indulger of his decisions or critic.
But she remains his mother and, showing him his duties [in which
she was right], not granting him HER moral and emotional
duty to give him motherly support, although I understand that sometimes
she had to be stern.
CONCLUSION:
Lady Violet loved Anthony deeply.
I don’t doubt that at all.
But while criticizing him [which was sometimes of course necessary]
she showed no warmth, valued ”the ton” and ”Family honor” which he
indeed had to preserve, above her natural love for him and when aware of
the Siena Rosso affair, she didn’t give him any comfort or warmth
[like ”I know it’s hard for you to end the relationship, but given the apparent
social ostracism for you and the Family you have no choice darling” or something
like that]
She couldn’t just use the excuse of being ”mortified by the scandal” or
”damaging the Family honor or the marrying chances of her daughters, although true.
When your child is grieving [and she must know he was, since she herself had seen
him watching Siena], you comfort your child, not just ”sacrificing his apparent
happiness to the happiness of the other seven”
Poor boy
He must felt so abandoned, if the person, who is supposed to love
you most, leaves you into the cold.
I understand her point of view too. Yet it is unforgivable and he should
have stood up against her.
”Mother, I need you too, and I am not just ”the Head of the Family’, who must
do my duties”
I am also your son.”
APOLOGIES
Therefore I am pleased, that she apologized in Season 2 [although not
for her emotional neglect of Anthony in the Siena Rosso affair] for
the heavy burden she put on him and not seeing his emotional
pain and isolation [after all he mourned for his father too and as she, had
watched him die]
Her very words touched me:
“I am sorry for everything that happened in the days that followed. If I could go back and change it, you have no idea. I would go back and change everything”
It was deeply moving, especially spoken in a historic Time, that
parents seldom apologized to their children.
CONCLUSION
Although failing for a time in her emotional approach of
Anthony, Lady Violet was at heart a warm and loving
mother, also to him, flawed by the strict demands of the Regency Time on social aspects, the different role of sons and daughters,
especially the ”Head of the Family” and her own intense grief
after her husband’s sudden death.
She had the courage, finally to acknowledge the pain she
unwillingly caused to her son, so preventing that she lost him
emotionally
SEE FUTURE POSTS ON MY BLOG
ASTRID ESSED

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Bridgerton/My first Comment on the Netflix series Bridgerton/About the relationship of Lady Violet Bridgerton and her son Anthony

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Astrid Essed about Iran, Venezuela and Donald Trump/Attack?/Will he or won’t he?

Foto Foto: Belga
ASTRID ESSED ABOUT IRAN, VENEZUELA AND DONALD TRUMP/ATTACK?/
WILL HE OR WON’T HE?
[Written from a discussion with a friend]
Because of the shocking and enormous quickness of events, no
footnotes here,
Maybe later.
Or perhaps in another comment or piece.
READERS
THIS IS MY ANALYSIS
Of course I could be wrong.
LET’S BEGIN!
This is-for what’s worth-my short analysis about the US/Iran situation.
We don’t have to talk about the human rights issue-
I am convinced of the fact, that the Iranian leaders have violated
human rights on a large scale, but the USA are the last in the World
to condemn others because of a human rights situation, since the USA is
one of the biggest human rights violators, domestic and abroad.
And people who live in glass houses [as States] shouldn’t throw stones!
The USA have committed more human rights violations and atrocities
then the Iranian leaders ever did!
THAT’S ONE
Further I will always be grateful to the Iranian leaders for their unwavering
support to Palestine, which can’t be said from many Arab leaders!
ATTACK ON IRAN
But I sincerely doubt if the USA will really launch a military operation
on Iran.
LOOK!
Trump is a Bully.
And like most Bullies: A Coward.
The more submissive one acts, the more you want to please him,
the more insolent he becomes.
That’s why the pathetic and submissive EU tactics regarding Greenland
will not work.
Trump and his Club only respect those who Bully the Bully.
Iran and Venezuela are countries of that calibre.
But there is more:
Trump doesn’t want a full scale military confrontation with Iran,
because Iran is militant and determined to fight, when necessary
and the army and militia’s are loyal to the present leaders.
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE:
Iran has nuclear weapons and that nuclear arsenal is NOT
broken, even after the US and Israeli military attacks.
Iran has clever guys and the know how to repair what’s destroyed.
And the recent large scale protests diminish because of the hard oppression.
VENEZUELA
In Venezuela Trump didn’t choose large scale military confrontation either.
Okay:
He launched a limited military operation and kidnapped the sitting president Maduro and his wife, but the Venezuelan ARMY is still intact and loyal
to the present  Venezuelan leaders.
HERE THE SAME THING:
Trump doesn’t care at all about human rights, fair elections, etc
ALL HE CARES ABOUT IS OIL AND RARE EARTH METALS.
AND STRATEGIC LOCATION FOR US ”NATIONAL SECURITY”
That’s why he wants Greenland so badly.
It will be the same with Iran.
Probably Trump will have control over the Iranian oil and also he shall
want to neutralize Iran as a [justified] enemy of Zionist Entity Israel.
The last won’t work, but perhaps the first will by favorable oil deals.
CONCLUSION:
TRUMP WANTS NO LARGE SCALE MILITARY CONFRONTATION,
NOT WITH VENEZUELA AND NOT WITH IRAN, BECAUSE IN
BOTH COUNTRIES THE ARMY IS LOYAL TO THE LEADERS
BECAUSE
THOSE ARE NO COUNTRIES, THAT GO WITHOUT A FIGHT
BECAUSE
OIL IS TRUMP’S MAIN CONCERN, NOT NECESSARILY A REGIME
CHANGE.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST
[Excuse my vulgarity]
TRUMP DOESN’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS!
HE ONLY CARES ABOUT TRUMP RIGHTS.
That was the News..
For now.
We can’t wait to see what happens!
WHO’S NEXT?
GREENLAND?
LIMITED MILITARY ATTACK ON IRAN [Because he can
still launch a limited military attack]
ASTRID ESSED

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Astrid Essed about Iran, Venezuela and Donald Trump/Attack?/Will he or won’t he?

Opgeslagen onder Divers

The US kidnapping of the Venezuelan president Maduro and his wife/Reaction of Venezuela’s vice president Rodriguez

New York, NY - September 27, 2019: Press briefing by Venezuelian Vice President Delcy Rodriguez during 74th UN General Assembly at UN Headquarters

THE US KIDNAPPING OF PRESIDENT NICOLAS MADURO/REACTION

OF VICE PRESIDENT DELCY RODRIGUEZ
VENEZUELAN VP DELCY RODRIGUEZ GIVES NATIONALADDRESS IN THE WAKE OF MADURO ”KIDKAPPING”
[REPORTER]
Uhm, what avout Venezuela in the meantime?
Well, the vice president and actiong leader, Delcy Rodriguez, has given
a major televised address to the nation, declaring that Nicolas Maduro remains the
president of Venezuela.
She’s also been demanding his immidiate release.
Miss Rodriguez calling the overnight operation by the United States an
unprecedented military aggression that constitutes a terrible stain on
bilateral relations.
She’s calling for calm and unity to defend the country against what
she described as the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores.
She says Venezuela will never again be a colony of any empire.
[0.40]
[DELCY RODRIGUEZ,VICE PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA]:
[TRANSLATED IN ENGLISH FROM SPANISH,
VOICE OVER SPEAKING IN ENGLISH]:
”Everything within the constitution we learned from the commander Chavez.
In the face of adversities in the face of coupetar, in the face of oil sabotages,we are ready to defend Venezuela.
We are ready to defend our natural resources that must be for national
development.
The extremists who have promoted this armed aggression against our
country, history and justice will make them pay.
If there’s something that the Venezuelan people and this coubtry have very clear
is that we will never again be slaves.
END OF YOUTUBE FILM

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The US kidnapping of the Venezuelan president Maduro and his wife/Reaction of Venezuela’s vice president Rodriguez

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Trump’s 20-point Gaza Peace Plan/Why it’s wrong

DONALD TRUMP’S 20-POINTS GAZA PEACE PLAN/WHY IT’S WRONG
INTRODUCTION
[THIS IS PURELY AN ASTRID ESSED ANALYSIS OF THE TRUMP 20 POINTS
PROPOSAL, HIS SOCALLED ”GAZA PEACE PLAN”
ALL ACTUAL EVENTS, RENEWED ISRAELI ATTACKS AFTER
THE CEASEFIRE [1AA AND 1BB], AS
NEWS ABOUT THE HOSTAGES AND THEIR RELEASEMENT
BY HAMAS AND THE ISRAELI RESPONSE WILL BE LEFT OUT
OF THIS ARTICLE]
READERS!
After two years war and Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people
in Gaza [1A], president Trump lanced his ”20 Point Gaza Peace Plan” [2A] ,
and as we speak [17-11-2025] accepted by the UN Security Council! [2AA]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK
I have something to say about that Trump ”Gaza Peace Plan” and I
will do that LOUD, CLEAR AND FIERCE!
Based on the principe, that every Nation has the right to be free and
the right to fight for that Freedom! [3A]
HOW DO I DO THIS?
I quote from the BBC article ”Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Peace Plan in full” [4A],
that mentions all the 20 points [as the title shows] [5A]
After mentioning a Point, I lance my critical Attack UNDER that point
titled: ASTRID ESSED ATTACK
BELOW THIS INTRODUCTION:
Directly below this Introduction I mention the notes, belonging to this Piece,
from 1AA T/M 6A.
And under my Astrid Essed attack on the 20 points Trump Peace Plan [6A],
the notes, mentioned in my Astrid Essed Attack
ASTRID ESSED
NOTES BY INTRODUCTION
NOTE 1AA
NOTE 1BB
NOTE 1A
NOTE 2A
NOTE 2AA
NOTE 3A
NOTES 4A AND 5A
NOTE 6A
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON TRUMP’S 20 POINTS
GAZA PEACE PLAN
[See the BBC article] [1]
POINT 1 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
1. Gaza will be a deradicalised terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbours. [2]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 1
WRONG as that neigbour is called Israel.
Because Israel is no ”neighbouring country” of Gaza,
but an Occupying.
For YES, according to International Law Israel is
still the Occupying Power in Gaza. [3]
There is no such Thing as ”deradicalization” or ”terror”
The only ”Terror” in Gaza comes from Israeli military
attacks and the Gaza Blockade, which is a warcrime since the basic
needs are being denied to the Gazan people.
Years and years this Blockade goes on, different in intensity [4]
Hamas, seen by mostly Western countries as a” terrorist
movement” is a legitimized resistance movement against
the Israeli occupation [5] and a legally elected government. [6]
Although Hamas also uses methods contrary to International
Law like taking hostages, abductions and military attacks on
civilian goals [7] -and must be held accountable for that-
but Hamas still remains a legitimate resistance movement
against the illegal Israeli occupation. [8]
 
 
POINT 2 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
2. Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough. [9]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 2
Trump is right by stating that ”the people of Gaza
have suffered more than enough” [10]
However, Humpie Trumpie does NOT point out
to the real cause of that suffering:
The Israeli Gaza Blockade and the genocidal Israeli attacks
on Gaza from 2023-2025! [11]
Those heinous deeds [The Gaza Blockade and the genocidal
Israeli attacks on  Gaza/addition Astrid Essed] must br named out in the open and Israel must be held accountable according
to International Law Standards.
POINT 3 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
3. If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal. [12]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 3
 
NO MR PRESIDENT!
The Israeli army, responsible for warcrimes and crimes
against humanity [13], must withdraw immediately 
without any fuss!
Further I agree with Trump, that the hostages should 
be released, since holding hostages, especially civilians, 
is a warcrime. [14]
POINT 4 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
4. Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned. [15]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 4
 
I agree with Trump, that the hostages must be released and return
to Israel, as far as the living are concerned.
But I understand-and agree with-Hamas, that it is not always 
possible to find all remains of the deceased hostages [16]
 
 
POINT 5 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
5. Once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after 7 October 2023, including all women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans. [17]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 5
Here Trump does have a point.
BUT:
Israel must release ALL remains of deceased Gazans.
Since Israel has not the Hamas excuse, that they couldn’t
find the location of the remains [18]
POINT 6 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
6. Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries. [19]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 6
NO! NO! NO!
Hamas will surrender [give up] NOT ANY SORT OF WEAPON!
To no country or organization!
Hamas is a legitimate resistance movement [20], that will remain
operating as long as the Israeli occupation continues!
The way I see it, Hamas may lay down it’s arms only
on ONE condition:
When the Israeli army also lays down it’s weapons!
POINT 7 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
7. Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip. At a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the 19 January 2025 agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads. [21]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 7
Of course this Point is to scandalous and ridiculous for
words, since aid supplies must have always free access, according
to International Law Standards!
Starvation of the civilian population as a method of  warfare, as in Gaza [22], is not only inhuman. It is forbidden! [23]
POINT 8 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
8. Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party. Opening the Rafah crossing in both directions will be subject to the same mechanism implemented under 19 January 2025 agreement. [24]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 8
I agree with this Trump Proposal
 
 
POINT 9 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
9. Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of state to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform programme, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment. [25]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 9
NO! NO! NO!
Hamas is and remains the legitimate government in Gaza,
upholding the principles of International Law!
If Hamas doesn’t govern Gaza anymore, then also
not the present Israeli government, that is, by the way,
responsible for Genocide in Gaza! [26]
POINT 10 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
10. A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energise Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East. Many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas have been crafted by well-meaning international groups, and will be considered to synthesize the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza. [27]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 10
If Trump will contribute to the rebuilding of Gaza, it’s
fine with me.
HOWEVER:
It’s ISRAEL, that destroyed Gaza, so it is primary
ISRAEL, that is responsible for the rebuilding
of Gaza!
THE DESTROYER PAYS AND MUST BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE!
AND the countries that are complicit in Israel’s genocide
[for example by supplying weapons to Israel]
POINT 11 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN

11. A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.

[28]

ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 11
I disagree with you, mr President!
Why?
Because it is a neo-colonial and patronizing idea.
If Trump proposes a ”special economic zone” for Gaza,
then negociations should be opened with Gaza’s
legitimate representatives.
And that, mr President, is Hamas, until the Gazan people
decide otherwise, WITHOUT FOREIGN PRESSURE!
POINT 12 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
12. No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza. [29]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 12
So no ethnic cleansings.
That seems obvious to me, sibce ethnic cleansings
are crimes against humanity. [30]
Although a kind of funny, that Trump does
this Proposal, since not SOOO long ago it
was Trump himself, pleading ethnic cleansings with
his socalled ”Gaza Riviera Plan……..” [31]
POINT 13 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
13. Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarisation of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration programme all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbours. [32]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 13
MADNESS!
Not only it is utter nonsense, to negociate but two
parties about peace and doing a proposal to eliminate
one of the parties completely [and expecting, that that
party will agree!], moreover [and it can’t be said enough!],
Hamas is a legitimate resistance movement against the
Israeli occupation, certainly as long as that occupation is not
ended! [33]
And more:
Fine with me, if Trump wants there is demilitarization in Gaza, but then that also applies to the army of the Israeli occupation Power!
 
 
 
POINT 14 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
14. A guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbours or its people. [34]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 14
Assuming that Hamas agrees with the more sensible points
of the Trump 20 points Plan [35]
What governments and institutions will provide the guarantee,
that Israel complies with the agreed agreements?
Like a ceasefire, since Israel even violated the ceasefire it had
closed itself with Hamas! [36]
POINT 15 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
15. The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilisation Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The ISF will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The ISF will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces. It is critical to prevent munitions from entering Gaza and to facilitate the rapid and secure flow of goods to rebuild and revitalize Gaza. A deconfliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties. [37]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 15
BAD IDEA AND NEO-COLONIALIST!
Why Neo-colonialist?
Because the Palestinian people is totally sidelined
and ignored!
Ridiculous, out of balance and unfair!
Unfair, because in this Trump Plan [38] one of the warfaring parties, Israel  [the Trump Peace
Plan is after all a negociation Plan between Israel and resistance
movement Hamas, political representive of the Palestinian
people! [39], the Occupying Power, would have a say in helping secure border areas.
RIDICULOUS!
POINT 16 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
16. Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the ISF establishes control and stability, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization that will be agreed upon between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the United States, with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. Practically, the IDF will progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies to the ISF according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority until they are withdrawn completely from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat. [40]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 16
The only reasonable Point here is ”Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza.” [41]
HOWEVER:
This Statement from Point 16 doesn’t do justice to the
political reality and the reality by International Law.
Because whether Israel is withdrawing from Gaza or
not [and of course they must withdraw from Gaza immediately!],
according to International Law Israel still is the Occupying
Power in Gaza! [42]
 
 
POINT 17 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
17. In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF. [43]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 17
SINK IT IN O READERS
”……the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF.” [44]
So if Hamas doesn’t agree with this Trump Gaza ”Peace” Plan [45],
humanitarian aid will be DENIED to the areas, controlled\by Hamas………….
This is DISGUSTING,  ABUSE OF POWER AND
A COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT OF THE CIVILIAN
POPULATION!  [46]
And in case Mr President Trump has forgotten:
Starvation as method of warfare is not only inhuman.
It is also a warcrime! [47]
POINT 18 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
18. An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful co-existence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.  [48]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 18
Beautiful words mr President, but this Conflict has
nothing to do with religion or individual Israeli’s or
Palestinians and you know it!
This Conflict is about occupation and colonization. [49]
And as long as the occupation is not ended and justice is not
done [50], there can’t be a real, true peace.
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
POINT 19 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
19. While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people. [51]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 19
NO Mr President!
No ”conditions for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” [52].
THE PALESTINIANS HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO SELFDETERMINATION!
HISTORICALLY, MORALLY
AND BY UN RESOLUTIONS!
It is ISRAEL, that is founded in historical Palestine, not
the other way around.
 
 
POINT 20 TRUMP GAZA PEACE PLAN
20. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence. [53]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK ON POINT 20
NO!
Certainly NOT the United States!
The USA are and always have  been fanatically pro-Israel
and have always supported Israel politically, military and
financially, also in this genocidal Gaza War! [54] and is 
far from neutral! [55]
 
THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN!
 
END TO THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF
THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES!
 
DISMANTLING OF ALL ISRAELI
SETTLEMENTS IN OCCUPIED PALESTINIAAN
TERRITORIES!
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PALESTIAN RIGHT OF RETURN! [56]
DOWN WITH THAT TRUMP 20 POINTS ”GAZA PEACE PLAN”!
ASTRID ESSED
NOTES
NOTES 11 T/M 21
NOTES 22 T/M 31
NOTES 32 T/M 42
NOTES 43 T/M 52
NOTES 53 T/M 56

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Trump’s 20-point Gaza Peace Plan/Why it’s wrong

Opgeslagen onder Divers

The Crusades had NOTHING to do with the true values of Christianity!/One of many Examples:/The massacre at Ayyadieh

King Richard I
RICHARD COEUR DE LION, SECOND PLANTAGENET KING]
[OTHER NAME] RICHARD THE LION HEART
KING OF ENGLAND AND GREAT GREAT GRANDSON OF
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR [RICHARD’S PATERNAL
GRANDMOTHER, EMPRESS MAUD, WAS THE PATERNAL GRANDDAUGHTER OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR
SEE
RICHARD’S FATHER, KING HENRY II
KING HENRY II’S MOTHER, EMPRESS MAUD [MATHILDA], THE
LAWFUL SUCCESSOR OF HER FATHER, KING HENRY I,
ALTHOUGH HER THRONE HAD BEEN USURPED BY HER
FIRST COUSIN, STEPHEN OF BLOIS, WHICH LED TO A BITTER
CIVIL WAR
KING HENRY I, FATHER OF EMPRESS MAUD AND YOUNGEST SON
OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR’
HENRY I LET THE BARONS SWEAR AN OATH OF LOYALTY TO
HIS DAUGHTER AND SUCCESSOR, EMPRESS MAUD
HOWEVER MANY BARONS BROKE THAT OATH AND HENRY I’S
NEPHEW [SON OF HIS SISTER ADELA OF NORMANDY] USURPED
THE THRONE
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, FATHER OF KING HENRY I
AS THE DUKE OF NORMANDY, DUKE WILLIAM CONQUERED ENGLAND IN
1066, DEFEATING THE LAST ANGLO SAXON KING, KING HARALD [OR KING HAROLD II, HAROLD GODWINSON],
AT THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR WAS THE GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER OF
RICHARD COEUR THE LION [RICHARD LIONHEART], WHO WENT
ON CRUSADE AND IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE
KING HARALD [OR HAROLD II], THE LAST ANGLO SAXON
KING OF ENGLAND, DEFEATED BY WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR IN THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS IN 1066
THE CRUSADES HAD NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE VALUES OF CHRISTIANITY!/AN EXAMPLE:
MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH
40i And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
NEW TESTIMONYMATTHEW 25: 40
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25
READERS!
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest  for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you canb see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read  the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Real Crusades History
ENJOY!
ASTRID ESSED
NOTE 1
WIKIPEDIA
ANGEVIN KINGS OF ENGLAND
NOTE 2
WIKIPEDIA
SALADIN
A
WIKIPEDIA
MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH
B
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY” ON FACEBOOK
THEIR COMMENT ON THE ROLE OF KING RICHARD
COEUR DE LION [RICHARD I, BETTER KNOWN AS
RICHARD LIONHEART] IN THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH [PAY ATTENTION:
RICHARD LIONHEART HIMSELF ORDERED THAT MASSACRE!]
REAL CRUSADES HISTORY ON FACEBOOK
COMMENT


Bericht van Real Crusades History


Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
HISTORY”

Astrid Essed

NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
Astrid Essed
The Netherlands
SEE ALSO FROM ASTRID ESSED
AND
END

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The Crusades had NOTHING to do with the true values of Christianity!/One of many Examples:/The massacre at Ayyadieh

Opgeslagen onder Divers

The Massacre at Ayyadieh/Astrid Essed versus Real Crusades History

King Richard I
RICHARD COEUR DE LION, SECOND PLANTAGENET KING]
[OTHER NAME] RICHARD THE LION HEART
KING OF ENGLAND AND GREAT GREAT GRANDSON OF
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR [RICHARD’S PATERNAL
GRANDMOTHER, EMPRESS MAUD, WAS THE PATERNAL GRANDDAUGHTER OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR
SEE
RICHARD’S FATHER, KING HENRY II
KING HENRY II’S MOTHER, EMPRESS MAUD [MATHILDA], THE
LAWFUL SUCCESSOR OF HER FATHER, KING HENRY I,
ALTHOUGH HER THRONE HAD BEEN USURPED BY HER
FIRST COUSIN, STEPHEN OF BLOIS, WHICH LED TO A BITTER
CIVIL WAR
KING HENRY I, FATHER OF EMPRESS MAUD AND YOUNGEST SON
OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR’
HENRY I LET THE BARONS SWEAR AN OATH OF LOYALTY TO
HIS DAUGHTER AND SUCCESSOR, EMPRESS MAUD
HOWEVER MANY BARONS BROKE THAT OATH AND HENRY I’S
NEPHEW [SON OF HIS SISTER ADELA OF NORMANDY] USURPED
THE THRONE
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, FATHER OF KING HENRY I
AS THE DUKE OF NORMANDY, DUKE WILLIAM CONQUERED ENGLAND IN
1066, DEFEATING THE LAST ANGLO SAXON KING, KING HARALD [OR KING HAROLD II, HAROLD GODWINSON],
AT THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR WAS THE GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER OF
RICHARD COEUR THE LION [RICHARD LIONHEART], WHO WENT
ON CRUSADE AND IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE
KING HARALD [OR HAROLD II], THE LAST ANGLO SAXON
KING OF ENGLAND, DEFEATED BY WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR IN THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS IN 1066
ASTRID ESSED’S VIEW ON THE CRUSADES/ASTRID ESSED VERSUS
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY”/NO EXCUSE FOR RICHARD COEUR DE
LION’S MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH”
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest  for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you canb see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read  the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Real Crusades History
ENJOY!
ASTRID ESSED
NOTE 1
WIKIPEDIA
ANGEVIN KINGS OF ENGLAND
NOTE 2
WIKIPEDIA
SALADIN
A
WIKIPEDIA
MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH
B
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY” ON FACEBOOK
THEIR COMMENT ON THE ROLE OF KING RICHARD
COEUR DE LION [RICHARD I, BETTER KNOWN AS
RICHARD LIONHEART] IN THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH [PAY ATTENTION:
RICHARD LIONHEART HIMSELF ORDERED THAT MASSACRE!]
REAL CRUSADES HISTORY ON FACEBOOK
COMMENT


Bericht van Real Crusades History


Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
HISTORY”

Astrid Essed

NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
Astrid Essed
The Netherlands
SEE ALSO FROM ASTRID ESSED
AND
END

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The Massacre at Ayyadieh/Astrid Essed versus Real Crusades History

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Astrid Essed’s Views on the Crusades/I/”No excuse for Richard Coeur de Lion’s massacre at Ayyadieh” [Facebook comment]

King Richard I
RICHARD COEUR DE LION, SECOND PLANTAGENET KING]
[OTHER NAME] RICHARD THE LION HEART
KING OF ENGLAND AND GREAT GREAT GRANDSON OF
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR [RICHARD’S PATERNAL
GRANDMOTHER, EMPRESS MAUD, WAS THE PATERNAL GRANDDAUGHTER OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR
SEE
RICHARD’S FATHER, KING HENRY II
KING HENRY II’S MOTHER, EMPRESS MAUD [MATHILDA], THE
LAWFUL SUCCESSOR OF HER FATHER, KING HENRY I,
ALTHOUGH HER THRONE HAD BEEN USURPED BY HER
FIRST COUSIN, STEPHEN OF BLOIS, WHICH LED TO A BITTER
CIVIL WAR
KING HENRY I, FATHER OF EMPRESS MAUD AND YOUNGEST SON
OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR’
HENRY I LET THE BARONS SWEAR AN OATH OF LOYALTY TO
HIS DAUGHTER AND SUCCESSOR, EMPRESS MAUD
HOWEVER MANY BARONS BROKE THAT OATH AND HENRY I’S
NEPHEW [SON OF HIS SISTER ADELA OF NORMANDY] USURPED
THE THRONE
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, FATHER OF KING HENRY I
AS THE DUKE OF NORMANDY, DUKE WILLIAM CONQUERED ENGLAND IN
1066, DEFEATING THE LAST ANGLO SAXON KING, KING HARALD [OR KING HAROLD II, HAROLD GODWINSON],
AT THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR WAS THE GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER OF
RICHARD COEUR THE LION [RICHARD LIONHEART], WHO WENT
ON CRUSADE AND IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE
KING HARALD [OR HAROLD II], THE LAST ANGLO SAXON
KING OF ENGLAND, DEFEATED BY WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR IN THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS IN 1066
ASTRID ESSED’S VIEW ON THE CRUSADES/ASTRID ESSED VERSUS
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY”/NO EXCUSE FOR RICHARD COEUR DE
LION’S MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH”
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest  for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you can see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read  the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Real Crusades History
ENJOY!
ASTRID ESSED
NOTE 1
WIKIPEDIA
ANGEVIN KINGS OF ENGLAND
NOTE 2
WIKIPEDIA
SALADIN
A
WIKIPEDIA
MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH
B
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY” ON FACEBOOK
THEIR COMMENT ON THE ROLE OF KING RICHARD
COEUR DE LION [RICHARD I, BETTER KNOWN AS
RICHARD LIONHEART] IN THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH [PAY ATTENTION:
RICHARD LIONHEART HIMSELF ORDERED THAT MASSACRE!]
REAL CRUSADES HISTORY ON FACEBOOK
COMMENT


Bericht van Real Crusades History


Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
HISTORY”

Astrid Essed

NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
Astrid Essed
The Netherlands
SEE ALSO FROM ASTRID ESSED
AND
END

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Astrid Essed’s Views on the Crusades/I/”No excuse for Richard Coeur de Lion’s massacre at Ayyadieh” [Facebook comment]

Opgeslagen onder Divers