[uncertaindrumer]

Quote:

Comparing the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 with a defensive war because the Christians took it back would therefore be the same as describing an English invasion of the USA now as defensive for taking back its colonies.

No, it wouldn't. Once again you look at this like states instead of religions. To have unbelievers in posession of the Holy Land was embarassing and unbearable. They wanted to take back the Holy Land because Christians were not always allowed in, pilgramages were nearly impossible, Christians had no rights when visiting their own origins, etc.

And I also said they were defensive in nature, if anything. I don't really think they were so clear cut. They were religious wars. After they started they never really ended. But Islam was the intial agrressor. That is all I mean by saying defensive in nature. Another problem with your Britain analogy is that Britan and the U.S. have not been constantly at war for the last two hundred years.

As for the Church never "owning" Jerusalem, that is because the Church rarely "owns" anything, except Vatican City. The only major exception was in the medeival era the ill-fated Papal States which... were a bad bad idea. Even then, the Pope was not in direct control of the countries. There were monarchs.

Also, the Church did not attack the Holy Land. Popes often organized the crusades and offered plenary indulgences to those who would go, but the rulers of the Christian nations gained what they conquered. Actually, one of the worst abuses in the Crusades was when, after promising the return of lands previously controlled by the Eastern Empire, the majority of the military commanders failed to do so.

I'm not saying bad things didn't happen. I mean, its war. Bad things ALWAYS happen. That's why I think the Iraq war is so wrong. But it was not a war the Christians ever wanted.