Dumbest Protest Signs

[TheL]

You know what's really dumb about that picture?  I think it's using screenshots from a movie about the Crusades, when Jews suffered horribly.

One first-hand account of the Crusades stuck with me because it described dismembered "Saracen" and Jewish bodies, and knights riding through the Temple in Jerusalem where the blood was high enough to touch the horses' bridles.  And then, the (Christian) author gives thanks to God for allowing them to commit such butchery.

[lord gibbon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra

I'll just leave this here.

[guizonde]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra

I'll just leave this here.

i fail to see the problem by skimming the article. mind giving me a heads-up? it's basically about crusaders delving into cannibalism of saracens. or am i missing something?

i mean, sure it's tasteless (pun intended), but it's a wikipedia article. what's wrong with it (apart from the usual caveats of wikipedia)?

[Ultimate Paragon]

You know what's really dumb about that picture?  I think it's using screenshots from a movie about the Crusades, when Jews suffered horribly.

One first-hand account of the Crusades stuck with me because it described dismembered "Saracen" and Jewish bodies, and knights riding through the Temple in Jerusalem where the blood was high enough to touch the horses' bridles.  And then, the (Christian) author gives thanks to God for allowing them to commit such butchery.

Yeah.  The popular image of Crusaders was as noble, pious heroes who fought in defense of their faith.  But in reality, many of them were depraved brutes who just wanted an excuse to kill.  In fact, one reason the First Crusade began was because Pope Urban II was sick of his flock being killed by bloodthirsty marauders.

[lord gibbon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra

I'll just leave this here.

i fail to see the problem by skimming the article. mind giving me a heads-up? it's basically about crusaders delving into cannibalism of saracens. or am i missing something?

i mean, sure it's tasteless (pun intended), but it's a wikipedia article. what's wrong with it (apart from the usual caveats of wikipedia)?

The fact that the crusaders literally ate babies?

[Ultimate Paragon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra

I'll just leave this here.

i fail to see the problem by skimming the article. mind giving me a heads-up? it's basically about crusaders delving into cannibalism of saracens. or am i missing something?

i mean, sure it's tasteless (pun intended), but it's a wikipedia article. what's wrong with it (apart from the usual caveats of wikipedia)?

The fact that the crusaders literally ate babies?

To be fair, they didn't have much choice.

[Random Gal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra

I'll just leave this here.

i fail to see the problem by skimming the article. mind giving me a heads-up? it's basically about crusaders delving into cannibalism of saracens. or am i missing something?

i mean, sure it's tasteless (pun intended), but it's a wikipedia article. what's wrong with it (apart from the usual caveats of wikipedia)?

The fact that the crusaders literally ate babies?

To be fair, they didn't have much choice.

...wait, are you seriously trying to defend EATING BABIES?

[davedan]

Well the babies on the spits were already dead (because the crusaders killed them)

[ironbite]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra

I'll just leave this here.

i fail to see the problem by skimming the article. mind giving me a heads-up? it's basically about crusaders delving into cannibalism of saracens. or am i missing something?

i mean, sure it's tasteless (pun intended), but it's a wikipedia article. what's wrong with it (apart from the usual caveats of wikipedia)?

The fact that the crusaders literally ate babies?

To be fair, they didn't have much choice.

...wait, are you seriously trying to defend EATING BABIES?

.........well that's my night made!

[Art Vandelay]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra

I'll just leave this here.

i fail to see the problem by skimming the article. mind giving me a heads-up? it's basically about crusaders delving into cannibalism of saracens. or am i missing something?

i mean, sure it's tasteless (pun intended), but it's a wikipedia article. what's wrong with it (apart from the usual caveats of wikipedia)?

The fact that the crusaders literally ate babies?

To be fair, they didn't have much choice.

...wait, are you seriously trying to defend EATING BABIES?

Well, they are irresistibly delicious.

[rookie]

Don't all you atheists do that anyways?

[Art Vandelay]

Only on special occasions.

[lord gibbon]

That's why it's so disgusting! They just stuck them in a fire for a bit and that's all! Damn Christians don't know the first thing about a properly cooked baby!

[davedan]

Yeah you can't eat the dead baby without rubbing it first with garlic and rosemary.

[RavynousHunter]

Glaze it with a little honey and shove an apple in its mouth, and you've got some fine eats, right there!