but.......THE CRUSADES!

[/]

And this isn't even getting into what it was like back in the days when this passage was written, as if any of us today could truly understand what it was like living in the days of tribalism. Hell, in places in the world today where tribalism still exists, then Deuteronomy makes perfect sense and in such point of view is actually wise. No matter how barbaric outsiders may consider such practices. One way or another every society practices such as Deuteronomy 13: 6-18.

Seems legit

Every Advisor Ever: My king! Your people in the village across the river are beginning to defect to another leader, what should we do?
Tribal King: Kill the defectors-
Advisor: Right away my-
King: I'm not finished, then kill all the other adults-
Advisor: right, because they might have aided-
King: then the children, kill all the babies in their cribs! Oh, and leave no cow un-stabbed!
Advisor:.... err, and bring them back for a feast, right? The soldiers have been hungry...
King: Then gather it up, and burn it all in an effigy for ME! Make sure you burn anything vaguely useful, burn it so bad that part of our own scarce land will be unusable forever! Muhuhuhahaha!
Advisor: *Backs away slowly*

Didn't the Babylonians already have a few hundred pretty-good written laws by then?

Also, that's an interesting interpretation that I've heard argued, that the New Testament changes the Old Testament. I'm not trying to be sarky, I honestly never understood that part and would appreciate it if you could explain further.

Not sure if I can play but...

Even though the entire Old Testament is good for edification it is directed to a specific people at a specific time.

Yahushua's perfect sacrifice paid for all our sin. We no longer kill a bird because we sat on the same bed as a woman who menstruated. Grab a shower and change our pants if needed and off to Sunday meetin.

God has made bacon wrapped shrimp ok, though we are not supposed to fight those eating Kosher or Halal over use of the microwave at work.

Hm, that seems a lot better. Ok in my defence, those old f'ed up laws really should have a whole lot of asterisks next to them or something in the new bibles to make that clear.

Siege of Vienna 1683

Led by Suleiman the Magnificent,

And according to Dukasaur's date, he did it a whole 117 years after he died; Muslims are REALLY dedicated!

[saxitoxin]

There was not some monolithic Muslim entity led by the Chief Muslim who decided to attack Christian territory which was defended by the Head Christian.

"The Muslims" didn't all get together in the secret Muslim lair and decide to attack Christian territory. Individual states, for a variety of economic and political reasons, engaged in war against other individual states, and engaged in alliances with other states. In some cases it was Muslim states attacking Muslim states, in some cases it was Christian states attacking Christian states, in some cases it was Muslim states attacking Christian states, in some cases it was Christian states attacking Muslim states.

Of course something as big as Islam isn't a single monolithic entity, any more than Communism is a single monolithic entity. Of course Turks are different from Arabs, just as the Russians are different from the North Koreans. Of course Sunnis and Shiites will disagree with each other, and even kill each other on occasion, just as Leninists will disagree with Trotskyists, and even kill each other on occasion.

Bottom line, though, is that they will continue pursuing their central goal despite sometimes turning aside to engage in a family feud or two. Stalin and Mao may have hated each other's guts, but on the central ideal that Communism must eventually conquer the world and hang all the capitalists, they agreed without question. The Fatimids and the Seljuks may have gone at each other's throats from time to time, but neither would ever question that their common goal was to subjugate the "kaffirs" and bring all the world to kneel towards Mecca.

A movement doesn't need to be monolithic to be devoted to a common goal.

I mean, you both gulped down Snarling Bill's Kool-Aid without pausing - even when he coughed-up the side-splitting line that there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades (I'm going to keep bringing this up as long as you two clowns keep sheepishly refusing to either own or refute it).

Nah, I don't need to own or refute it. I'm not the author of the video, and in fact I got bored about half way through and shut it off. It probably does have factual errors, but I didn't post here to support the video. I posted here to refute your very specific lie that:

in the last 1200 years there were two single incidents (not "movements") of military forces from a Muslim-majority nation entering an historically Christian territory (

You keep talking but all I hear is banjos playing.

And according to Dukasaur's date, he did it a whole 117 years after he died; Muslims are REALLY dedicated!

Oops, yes, I think I was thinking about the first siege of Vienna. Or maybe something entirely different. I dunno.

[Oneyed]

is this topic about religion or about violence made in name of religion?
there was all time made violence in name of any religion. not just christian or muslim. each religion was used as occasion for violence.

this is too complex debate and its hard to say who was/is worse. but it never happens that muslims makes joke from christian god or jesus. but it happens very often when chrisians made joke from allah.
just think.

Oneyed

[Phatscotty]

I've never heard anyone refer to the Crusades as being the flashpoint of some conflict with the Muslim world.

What do most people refer to them as?

[Phatscotty]

is this topic about religion or about violence made in name of religion?
there was all time made violence in name of any religion. not just christian or muslim. each religion was used as occasion for violence.

this is too complex debate and its hard to say who was/is worse. but it never happens that muslims makes joke from christian god or jesus. but it happens very often when chrisians made joke from allah.
just think.

Oneyed

Both I guess. But it's come to the front basically because of our President. He has always gotten questioned and criticized for seemingly always brushing off the connection between radical religious extremism and radical/extreme Islam. To this day he has never said what the problem is by name. Most of the time, when some murder or violence is committed by a Muslim that loudly proclaims their actions to be in the name of God, Obama is quick to comment that Islam is a religion of peace, and we cannot judge Islam based on the action of a few (barrels) of bad apples, and that the recent violence/terrorism is not in the name of Islam. Then when Charlie got hit in France, most of the rest of the Western world came together and decided to make a joint statement that they are going to stand up against radical religiosu extremism. Obama was not one of those people who joined them. And now when CNN is (finally) criticizing and asking Obama why he can't say what it is, and MSNBC hosts are (finally) asking 'Just what the heck is Obama's religion anyways?' the President has finally decided to address the issue, aiming it at FOX of course. One part of his response was to almost put a name to it during our national prayer breakfast, and in doing so he quickly reminded everyone of, paraphrasing 'all the evil done in the name of Christ, terrible things done by Christians 1000 years ago.....ya know, the Crusades n stuff!' He reminded us not to be so quick to judge Islam, and not to get on our high horse, after he just got done judging and faulting Christianity for what some Christians did 1000 years ago

[saxitoxin]

is this topic about religion or about violence made in name of religion?
there was all time made violence in name of any religion. not just christian or muslim. each religion was used as occasion for violence.

this is too complex debate and its hard to say who was/is worse. but it never happens that muslims makes joke from christian god or jesus. but it happens very often when chrisians made joke from allah.
just think.

Oneyed

Both I guess. But it's come to the front basically because of our President. He has always gotten questioned and criticized for seemingly always brushing off the connection between radical religious extremism and radical/extreme Islam. To this day he has never said what the problem is by name. Most of the time, when some murder or violence is committed by a Muslim that loudly proclaims their actions to be in the name of God, Obama is quick to comment that Islam is a religion of peace, and we cannot judge Islam based on the action of a few (barrels) of bad apples, and that the recent violence/terrorism is not in the name of Islam. Then when Charlie got hit in France, most of the rest of the Western world came together and decided to make a joint statement that they are going to stand up against radical religiosu extremism. Obama was not one of those people who joined them. And now when CNN is (finally) criticizing and asking Obama why he can't say what it is, and MSNBC hosts are (finally) asking 'Just what the heck is Obama's religion anyways?' the President has finally decided to address the issue, aiming it at FOX of course. One part of his response was to almost put a name to it during our national prayer breakfast, and in doing so he quickly reminded everyone of, paraphrasing 'all the evil done in the name of Christ, terrible things done by Christians 1000 years ago.....ya know, the Crusades n stuff!' He reminded us not to be so quick to judge Islam, and not to get on our high horse, after he just got done judging and faulting Christianity for what some Christians did 1000 years ago

I assume he's saying "violent extremism" instead of "radical Islam" because the generic verbiage is most accurate to describe U.S. government anti-terrorist policies -

#1 -


Between 2006 and 2013, the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database (GTD) logged 14 terrorist incidents in the United States in which at least one person died. Of these, Muslims committed four: a 2006 attack on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, a 2009 assault on a Little Rock recruiting station, the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, and the 2013 Boston Marathon attack. Non-Muslims committed 10, including an attack on a Unitarian church in Knoxville in 2008, the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller in Wichita in 2009, the flying of a private plane into an IRS building in Austin in 2010, and the attack on the Sikh temple that same year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... am/385700/



#2 -
In the last 5 years the worst Christian Extremist terrorist attack in Europe killed 77 (Anders Behring). The worst Muslim Extremist terrorist attack in Europe killed 12 (Charlie Hebdo).

#3 -
For better or worse, the U.S. has military advisers in Uganda because of the Lord's Resistance Army, which claims inspiration from Christian doctrine.

#4 -
The #1 ideologically-inspired cop-killers in the U.S. are members of the Sovereign Citizen Movement.

So, the generic phrase "countering violent extremism" instead of the specific phrase "countering radical Islam" seems to be the most accurate description for U.S. government anti-terrorist policies.

Now that I've defended Obama, I have to go take a shower to wash off the filthy feeling.