freeman3 wrote:It seems like a recurring theme from Islamic extremists--from Al Qaeda to ISIS--is that while the West might be materially strong it can be beaten because it is weak, morally decadent, and cowardly. The militants will win because they are willing to die and be martyrs in a righteous war against enemies of Islam. Air strikes can be interpreted as a sign of weakness, for example. But a decisive defeat of ISIS's forces should hinder its ability to recruit replacements.

Isn't that what Fallujah was about, in May 2004. The US 'won' the first battle of Fallujah. And then went back in in November the same year. That was a major battle and again the coalition won. But oddly, that didn't stop the insurgents, they just moved and reformed in Ramadi, and again gained more control of the province.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bat ... #Aftermath

Nevertheless, the battle proved to be less than the decisive engagement that the U.S. military had hoped for. Some of the nonlocal insurgents, along with Zarqawi, were believed to have fled before the military assault, leaving mostly local militants behind. Subsequent U.S. military operations against insurgent positions were ineffective at drawing out insurgents into another open battle, and by September 2006, the situation had deteriorated to the point that the Al-Anbar province that contained Fallujah was reported to be in total insurgent control by the U.S. Marine Corps, with the exception of only pacified Fallujah, but now with an insurgent-plagued Ramadi.[44][45]

After the U.S. military operation of November 2004, the number of insurgent attacks gradually increased in and around the city, and although news reports were often few and far between, several reports of IED attacks on Iraqi troops were reported in the press. Most notable of these attacks was a suicide car bomb attack on June 23, 2005 on a convoy that killed 6 Marines. Thirteen other Marines were injured in the attack. However, fourteen months later insurgents were again able to operate in large numbers.

A third push was mounted from September 2006 and lasted until mid-January 2007. Tactics developed in what has been called the "Third Battle of Fallujah," when applied on a larger scale in Ramada and the surrounding area, led to what became known as "the Great Sunni Awakening." After four years of bitter fighting, Fallujah was turned over to the Iraqi Forces and the Iraqi Provincial Authority during the autumn of 2007.

The main foe in Fallujah was Al Qaeda in Iraq. One of the forebears of what we now call ISIS. Who now have a presence in Fallujah, but the city is still a hotbed of anti-government extremist militia even without ISIS

I'm less optimistic that a total military victory has the effects that some think it does.

Maybe. But the Atlantic article I cited contends that ISIS is significantly different than Al Qaeda, that it must maintain control of territory to be able to assert it is a Caliphate, and that a significant defeat in the field will have more of an effect on it (due to its ideology) than it did to Al Qaeda.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:. . . after every attack it seems you will see Muslim leaders come out and say that--then I think that is painting a rosy picture that begs the question of why any Muslim would be attracted to the extremist interpretation in the first place.

(With fear and trepidation) Look, I don't want to argue about the Crusades. However, we often here of the great evils done during the Crusades. Fine.

But, why were the Crusades undertaken? Did "Christians" simply roll out of bed one day and decide to march on the Holy Land?

Well, kind of. It took a few hundred years after the Holy Land was captured for the Crusades to start. What happened shortly before the Crusades to inspire them? It was not attacks by Islamic Empires. On the contrary, it was successes in Sicily (where Normans ousted the Kalbids), and in Spain where the weakened Muslim states were attacked.

Of course there were also Crusades that didn't target the Islamic menace. The Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars in Southern France, the Fourth Crusade that sacked Constantinople. And most Crusades picked on the Jews when they found them.

But of course, that was all provoked by the Abbasids three hundred years before...

As an example, those idiots from Westboro Baptist Church do not represent Christianity. However, they claim to follow the Bible. They claim to be the "true" church. Christians roundly denounce them. We even mock them.

If only they were the only nutters who claim to be Christians.

Of course, the difference is stark: they are not burning people alive or decapitating them. ISIS is.

Look up the Naxalites, the Army of God, the Lord's Resistance Army, what Christian militia are doing in Central Africa... It ain't pretty stuff, and a lot more than waving nasty signs.

Still, I think Muslims can decide for themselves whether ISIS is genuinely a Muslim movement without the President's help. What they need is his leadership in order to do something effective to ISIS. Hashtag campaigns and bombing raids are not getting it done.

So the President is supposed to 'lead' the Muslim world now?

danivon wrote:But of course, that was all provoked by the Abbasids three hundred years before...

I'm going to engage in some harfing. #strawman.

As an example, those idiots from Westboro Baptist Church do not represent Christianity. However, they claim to follow the Bible. They claim to be the "true" church. Christians roundly denounce them. We even mock them.

If only they were the only nutters who claim to be Christians.

Yet, not too many Christians, or wannabes, setting folks aflame or lopping off their heads, let alone selling married women off into sex-trafficking.

Of course, the difference is stark: they are not burning people alive or decapitating them. ISIS is.

Look up the Naxalites, the Army of God, the Lord's Resistance Army, what Christian militia are doing in Central Africa... It ain't pretty stuff, and a lot more than waving nasty signs.

Meh, from LRA's wiki:

The LRA's ideology is disputed among academics.[43][70] Although the LRA has been regarded primarily as a Christian militia,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] the LRA reportedly evokes Acholi nationalism on occasion,[71] but many observers doubt the sincerity of this behaviour and the loyalty of Kony to either ideology.[72][73][74][75][76]

Robert Gersony, in a report funded by United States Embassy in Kampala in 1997, concluded that "the LRA has no political program or ideology, at least none that the local population has heard or can understand."[77] The International Crisis Group has stated that "the LRA is not motivated by any identifiable political agenda, and its military strategy and tactics reflect this."[78]

Double Meh, the Naxalites:

A Naxal or Naxalite is a member of any of the Communist guerrilla groups in India

Trifecta of Meh, the AOG:

The earliest documented incidence of the Army of God being involved with anti-abortion activity occurred in 1982. Three men associated with the organization kidnapped Hector Zevallos, an abortion doctor, and his wife, Rosalee Jean, and held them hostage. The hostages were later released unharmed.[2] The "East Coast division" of the AOG claimed responsibility when three men, including Michael Bray, planted bombs at seven abortion clinics in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. in 1985.[3]

The AOG claimed responsibility for Eric Robert Rudolph's 1997 nail bombing of abortion clinics in Atlanta and Birmingham as well as an Atlanta lesbian bar.[4]

Clayton Waagner, claiming to act on the part of the "Virginia Dare Chapter" of the AOG, mailed over 500 letters containing white powder to 280 abortion providers in 2001. The letters claimed that the powder was anthrax; though it was not identified as such, the tactic took advantage of the public's fear of biological warfare after the recent real anthrax attacks.[5][6]

The group is also associated with a number of murders of abortion providers. Some of these murders claimed association with the AOG; in other cases, while the killer expressed no affiliation with the group, the AOG has lionized their acts and taken up their cause.

Those are heinous crimes, but how do they compare with ISIS? #lame

Still, I think Muslims can decide for themselves whether ISIS is genuinely a Muslim movement without the President's help. What they need is his leadership in order to do something effective to ISIS. Hashtag campaigns and bombing raids are not getting it done.

So the President is supposed to 'lead' the Muslim world now?

Let's put it another way: GWB had more Muslim cooperation than Obama does. Have a nice evening, bub.

freeman3 wrote:Maybe. But the Atlantic article I cited contends that ISIS is significantly different than Al Qaeda, that it must maintain control of territory to be able to assert it is a Caliphate, and that a significant defeat in the field will have more of an effect on it (due to its ideology) than it did to Al Qaeda.

I think it is a crock.

ISIS was Al Qaeda in Iraq. It helped set up the Al Nusrah Front in Syria. Al Qaeda disaffiliated ISIS because it went into Syria and had a differet strategic goal. Ideologically they are similar.

And AQI/ISI were aiming to form a Caliphate back in 2004. So the fact they were "defeated" then didn't stop them coming back or undermine their credentials.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:But of course, that was all provoked by the Abbasids three hundred years before...

I'm going to engage in some harfing. #strawman.

Well you mentioned the expansion across North Africa. That was the Abbasids. So what Muslim perfidy was the trigger for the Crusades, then?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:But of course, that was all provoked by the Abbasids three hundred years before...

I'm going to engage in some harfing. #strawman.

Well you mentioned the expansion across North Africa. That was the Abbasids. So what Muslim perfidy was the trigger for the Crusades, then?

Let's see . . . after being wrong about everything else, you want to go after me with an inaccurate summary of what I wrote?

Nice.

Here's what I actually said:

Look, I don't want to argue about the Crusades. However, we often here of the great evils done during the Crusades. Fine.

But, why were the Crusades undertaken? Did "Christians" simply roll out of bed one day and decide to march on the Holy Land?

To get back to freeman3's point: Islam does contain some justification for violence. It swept over all of North Africa and much of Europe at the point of a sword. At the very least, some of today's extreme Islamist movement views itself as the legitimate descendant of that movement.

So, a more accurate summary would be "Islam was spread at the point of a sword pretty much from the beginning."

I indicated I was not interested in debating the Crusades.

If you want to argue the Crusades would have happened if Islam never existed, go ahead. However, I think you'll be hard-pressed. At the very lease, Islam was a bogeyman for those who wanted to justify the Crusades. From wiki:

Some historians see the Crusades as confident, aggressive, papal-led expansion attempts by Western Christendom; some see them as part of long-running conflict at the frontiers of Europe; and others see them as part of a purely defensive war against Islamic conquest

So, at best, you have an arguable point.

Of course, my major point was about the nature of Islam: Muhammad was a warrior, so should we be shocked if some of his modern followers view war as a legitimate means of following him? His early followers saw it as legitimate.

I love wikipedia on "the spread of Islam." Apparently, *cough*, it was just missionary work.

And Christianity only spread that way (missionaries) and never at the end of swords or guns? Hmmm.

Chances are that the Holocaust would not have happened without the Jews, but that's not the same thing as saying the Jews provoked it somehow.

If you don't want to debate the Crusades, don't bring them up (and no, a passive-aggressive stance of putting it out there based on loose and partial assertions is not immune from debate).

Oh, on the Naxalites, I confused them with Nagaland and Tripura.

danivon wrote:And Christianity only spread that way (missionaries) and never at the end of swords or guns? Hmmm.

Words matter. I never said "only" or "never." However, if you compare the early spread of Christianity versus the early spread of Islam--there is a chasm of difference. Christianity (in name) became militant only when it became "Roman."

Chances are that the Holocaust would not have happened without the Jews, but that's not the same thing as saying the Jews provoked it somehow.

You're on a real roll of idiocy. Pat yourself on the back.

Let's see . . . Jews in the Holocaust are comparable to . . . Muslims after they conquered North Africa and a good portion of Europe.

Yeah, you're on a real roll.

If you don't want to debate the Crusades, don't bring them up (and no, a passive-aggressive stance of putting it out there based on loose and partial assertions is not immune from debate).

I did it to illustrate the violent beginnings of Islam, which you have not (and cannot) refute.

Oh, on the Naxalites, I confused them with Nagaland and Tripura.

That's okay. You basically were "confused" on your whole post.

When you have a point to make, feel free. If you intend to keep prattling, I'll just respond with #moreprattling

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And Christianity only spread that way (missionaries) and never at the end of swords or guns? Hmmm.

Words matter. I never said "only" or "never." However, if you compare the early spread of Christianity versus the early spread of Islam--there is a chasm of difference. Christianity (in name) became militant only when it became "Roman."

You wrote "just". In that context (as an adverb) it means either recently (which seems not to make sense given we are discussing events of 8-13 centuries ago) or "exactly / only/ totally".

Words matter, I agree. Of course now you'll try and wriggle out of that with some obscure meaning of "it was just missionary work" that means you were not lampooning the idea that Islam only spread through missionary work.

Just as Christianity spread through a combination of missionaries, imposition by Kings and Emperors, invading armies and other "threat of, or actual, violence" means.

Chances are that the Holocaust would not have happened without the Jews, but that's not the same thing as saying the Jews provoked it somehow.

You're on a real roll of idiocy. Pat yourself on the back.

Let's see . . . Jews in the Holocaust are comparable to . . . Muslims after they conquered North Africa and a good portion of Europe.

Yeah, you're on a real roll.

The point being that these are the dates of the events:

637AD Islamic armies conquer Jerusalem as part of invasion of Syria and central Anatolia
639AD Islamic armies invade Egypt
647-709 Islamic conquests of rest of North Africa
711-788 Islamic conquest of Hispania/Iberia (includes battles of Tours and then the subsequent push back to the Pyrenees by the Franks, leading to the start of the 700 year long "Reconquista"
820AD Invasion of Sicily
827AD Conquest of southern Italy
846AD sack of Rome

These are the Arab Muslim conquests that headed towards Christendom.

The First Crusade was called for by the Orthodox Byzantine Empire came about as a result of Turkish invasions, by the Seljuks. But were the Seljuks acting out of Islamic inspiration, or were they just empire-builders? Well, they never proclaimed a Caliphate (despite attacking the failing Abbasid Caliphate and the rival Fatimid Caliphate at the time, the Seljuks did not proclaim their own, and it was only about 500 years later that the Ottomans, took the Caliphate)

If you don't want to debate the Crusades, don't bring them up (and no, a passive-aggressive stance of putting it out there based on loose and partial assertions is not immune from debate).

I did it to illustrate the violent beginnings of Islam, which you have not (and cannot) refute. [/quote]I was not intending to. You linked that to the Crusades, however obliquely you wanted to make it seem, as if the conquest of Jerusalem and other places by the Islamic armies were actually related.

Yes, there was a conquest of Jerusalem in the late 11thC. By the Turks, from the previous Islamic owners.

But still seeing as you mentioned that people point out what the Crusaders did, let's not forget.

On my confusion in India...

Ok, here is the National Liberation Front of Tripura. Lovely chaps, what with the clubbing to death and forced conversions. Baptists, apparently.

The NLFT has been described as engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.[11] The NLFT is listed as a terrorist organization in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.[7] The state government contends that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.[12][13] In April 2000, according to the state government, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested In April 2000 with explosives and confessed that for two years he had been buying explosives for the NLFT.[13] In 2000, the NLFT threatened to kill Hindus celebrating the religious festival of Durga Puja.[14] At least 20 Hindus in Tripura have been killed by the NLFT in two years for resisting forced conversion to Christianity.[15] A leader of the Jamatia tribe, Rampada Jamatia, said that armed NLFT militants were forcibly converting tribal villagers to Christianity, which he said was a serious threat to Hinduism.[15] It is believed that as many as 5,000 tribal villagers were forcibly converted from 1999 to 2001.[15] These forcible conversions to Christianity, sometimes including the use of "rape as a means of intimidation," were noted by academics outside of India in 2007.[11]

In early 2000, 16 Bengali Hindus were killed by the NLFT at Gourangatilla. On May 20, 2000, the NLFT killed 25 Bengali Hindus at the Bagber refugee camp.[16] In August 2000, a tribal Hindu spiritual leader, Shanti Kali, was shot dead by about ten NLFT guerrillas who said it wanted to convert all people in the state to Christianity.[17] In December 2000, Labh Kumar Jamatia, a religious leader of the state's second largest Hindu group, was kidnapped by the NLFT, and found dead in a forest in Dalak village in southern Tripura. According to police, rebels from the NLFT wanted Jamatia to convert to Christianity, but he refused.[18] A local Marxist tribal leader, Kishore Debbarma, was clubbed to death in Tripura's Sadar by militants from the Biswamohan faction of the NLFT in May 2005.[19]

In 2001, there were 826 reported terrorist attacks in Tripura, in which 405 people lost their lives and 481 kidnappings were made by the NLFT and related organizations such as the Christian All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTP).[20] Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested for and confessed, under torture from police, to providing munitions and financial aid to the NLFT from 1998 until 2000.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_L ... of_Tripura

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And Christianity only spread that way (missionaries) and never at the end of swords or guns? Hmmm.

Words matter. I never said "only" or "never." However, if you compare the early spread of Christianity versus the early spread of Islam--there is a chasm of difference. Christianity (in name) became militant only when it became "Roman."

You wrote "just". In that context (as an adverb) it means either recently (which seems not to make sense given we are discussing events of 8-13 centuries ago) or "exactly / only/ totally".

Words matter, I agree. Of course now you'll try and wriggle out of that with some obscure meaning of "it was just missionary work" that means you were not lampooning the idea that Islam only spread through missionary work.

I was lampooning it. It's a ridiculous notion. Do I have to post a list of battles fought by Muhammad and his successors?

Just as Christianity spread through a combination of missionaries, imposition by Kings and Emperors, invading armies and other "threat of, or actual, violence" means.

Christianity had no means of forcing anyone until Constantine (allegedly) had a vision. There's a reason for that. Jesus chastised Peter for using force and told His followers and His opponents that His kingdom was not of this world. Muhammad had a different view of his religion.

You're on a real roll of idiocy. Pat yourself on the back.

Let's see . . . Jews in the Holocaust are comparable to . . . Muslims after they conquered North Africa and a good portion of Europe.

Yeah, you're on a real roll.

The point being that these are the dates of the events: . . .

No, the point is the Jews did nothing to deserve the Holocaust. Zero. Any comparison is rubbish. When you use the Holocaust to compare to virtually any historical situation, it's because you're either being lazy or you're desperate.

The First Crusade was called for by the Orthodox Byzantine Empire came about as a result of Turkish invasions, by the Seljuks. But were the Seljuks acting out of Islamic inspiration, or were they just empire-builders? Well, they never proclaimed a Caliphate (despite attacking the failing Abbasid Caliphate and the rival Fatimid Caliphate at the time, the Seljuks did not proclaim their own, and it was only about 500 years later that the Ottomans, took the Caliphate)

Were they Muslims? Could there attacks be conceived of or presented as threats to Christianity? Yes. And, it is anachronistic to remove religious tensions from those conquests.

On my confusion in India...

Ok, here is the National Liberation Front of Tripura. Lovely chaps, what with the clubbing to death and forced conversions. Baptists, apparently.

From the same page:

The BBC reported in 2005 that independent investigations as well as confessions from surrendered members showed that the NLFT had been making and selling pornography to finance their activities. This includes DVDs of pornographic films made by the group with tribal men and women kidnapped and forced to participate in sex acts while being filmed. The movies are dubbed into various languages and sold illegally throughout the region for a profit. Statements from former members and one report state that the NLFT has a history of sexually abusing tribal women.[21]

According to the Institute for Conflict Management, approximately 90% of the NLFT's administration are Christians.

Let's see rape, porn . . . Christian . . . Hey, they can call themselves "tomatoes" and have just as much validity.

The bigger point: they are a regional terror organization, apparently trying to establish independence from India. The Islamic terror groups believe they are to usher in the end of the world. They will not stop until they have prepared the world by conquest.

The NLFT are terrible. ISIS and others of its ilk have global ambitions. Let me know when NLFT starts killing Jews in Europe or blowing up Americans.

Honestly, there is nothing more pathetic than trying to minimize evil behavior by means of pointing to other evil behavior.

Oh, and to preempt your next feeble distraction: no, I did not seek to justify the Crusades by pointing to Islamic conquests. I am against the Crusades. I am against the Papacy. Neither has any foundation in the Bible.

Now, if you'd like to discuss ISIS, fine. Otherwise, go away.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And Christianity only spread that way (missionaries) and never at the end of swords or guns? Hmmm.

Words matter. I never said "only" or "never." However, if you compare the early spread of Christianity versus the early spread of Islam--there is a chasm of difference. Christianity (in name) became militant only when it became "Roman."

You wrote "just". In that context (as an adverb) it means either recently (which seems not to make sense given we are discussing events of 8-13 centuries ago) or "exactly / only/ totally".

Words matter, I agree. Of course now you'll try and wriggle out of that with some obscure meaning of "it was just missionary work" that means you were not lampooning the idea that Islam only spread through missionary work.

I was lampooning it. It's a ridiculous notion. Do I have to post a list of battles fought by Muhammad and his successors?

After I just posted a list of conquests by the Caliphates. A little redundant perhaps...

Just as Christianity spread through a combination of missionaries, imposition by Kings and Emperors, invading armies and other "threat of, or actual, violence" means.

Christianity had no means of forcing anyone until Constantine (allegedly) had a vision. There's a reason for that. Jesus chastised Peter for using force and told His followers and His opponents that His kingdom was not of this world. Muhammad had a different view of his religion.

So we ignore Christianity's violent expansionists after 300AD because it's not convenient to do so?

No, the point is the Jews did nothing to deserve the Holocaust. Zero. Any comparison is rubbish. When you use the Holocaust to compare to virtually any historical situation, it's because you're either being lazy or you're desperate.

And what did the Muslims of 1090 Jerusalem do to deserve the Crusades. What did the Jews of 1090 Jerusalem do to deserve them for that matter? Not a lot, if anything. but they got slaughtered by the 'liberating' Crusaders.

My point was not to say that the Jews deserved the holocaust. It was to create an analogy with the victim blaming that Crusade-apologists indulge in.

The First Crusade was called for by the Orthodox Byzantine Empire came about as a result of Turkish invasions, by the Seljuks. But were the Seljuks acting out of Islamic inspiration, or were they just empire-builders? Well, they never proclaimed a Caliphate (despite attacking the failing Abbasid Caliphate and the rival Fatimid Caliphate at the time, the Seljuks did not proclaim their own, and it was only about 500 years later that the Ottomans, took the Caliphate)

Were they Muslims? Could there attacks be conceived of or presented as threats to Christianity? Yes. And, it is anachronistic to remove religious tensions from those conquests. [/quote]But there are two distinctions:

1) Attacks by "muslims" does not always mean attacks in the name of Islam
2) The Turks were attacking fellow Muslims as much, if not far more than, Christians at the time.

On my confusion in India...

Ok, here is the National Liberation Front of Tripura. Lovely chaps, what with the clubbing to death and forced conversions. Baptists, apparently.

From the same page:

The BBC reported in 2005 that independent investigations as well as confessions from surrendered members showed that the NLFT had been making and selling pornography to finance their activities. This includes DVDs of pornographic films made by the group with tribal men and women kidnapped and forced to participate in sex acts while being filmed. The movies are dubbed into various languages and sold illegally throughout the region for a profit. Statements from former members and one report state that the NLFT has a history of sexually abusing tribal women.[21]

According to the Institute for Conflict Management, approximately 90% of the NLFT's administration are Christians.

Let's see rape, porn . . . Christian . . . Hey, they can call themselves "tomatoes" and have just as much validity.

Well, ISIS have been caught using rape and also accused of being porn-fiends. And the Koran does not allow for it any more than the Bible does (although the OT does in fact allow for wives of defeated enemies to be 'married' by the conquerors, providing that God gives the ok, as he did when the Hebrews were tasked with removing the Amalekites and Canaanites, and with the Deuteronomic codes on slave-taking and wife-taking applying).

The reality is, unfortunately, that there are people who will visit awful crimes on others in the name of a religion. They will sometimes use your religion to do that. As you are a Christian, I can quite see that you are not going to want to be associated with such vile acts, and will seek to disassociate.

Just as Muslims seek to disassociate from ISIS.

When it comes down to it, it's actually nor always that easy to prove religious intent, especially as even with revealed-text religions there is enough ambiguity/translation issues/contradiction/interpretation room etc. And I can't think of a single major religion that does not have a history of horrific violence. Unless you consider the Baha'i major.

The bigger point: they are a regional terror organization, apparently trying to establish independence from India.

And to 'Christianise' the region, even though there are a lot of Hindus there. They are also aligned with other groups in nearby regions (basically the odd-shaped bit on the East side of India, between Bangladesh, Burma, China/Bhutan is a mishmash of irredentist regional factions, and among the factors there, religion is a big one, with the main rivals being Christianity and Hinduism.

Honestly, there is nothing more pathetic than trying to minimize evil behavior by means of pointing to other evil behavior.

Sorry, but I was responding to your assertion that Christian terrorists were not doing the same kind of stuff as Islamic ones. There may be a difference of scale, or ambition, but brutal killings of apostates seem to be a common trend.

Oh, and to preempt your next feeble distraction: no, I did not seek to justify the Crusades by pointing to Islamic conquests. I am against the Crusades. I am against the Papacy. Neither has any foundation in the Bible.

No, of course you didn't. You just wrote:

"But, why were the Crusades undertaken? Did "Christians" simply roll out of bed one day and decide to march on the Holy Land?"

And then talked about the violent expansion of Islam. If you won't talk about "why" they were undertaken, what was the point of bringing them up? Oh, yeah, to preempt another line that wasn't even being used here.

Now, if you'd like to discuss ISIS, fine. Otherwise, go away.

You mentioned the Crusades before I did. Please don't tell me what I can or can't discuss, or tell me what to do. Rude, boy, plain rude.

What I will say on ISIS is this:

They want a Christian army to attack them. And they won't be easy to destroy, evidence for that being that ISI/AQI that they are directly evolved from was supposed to have been beaten and just found a way to slip away and reform. If our means of 'curing' the problem means the deaths of large number of non-ISIS muslims at our hands, it won't necessarily be the defeat we want, but a pointer to more problems (again, see Fallujah).

More smoke.

Amazing how atheists know so much about religion. Debate history all you want, but it's rather pointless to engage with you. You cannot even grasp the simplest principle: if Jesus did not consider His kingdom to be of this world and His immediate followers suffered persecution and execution, then Christianity was not intended to be what the Catholic church turned it into.

Anyway, have a nice day. Someone else can interact with your insipid distractions.

Excuse, if I can just butt in here ... to me the real question is not whether one or the other religion has a longer tradition of violence. To me the question is whether there is something inherently different between Christianity and Islam which leads to the latter being more prone to violence. I think there is for a few reasons:

1. Islam's beginning is tied in with national conquest. Early Christianity is not a national movement. Yes, Christianity later developed a violent history, but that is hundreds of years after its founding.
2. The Quran is much more violent than the New Testament. The standard retort here is that the New Testament adopts the Hebrew Bible, which is also filled with substantial violence. However, the New Testament is partially set up in opposition to the Hebrew Bible. The sacred Christian text is anti-violence.
3. The key prophet of Islam waged war; the key prophet of Christianity did not.
4. The Quran advocates conquest. The New Testament does not.

I'm not a scholar on either book, so please correct me if I've got that wrong, but those seem like fundamental issues to me.

BTW, I do think that Islam can evolve into a non violent religion, and certainly many of its practitioners are non-violent. However, many practitioners of Islam are violent, and they use their sacred texts, their prophet, and religion's history to justify it. That seems different to me then what we see with Christianity.

ray

1. Islam's beginning is tied in with national conquest. Early Christianity is not a national movement. Yes, Christianity later developed a violent history, but that is hundreds of years after its founding.

Please consider the earliest years of Mohammed when he was preaching tolerance and acceptance. Probably more to do with his own circumstance . As he gained tribal support force became used. However, how is that different from most other majority religions? As soon as Christianity achieved secular support and power the Pagans started being executed, and blasphemers had their tongues torn out...
Did the nature of Christianity or the words of the scripture change? No. (Well the scriptures have been shown to change some..) But the behaviours of Christians turned to intolerance and violence.

Ray

2. The Quran is much more violent than the New Testament. The standard retort here is that the New Testament adopts the Hebrew Bible, which is also filled with substantial violence. However, the New Testament is partially set up in opposition to the Hebrew Bible. The sacred Christian text is anti-violence.

Many scholars disagree with your version of the Quran . However, whether or not the NT was essentially about tolerance and acceptance, that wasn't the interpretation that Christians used after they gained power was it? If the religion s so inherently good, then how could it be used in such evil ways?
It could be that all religions end up as tools to be used by the powerful to help achieve their aim of control . Chritianity and Islam (and even Judaism as it can be shown that the Biblical passages in the OT change according to what period of time they were written, and what was happening to the Jewish tribes. Whether they were in ascendancy or decline in terms of power...)

Ray

3. The key prophet of Islam waged war; the key prophet of Christianity did not.

Christ was executed as a threat to the Empire. He is often considered to be a revolutionary..

Ray

4. The Quran advocates conquest. The New Testament does not.

Despite this nuance., Christian rulers interpreted the bible very differently than this to justify their own goals and to justify horrendous crimes against fellow humans.
So the question is "so what? " This one difference didn't make any difference to the course of human events or to how the religion and its scriptures were used.
Judge the religion by how its adherents used the scriptures and Islam still has a lot of catching up to do in the crimes against humanity area.