People you didnt know were Muslim

[J Shuttlesworth]

1095-1291.

So we are drawing relevance of a Christian black mark to a completely different time in history now? We are not even talking about the last 100 years here. The whole society was completely different, you cannot even begin to compare what society is now, to what it was back then.

Apples to oranges again.

How is the time period all that relevant? Was the religion not the same? Was the bible not the same? If Christianity were really an ultra peaceful religion, there wouldn't be tons of bloodshed in the name of it regardless of the era. And way to ignore the main point. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that extremism/religious violence is more common in poor areas as opposed to wealthy areas? Or how more modern/progressive Muslim areas lack the same extremism that the poor areas have? You really don't think these things are related at all?

[qrich]

How is the time period all that relevant? Was the religion not the same? Was the bible not the same? If Christianity were really an ultra peaceful religion, there wouldn't be tons of bloodshed in the name of it regardless of the era. And way to ignore the main point. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that extremism/religious violence is more common in poor areas as opposed to wealthy areas? Or how more modern/progressive Muslim areas lack the same extremism that the poor areas have? You really don't think these things are related at all?

I actually agree with this guy

[poido123]

How is the time period all that relevant? Was the religion not the same? Was the bible not the same? If Christianity were really an ultra peaceful religion, there wouldn't be tons of bloodshed in the name of it regardless of the era. And way to ignore the main point. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that extremism/religious violence is more common in poor areas as opposed to wealthy areas? Or how more modern/progressive Muslim areas lack the same extremism that the poor areas have? You really don't think these things are related at all?

My post from last page:

"Another thing, if you're going to bring the crusades up, you might as well refer to the current Palestine v Israel conflict. Hardly "spreading Christianity" but more claiming their rightful ownership of holy land. As we all know, that claim is why the war is still happening."


What? Funded by Saudis and oil in which they have seized. I'd hardly call the terrorist group "poor".

I do agree with you on nearly all those points though. However, there is also a direct religious flaw and breakdown in Islamic attitudes and teaching.

[Nick Young]

How is the time period all that relevant? Was the religion not the same? Was the bible not the same? If Christianity were really an ultra peaceful religion, there wouldn't be tons of bloodshed in the name of it regardless of the era. And way to ignore the main point. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that extremism/religious violence is more common in poor areas as opposed to wealthy areas? Or how more modern/progressive Muslim areas lack the same extremism that the poor areas have? You really don't think these things are related at all?

Hmm that's not really true, about 2000 members of IS are from Western Europe and lead cushy lives. Many of the leadership in IS are millionaires who were raised wealthy. Not to mention their rich, private sponsors from Saudi Arabia who are helping to fund the madness. If anything IS brings super rich and poor together.

[Nick Young]

Have you ever heard of the crusades? Tons of blood has been shed to spread Christianity. Even these days, lots of Mexican cartel members wear crosses, and lots of the crime in Africa is done by Christians.

Actually, a lot of the terrorist organizations develop support by brain washing people in poor/uneducated areas. There aren't a ton of terrorists in Dubai or other rich areas with prodominant muslims, just like there aren't a lot of violent muslims in the US. Socio-economics play a huge role in religious extremists. You can see a lot more extremism in poor areas... even in the poor states in the US, there are a lot more Christian fundamentalists. Before Christian nations became wealthier, they were participating in a lot more wars in the name of religion.

Just justifying PC white knight

The crusades were 600 years ago. Also the Muslims did some really phucked up things in the Crusades (even though they didn't start them) Have you heard of the Childrens Crusade, which ended in Muslims enslaving thousands and thousands of children? Lettuce talk about the present. Slavery today for example, is a bigger industry in muslim countries then it is in non-muslim countries.

[Trollsmasher]

How is the time period all that relevant? Was the religion not the same? Was the bible not the same? If Christianity were really an ultra peaceful religion, there wouldn't be tons of bloodshed in the name of it regardless of the era. And way to ignore the main point. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that extremism/religious violence is more common in poor areas as opposed to wealthy areas? Or how more modern/progressive Muslim areas lack the same extremism that the poor areas have? You really don't think these things are related at all?

at least inform yourself before commenting on this shit

the "progressive Muslims" are the worst

they are radicalized, but with an actual intel

[NumberSix]

How is the time period all that relevant? Was the religion not the same? Was the bible not the same? If Christianity were really an ultra peaceful religion, there wouldn't be tons of bloodshed in the name of it regardless of the era. And way to ignore the main point. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that extremism/religious violence is more common in poor areas as opposed to wealthy areas? Or how more modern/progressive Muslim areas lack the same extremism that the poor areas have? You really don't think these things are related at all?

The Crusades were mostly about defending from Islamic invasion. How is that bad? What would you have them do? Not defend themselves from invasion? Allow themselves to be conquered?

[BoutPractice]

The Crusades were mostly about defending from Islamic invasion. How is that bad? What would you have them do? Not defend themselves from invasion? Allow themselves to be conquered?

That's one part of the picture.

Another is domestic politics: competition between the papacy and secular leaders, and the necessity of exporting internal violence.

Wars typically start at home... on both sides.

[NumberSix]

That's one part of the picture.

Another is domestic politics: competition between the papacy and secular leaders, and the necessity of exporting internal violence.

Wars typically start at home... on both sides.

Exporting? Christians were on defense. They weren't exporting anything.

[Godzuki]

3/4's of that list can't even read

on a related note surprised mayweather isn't on it.

[Patrick Chewing]

Evolution is a fact. I have no ability to pretend that it isn't true. I know it is.

If you're not familiar with the science, I can understand why you don't know that it's true. I do know the science though. I can't choose to not know it's true.

Man you tapdanced the hell out of that question with that answer. You may need to change your avatar to good ol' Barack.

Can you link me or record a video on the Youtube showing me proof that humans were once single-celled organisms that lived in the ocean.