Boaz, I know you weren't commenting necessarily on genes, but it's pretty absurd to try and explain why the Crusades happened in the context of Islamic raids etc.

I mean, the British Empire invaded their way around the world, the Catholic Church was right there performing conversions to the faith under the sword alongside the Spanish when they conquered many parts of the globe.

Before the "Muslims" (not a racial group by the way), there were the Phoenicians, the Persians, the Greeks (big on colonies, Greeks), The Celts, the Angles and Saxons, Huns, and Mongols. What you don't see is many people complaining these days about the Angles invasion of the British Isles, nor about Viking raids in many areas of western and northern Europe. It's history, old and interesting for sure, unlike yourself. It also occurs to me that this particular history lesson doesn't have much of a point to it, unless it's just a vehicle for another rant, oh, wait, it is. Doh!

Bugsy-: " The Muslims are not a racial group by the way."

Any peoples who have lived together and interbred for a few generations (they share a bloodline) are indeed a racial group.

While not all muslims worldwide belong to the same racial group because you have African muslims, Asian Muslims, Middle East Muslims they are indeed racial groups or tribes.

And whilst you dont see the lesson to be learnt from ancient history and you think its old hat. The lesson to be learnt is that this tribal warfare is still raging across the planet in many places today and it is not something that only happened back in olden times it is a very real everpresent threat.

The tribal warfare between the Jews and Arabs and the tribal warfare between the Shiites and the Sunnis are just two examples.

The Arabs never acknowledge their tribal agression throughout history of which there were many instances but they are big on pointing out the tribal agression of the West and the Jews. David is just trying to point out that the Arabs are no innocent party and have been just as agressive.

Pericles.... "my" understanding ? Trust me..its not simply 'my' take on it.
Protestant/reformed (with reservation)/evangelical/conservative better describes my position.

You throw a small bucket of slurry on me about my mention of Roman Catholicism.... which was really just in passing, Let Bugsy do my work in response there.

Quote: "the Catholic Church was right there performing conversions to the faith under the sword alongside the Spanish when they conquered many parts of the globe."

Now..this doesn't happen today, as far as I know. But that, along with pointing out a clear departure such as 'selling forgiveness'(or to them the 'Sacrement of Indulgences') from the very foundation on which the Church is based, is not exactly out of order you know.

My major concern though is your choice of 'emotion' which you attach to my posts. You choose to link 'hate' to them. Do you feel that my mention of some issues with the Catholic Church are 'rabble rousing and hate inspiring'? I hope not, because I'm quite happy to work with Catholics and Atheists against the growth of Islam. I don't agree with Atheism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, but while on the one hand I might point out issues of divergence/disagreement it won't stop me working along side them.

You see Pericles, Hinduism is 'all embracing' theologically. "God 'is' and is 'in' everything...including Christians"
Buddhism is about personal enlightenment and victory over the pain and suffering in the world. Ok.. to me they are clearly in error, but they don't constitute a physical or political threat.

Islam is about political/social/spiritual submission "fight them....until they feel themselves humiliated and pay the jizya" that my friend is the political/theological position of true Islam.
(9:29)

Quran 9:14 is interesting

"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands" (note who's hands Allah uses to punish?)
Please have a careful read of this (2928) for the 'mentality' of Islam. Note the 'conversion method' and threat of violence.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/019.sat.html

I'd be interested in your comment/feedback on that.

PS. I refer to 'ancient texts' because they shape the modern Quranic Muslim mind.

Sorry Boaz, you can't deflect an argument that way. It is one of your favourite tactics, but it doesn't work.

>>"my" understanding ? Trust me..its not simply 'my' take on it.
Protestant/reformed (with reservation)/evangelical/conservative better describes my position<<

Apart from the fact that this is pure mumbo-jumbo, the "understanding" I referred to was your ability, or in fact lack of ability, to understand the impact of your words on others.

>>My major concern though is your choice of 'emotion' which you attach to my posts. You choose to link 'hate' to them<<

Let us assume for the moment that you do not "hate" Islam. You have already stated that you do not hate Muslims, and I can readily accept that.

Unfortunately, what you are doing is providing others with an excuse to hate. That is what I mean by the term "rabble-rousing".

The "rabble" in this instance is the group that takes its lead from someone who stirs an emotion in themselves for which they previously had little or no justification. Just a vague sense of injustice, or fear, or hurt, or disadvantage - the rabble-rouser turns it into hate by focussing on a single target, and painting a picture that "they" are the enemy that has caused all the pain.

This is precisely what you do.

You may not intend to do so, which is my opinion in my more charitable moments. But you do it so consistently, and so thoughtlessly, that the danger is inescapable.

This is why such careless, off-the-cuff, throwaway lines like "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'" are non-trivial.

There was absolutely no reason for you to make this comment, unless you wanted to create anti-Islam sentiment in those who read it. Even the fact that it turned out to be utter nonsense isn't the point - the fact is, your intention was to draw attention to an evil act that you believed was perpetrated by a Muslim, and by analogy, bolster your position that every Muslim is dangerous.

Am I getting through yet?

I doubt it, but I'll keep trying.

Sharkfin, you probably don't realise it, but you made my point. A group of races is not a racial group, a subtle but important distinction of the English language. Would you consider Christianity to be a racial group? I don't think so.

And it's a seriously tortured argument when you connect events separated by more than 300 years and say that the latter was "inevitable" because of the former. Thats like saying that the invasion of Iraq was "inevitable" because the Ottoman Empire fought in World War I (and those events are only separated by less than 100 years!).

History is history, we can learn from it certainly, but to try and use ancient and medieval history to justify some sort of vilification against a religious group is not generally considered a "Christian" thing to do (I use the "christian" here as to denote the ideal, not the actual way that Christians behave).

As Boaz said, "this doesn't happen today, as far as I know.....but its not exactly out of order you know" when referring to conversions under the sword by Christians. Now, which one is Boaz, pot or kettle?

Boaz,

I find it interesting that many reasonable posters like Pericles are coming to the same conclusion about your actions and their impact.

I don'tjudge you your concerns might be genuine but to be aprt of the solution you need to support the moderates. Right now going around spreading fear and hate is harmful to the society.

Please think of more constructive ways to help your cause.
Peace