No it's not. These are the people that he is supposed to work together with to make this world less of a shitehole than it is at the moment. Maybe if he did know their names he could talk to them rather than bomb them as soon as they don't jump when he tells them to.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are something like a hundred and twenty different nations in the world, more or less. Each of them has a head of state and a foreign minister. I could see concern if a candidate didn't know the name of the British Prime Minister or the President of Mexico, but the President of Uzbekistan? You can be assured he does *now*, and it matters *now*.
[quote]
<strong>
The western world has never done anything for the Muslims in the middle east. So why should they help us or feel sorry for us?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We saved Islam in Afghanistan from eradication at the hands of the Soviets.
We saved Egypt, Syria, and Turkey from Nazi conquest.
We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraqi conquest.
We saved Islam in Afghanistan from eradication at the hands of the Soviets.
We saved Egypt, Syria, and Turkey from Nazi conquest.
We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraqi conquest.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excuse me? You saved Islam in Afghanistan? What did you do? Send Rambo over?
You're going to have to explain to me how you saved Saudi Arabia but as far as Kuwait goes you know as well as I do that that was about one thing. Oil.
These countries may have been run over but that doesn't mean Islam would have died with it. A religion is in people's head. It's a belief. You don't make people give that up. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
Here we have a political affiliation poll and some people still feel urged to argue. If someone would come on here and say that he was a Facist or a right wing extremist I may not agree, but that's not the point of this thread.
And as far as Nazi Germany goes, define "We". Because if it means America, you wouldn' even have gotten involved had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbour. If it means the western world, I bet you, had Hitler only occupied countries that were not important to the British, nothing would have happened.
How do you figure that? Mohammed wasn't even born until 570. There's no way Islam could have been there first.
I don't have time for more right now. I'll write more later.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what? Jesus wasn't born until 0. So there was no one God in Judea before then? Old Testament, New Testament.....
Mohammed is their prophet, Allah is their God.
Anyway, you're main point was that the crusades were about getting something back that was taken quite a few centuries earlier. I pointed out to you that the Romans took it aswell so how can you justify taking something back that was unlawfully taken in the first place. How far back in history are you prepared to go?
So stick to your point. What it all comes down to is that when we were all cavemen there were no countries as we know them today. I bet there were territories though and fears and believes (that's what religion is in the end anyway). Maybe we should find out what the situation was then and go back to that?
One final point. A lot of things have happened in the name of good things. Bin Laden commits his crimes in the name of Islam, innocent people were murdered in Omagh in the name of reuniting my country. Atom bombs were dropped on Japan in the name of freedom and protestants were burned to death in the name of Catholicism.
That doesn't make these good things bad. It makes the people that hide behind them to try and justify their crimes bad.
So rather than discussing who is wrong or right, you should try discussing what can be done to understand each other better. What can be done to accept our differences. Maybe then people like Bin Laden won't get a chance to do what they do in future.
What you can tell me though is how you explain the difference between what happened in New York and what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment without using the words right, wrong or justified.
So what? Jesus wasn't born until 0. So there was no one God in Judea before then? Old Testament, New Testament..... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I made no claim that Christianity was the first religion of this region only that it was there before Islam which it was. You can't say anything that refutes this so I'm not sure what your point is.
[quote]<strong>Anyway, you're main point was that the crusades were about getting something back that was taken quite a few centuries earlier. I pointed out to you that the Romans took it aswell so how can you justify taking something back that was unlawfully taken in the first place. </strong><hr></blockquote>
According to you but based on what? As ColorClassicG4 pointed out, the Romans came to rule this region because the last king of Bythnia bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. (Read ColorClassicG4's post on page 3 for the rest of the details.) That's as legitimate a transfer of power as you're going to get for that time in history.
[quote]<strong>So stick to your point. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it would probably be better to not bother with the bizarre tangents you've wandered along. As to my point, my first post addressing this matter was in response to a post that said that the Crusades were an obscene intrusion into the world of Islam. Since Christianity predated Islam in this region that complaint doesn't make any sense.
Yes, it would probably be better to not bother with the bizarre tangents you've wandered along. As to my point, my first post addressing this matter was in response to a post that said that the Crusades were an obscene intrusion into the world of Islam. Since Christianity predated Islam in this region that complaint doesn't make any sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The region being handed over to the Romans has nothing to do with the religion being forced down those people's throat. What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that Europe was mainly Catholic because everyone that came out and refused that faith got burnt or stoned to death.
You should learn to see religion, countries and their leaders and politics as different things.
Religions don't kill anyone. People do. Religions may influence politics but no muslim state hates the U.S for not being Muslim. They hate you because they see you as the main supporters of Israel.
Israel. A travesty on it's own. Not the country, the way it came about. After WWII the powers that were decided that the Jews needed their own country. Britain said, hey we have a piece of land in the Middle East and since the Israeli's said it was given to them by God in the first place, they got it.
Given to them by God. The promised land. So, we decided to take people's land because God supposedly said so? Their God says it's not true. So whose God is right?
I think you have a very good roll in this discussion though. You show, what the majority of the people on this planet have become to believe. You embody why people justify western politics. Your points are backed up by one fact. We are right and they are wrong. A lot of them feel that way too but vice versa. And the war rumbles on...
Excuse me? You saved Islam in Afghanistan? What did you do? Send Rambo over?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We supplied the Afghan guerilla fighters with money and munitions, most significantly Stinger missiles to destroy low-flying aircraft.
As a result of this assistance the Afghans were able to defeat and drive out the Soviets. The aim of the Soviets in conquering Afghanistan was to remove the threat of militant Islam from their southern frontier. They attempted to do this by establishing a Marxist regime in Afghanistan and by implementing their official policy of atheism.
Permit me to editorialize that I am not surprised somebody who thinks that Islam predates Christianity is ignorant of Afghanistan's past history.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
You're going to have to explain to me how you saved Saudi Arabia but as far as Kuwait goes you know as well as I do that that was about one thing. Oil.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not dispute the idea that the war was "about oil". (Is this for some reason a bad idea for a war?) You will note however that such an idea does not preclude the concept that we did something nice for the Muslims in the Middle East as a result.
We saved Saudi Arabia, of course, by interposing a massive army between Iraq and it, and by destroying the Iraqi army massed at its border.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
And as far as Nazi Germany goes, define "We"... If it means the western world, I bet you, had Hitler only occupied countries that were not important to the British, nothing would have happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it is a fair bet to say that by the time of the Second World War, there were no "countries" which were "not important to the British".
The region being handed over to the Romans has nothing to do with the religion being forced down those people's throat. What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that Europe was mainly Catholic because everyone that came out and refused that faith got burnt or stoned to death.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, the Romans were a model of religious tolerance... except for when it came to Christians. When Christianity was finally legalized, the imperial didn't "force it down" anyone's throat by making it the official religion until the point at which nearly everyone had converted anyway; even at that point they didn't ban the pagan religions until much, much later.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
You should learn to see religion, countries and their leaders and politics as different things.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Virtually none of the Islamic countries you so esteem do. The noteworthy exception is Turkey.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
Religions don't kill anyone. People do. Religions may influence politics but no muslim state hates the U.S for not being Muslim.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The thing which drove Bin Laden to make war on the United States, as he said, was his outrage at the presence of Christian soldiers in Saudi Arabia (and, correspondingly, near to Mecca).
What amuses me is that macoracle is unfazed by the fact that virtually none of his facts are correct.
You should learn to see religion, countries and their leaders and politics as different things. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you for the little anachronistic lesson. How I see things has nothing to do with how things were seen by the players themselves. Religion and politics were not safely compartmentalized by the Crusaders nor the Muslim military leaders who invaded Europe and who eventually overthrew the Eastern Empire. Yes, religions don't kill anyone. But just because someone corrupts the meaning of their faith that doesn't mean that person doesn't believe he is acting in the name of God. To pretend that motivation doesn't exist isn't very useful.
In reply to this and your entire post it comes in, sending over guns and bombs didn't save Afghanistan. It's people's willingness to die for what they believe in did. So you saved sweet nothing.
If you want countries not important to the British I suggest you look at Austria, Sudetenland and after that Tsjechoslovakia.
As far as Kuwait goes. In stead of telling me how you were so wonderful to liberate it you could be realistic and tell me that if it hadn't been for oil you would have let them burn. We were all on Iraq's side when they were attacking Iran weren't we? Talk about hypocrite.
The thing which drove Bin Laden to make war on the United States, as he said, was his outrage at the presence of Christian soldiers in Saudi Arabia (and, correspondingly, near to Mecca).
What amuses me is that macoracle is unfazed by the fact that virtually none of his facts are correct.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So who made war on the United States? Bin Laden? or Islam? Thanks for reiterating my point.
So the Romans were very tolerant when it comes down to religion? People converted on their own behalf? Maybe in Rome they did but you can't honestly believe that people in Judea, Belgica etc decided to just drop their beliefs and decided to become Christians? Now you're going to tell me that the native Americans willingly gave up their land because we gave them mirrors in return.
As far as Kuwait goes. In stead of telling me how you were so wonderful to liberate it you could be realistic and tell me that if it hadn't been for oil you would have let them burn. </strong><hr></blockquote>
As in Kosovo. Lot of self interest for us in that one too, right? But yes, oil was certainly a factor and we liberated Kuwait from a really bad guy.
[quote]<strong>We were all on Iraq's side when they were attacking Iran weren't we? Talk about hypocrite.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, we helped both sides. Iraq was a Soviet friend. Iran didn't like us. When one bad guy is attacking another bad guy try do nothing to discourage them.
Thank you for the little anachronistic lesson. How I see things has nothing to do with how things were seen by the players themselves. Religion and politics were not safely compartmentalized by the Crusaders nor the Muslim military leaders who invaded Europe and who eventually overthrew the Eastern Empire. Yes, religions don't kill anyone. But just because someone corrupts the meaning of their faith that doesn't mean that person doesn't believe he is acting in the name of God. To pretend that motivation doesn't exist isn't very useful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now we're talking. A fair point.
There is a difference though, between saying that religion is the driving force for some people to act the way they do and to say that a religion is wrong just because some people act violently in name of it.
I concede that the people who flew those planes in to the WTC and the Pentagon were acting on their conviction that it would take them to their heaven. That still doesn't make everyone who believes in the same thing as bad as they are though.
In reply to this and your entire post it comes in, sending over guns and bombs didn't save Afghanistan. It's people's willingness to die for what they believe in did. So you saved sweet nothing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are any number of wars which were lost by people who were willing to die for what they believed in, but who didn't have any guns or bombs.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
As far as Kuwait goes. In stead of telling me how you were so wonderful to liberate it you could be realistic and tell me that if it hadn't been for oil you would have let them burn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said that our motivations were otherwise. It was you who said that the West had never given Muslims in the Middle East any benefit whatsoever. As I said above, I am not arguing that doing so was our primary motivation in the Gulf War. I am merely saying that it was an effect.
So who made war on the United States? Bin Laden? or Islam? Thanks for reiterating my point.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently the 'he was outraged about the defiling of Mecca' bit was wee bit difficult to grasp. To reiterate: motivated by religion, he attacked the United States.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
So the Romans were very tolerant when it comes down to religion? People converted on their own behalf? Maybe in Rome they did but you can't honestly believe that people in Judea, Belgica etc decided to just drop their beliefs and decided to become Christians?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The conversion of people in Judea, at least, is actually described in the New Testament. Given that the Christians must necessarily have been a minority at first, how do you suppose they would have been able to convert anyone by force?
As for Belgica, yes, persons in the Roman provinces were quite willing to convert to Christianity, especially under the later Empire. There's hardly room here, however, for a history of early Christianity. Suffice to say, however, that people at the time who converted considered Christianity preferable to either a) the mystery cults then popular or b) the mouldering remains of the state paganism.
It is odd that much of your rebuttal typically consists of statements that certain facts can't possibly be true. Have you ever considered whether you might simply be wrong?
I concede that the people who flew those planes in to the WTC and the Pentagon were acting on their conviction that it would take them to their heaven. That still doesn't make everyone who believes in the same thing as bad as they are though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure where you got the impression that I thought that way. I don't.
Comments
<strong>
The Islam was the main religion in that part of the world way before the Romans decided to become Christian.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you figure that? Mohammed wasn't even born until 570. There's no way Islam could have been there first.
I don't have time for more right now. I'll write more later.
Don't remember who said it though.
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: MacAgent ]</p>
<strong>
No it's not. These are the people that he is supposed to work together with to make this world less of a shitehole than it is at the moment. Maybe if he did know their names he could talk to them rather than bomb them as soon as they don't jump when he tells them to.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are something like a hundred and twenty different nations in the world, more or less. Each of them has a head of state and a foreign minister. I could see concern if a candidate didn't know the name of the British Prime Minister or the President of Mexico, but the President of Uzbekistan? You can be assured he does *now*, and it matters *now*.
[quote]
<strong>
The western world has never done anything for the Muslims in the middle east. So why should they help us or feel sorry for us?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We saved Islam in Afghanistan from eradication at the hands of the Soviets.
We saved Egypt, Syria, and Turkey from Nazi conquest.
We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraqi conquest.
<strong>
We saved Islam in Afghanistan from eradication at the hands of the Soviets.
We saved Egypt, Syria, and Turkey from Nazi conquest.
We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraqi conquest.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excuse me? You saved Islam in Afghanistan? What did you do? Send Rambo over?
You're going to have to explain to me how you saved Saudi Arabia but as far as Kuwait goes you know as well as I do that that was about one thing. Oil.
These countries may have been run over but that doesn't mean Islam would have died with it. A religion is in people's head. It's a belief. You don't make people give that up. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
Here we have a political affiliation poll and some people still feel urged to argue. If someone would come on here and say that he was a Facist or a right wing extremist I may not agree, but that's not the point of this thread.
And as far as Nazi Germany goes, define "We". Because if it means America, you wouldn' even have gotten involved had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbour. If it means the western world, I bet you, had Hitler only occupied countries that were not important to the British, nothing would have happened.
<strong>
How do you figure that? Mohammed wasn't even born until 570. There's no way Islam could have been there first.
I don't have time for more right now. I'll write more later.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what? Jesus wasn't born until 0. So there was no one God in Judea before then? Old Testament, New Testament.....
Mohammed is their prophet, Allah is their God.
Anyway, you're main point was that the crusades were about getting something back that was taken quite a few centuries earlier. I pointed out to you that the Romans took it aswell so how can you justify taking something back that was unlawfully taken in the first place. How far back in history are you prepared to go?
So stick to your point. What it all comes down to is that when we were all cavemen there were no countries as we know them today. I bet there were territories though and fears and believes (that's what religion is in the end anyway). Maybe we should find out what the situation was then and go back to that?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
That doesn't make these good things bad. It makes the people that hide behind them to try and justify their crimes bad.
So rather than discussing who is wrong or right, you should try discussing what can be done to understand each other better. What can be done to accept our differences. Maybe then people like Bin Laden won't get a chance to do what they do in future.
What you can tell me though is how you explain the difference between what happened in New York and what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment without using the words right, wrong or justified.
<strong>
So what? Jesus wasn't born until 0. So there was no one God in Judea before then? Old Testament, New Testament..... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I made no claim that Christianity was the first religion of this region only that it was there before Islam which it was. You can't say anything that refutes this so I'm not sure what your point is.
[quote]<strong>Anyway, you're main point was that the crusades were about getting something back that was taken quite a few centuries earlier. I pointed out to you that the Romans took it aswell so how can you justify taking something back that was unlawfully taken in the first place. </strong><hr></blockquote>
According to you but based on what? As ColorClassicG4 pointed out, the Romans came to rule this region because the last king of Bythnia bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. (Read ColorClassicG4's post on page 3 for the rest of the details.) That's as legitimate a transfer of power as you're going to get for that time in history.
[quote]<strong>So stick to your point. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it would probably be better to not bother with the bizarre tangents you've wandered along. As to my point, my first post addressing this matter was in response to a post that said that the Crusades were an obscene intrusion into the world of Islam. Since Christianity predated Islam in this region that complaint doesn't make any sense.
<strong>
Yes, it would probably be better to not bother with the bizarre tangents you've wandered along. As to my point, my first post addressing this matter was in response to a post that said that the Crusades were an obscene intrusion into the world of Islam. Since Christianity predated Islam in this region that complaint doesn't make any sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The region being handed over to the Romans has nothing to do with the religion being forced down those people's throat. What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that Europe was mainly Catholic because everyone that came out and refused that faith got burnt or stoned to death.
You should learn to see religion, countries and their leaders and politics as different things.
Religions don't kill anyone. People do. Religions may influence politics but no muslim state hates the U.S for not being Muslim. They hate you because they see you as the main supporters of Israel.
Israel. A travesty on it's own. Not the country, the way it came about. After WWII the powers that were decided that the Jews needed their own country. Britain said, hey we have a piece of land in the Middle East and since the Israeli's said it was given to them by God in the first place, they got it.
Given to them by God. The promised land. So, we decided to take people's land because God supposedly said so? Their God says it's not true. So whose God is right?
I think you have a very good roll in this discussion though. You show, what the majority of the people on this planet have become to believe. You embody why people justify western politics. Your points are backed up by one fact. We are right and they are wrong. A lot of them feel that way too but vice versa. And the war rumbles on...
<strong>
Excuse me? You saved Islam in Afghanistan? What did you do? Send Rambo over?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We supplied the Afghan guerilla fighters with money and munitions, most significantly Stinger missiles to destroy low-flying aircraft.
As a result of this assistance the Afghans were able to defeat and drive out the Soviets. The aim of the Soviets in conquering Afghanistan was to remove the threat of militant Islam from their southern frontier. They attempted to do this by establishing a Marxist regime in Afghanistan and by implementing their official policy of atheism.
Permit me to editorialize that I am not surprised somebody who thinks that Islam predates Christianity is ignorant of Afghanistan's past history.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
You're going to have to explain to me how you saved Saudi Arabia but as far as Kuwait goes you know as well as I do that that was about one thing. Oil.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not dispute the idea that the war was "about oil". (Is this for some reason a bad idea for a war?) You will note however that such an idea does not preclude the concept that we did something nice for the Muslims in the Middle East as a result.
We saved Saudi Arabia, of course, by interposing a massive army between Iraq and it, and by destroying the Iraqi army massed at its border.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
And as far as Nazi Germany goes, define "We"... If it means the western world, I bet you, had Hitler only occupied countries that were not important to the British, nothing would have happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it is a fair bet to say that by the time of the Second World War, there were no "countries" which were "not important to the British".
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>
<strong>
The region being handed over to the Romans has nothing to do with the religion being forced down those people's throat. What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that Europe was mainly Catholic because everyone that came out and refused that faith got burnt or stoned to death.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, the Romans were a model of religious tolerance... except for when it came to Christians. When Christianity was finally legalized, the imperial didn't "force it down" anyone's throat by making it the official religion until the point at which nearly everyone had converted anyway; even at that point they didn't ban the pagan religions until much, much later.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
You should learn to see religion, countries and their leaders and politics as different things.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Virtually none of the Islamic countries you so esteem do. The noteworthy exception is Turkey.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
Religions don't kill anyone. People do. Religions may influence politics but no muslim state hates the U.S for not being Muslim.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The thing which drove Bin Laden to make war on the United States, as he said, was his outrage at the presence of Christian soldiers in Saudi Arabia (and, correspondingly, near to Mecca).
What amuses me is that macoracle is unfazed by the fact that virtually none of his facts are correct.
Republican
<strong>
You should learn to see religion, countries and their leaders and politics as different things. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>
I think it is a fair bet to say that by the time of the Second World War, there were no "countries" which were "not important to the British".
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
In reply to this and your entire post it comes in, sending over guns and bombs didn't save Afghanistan. It's people's willingness to die for what they believe in did. So you saved sweet nothing.
If you want countries not important to the British I suggest you look at Austria, Sudetenland and after that Tsjechoslovakia.
As far as Kuwait goes. In stead of telling me how you were so wonderful to liberate it you could be realistic and tell me that if it hadn't been for oil you would have let them burn. We were all on Iraq's side when they were attacking Iran weren't we? Talk about hypocrite.
<strong>
The thing which drove Bin Laden to make war on the United States, as he said, was his outrage at the presence of Christian soldiers in Saudi Arabia (and, correspondingly, near to Mecca).
What amuses me is that macoracle is unfazed by the fact that virtually none of his facts are correct.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So who made war on the United States? Bin Laden? or Islam? Thanks for reiterating my point.
So the Romans were very tolerant when it comes down to religion? People converted on their own behalf? Maybe in Rome they did but you can't honestly believe that people in Judea, Belgica etc decided to just drop their beliefs and decided to become Christians? Now you're going to tell me that the native Americans willingly gave up their land because we gave them mirrors in return.
<strong>
As far as Kuwait goes. In stead of telling me how you were so wonderful to liberate it you could be realistic and tell me that if it hadn't been for oil you would have let them burn. </strong><hr></blockquote>
As in Kosovo. Lot of self interest for us in that one too, right? But yes, oil was certainly a factor and we liberated Kuwait from a really bad guy.
[quote]<strong>We were all on Iraq's side when they were attacking Iran weren't we? Talk about hypocrite.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, we helped both sides. Iraq was a Soviet friend. Iran didn't like us. When one bad guy is attacking another bad guy try do nothing to discourage them.
<strong>
Now we're talking. A fair point.
There is a difference though, between saying that religion is the driving force for some people to act the way they do and to say that a religion is wrong just because some people act violently in name of it.
I concede that the people who flew those planes in to the WTC and the Pentagon were acting on their conviction that it would take them to their heaven. That still doesn't make everyone who believes in the same thing as bad as they are though.
<strong>
In reply to this and your entire post it comes in, sending over guns and bombs didn't save Afghanistan. It's people's willingness to die for what they believe in did. So you saved sweet nothing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are any number of wars which were lost by people who were willing to die for what they believed in, but who didn't have any guns or bombs.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
As far as Kuwait goes. In stead of telling me how you were so wonderful to liberate it you could be realistic and tell me that if it hadn't been for oil you would have let them burn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said that our motivations were otherwise. It was you who said that the West had never given Muslims in the Middle East any benefit whatsoever. As I said above, I am not arguing that doing so was our primary motivation in the Gulf War. I am merely saying that it was an effect.
<strong>
So who made war on the United States? Bin Laden? or Islam? Thanks for reiterating my point.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently the 'he was outraged about the defiling of Mecca' bit was wee bit difficult to grasp. To reiterate: motivated by religion, he attacked the United States.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
So the Romans were very tolerant when it comes down to religion? People converted on their own behalf? Maybe in Rome they did but you can't honestly believe that people in Judea, Belgica etc decided to just drop their beliefs and decided to become Christians?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The conversion of people in Judea, at least, is actually described in the New Testament. Given that the Christians must necessarily have been a minority at first, how do you suppose they would have been able to convert anyone by force?
As for Belgica, yes, persons in the Roman provinces were quite willing to convert to Christianity, especially under the later Empire. There's hardly room here, however, for a history of early Christianity. Suffice to say, however, that people at the time who converted considered Christianity preferable to either a) the mystery cults then popular or b) the mouldering remains of the state paganism.
It is odd that much of your rebuttal typically consists of statements that certain facts can't possibly be true. Have you ever considered whether you might simply be wrong?
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>
<strong>
I concede that the people who flew those planes in to the WTC and the Pentagon were acting on their conviction that it would take them to their heaven. That still doesn't make everyone who believes in the same thing as bad as they are though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure where you got the impression that I thought that way. I don't.