More of the same..

[Outspoken]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/11cnd-terror.html?ex=1045630800&en=6fcf71d1a8c823c6&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

"In that context, "crusaders" seemed to be a scathing reference to the militant Christians of the Middle Ages who waged war against peoples the church regarded as heretics."

 

The church admitted it was wrong..when will they?

 

 

[Starscream]

Today at 07:33 PM Outspoken said this in Post #1

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/11cnd-terror.html?ex=1045630800&en=6fcf71d1a8c823c6&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

"In that context, "crusaders" seemed to be a scathing reference to the militant Christians of the Middle Ages who waged war against peoples the church regarded as heretics."

I remember when Bush very foolishly used the word "crusade" to describe his campaign against terrorism in his first state of the union address after 9/11.  That's probably the most idiotic thing he's ever said since election and of course Bin Laden and company are going to use that against us now.

The church admitted it was wrong..when will they? 

 

Who are they?  The terrorists?!  Dream on...

 

[Outspoken]

They are the miltiant (sp) Islamics. Just like the crusades were the "militant" christians.

 

[Starscream]

Today at 10:39 PM Outspoken said this in Post #3

They are the miltiant (sp) Islamics. Just like the crusades were the "militant" christians.

Oh.  I wouldn't expect neither militant Muslims nor Chrisitans to apologize.

I can find people here that think the Crusades were justified.

 

[Outspoken]

"I wouldn't expect neither militant Muslims nor Chrisitans to apologize."

Why not? So you think the christians are more "christian" then the Islamics are "Islamic" then? The christians did appoligize even though it was their precessors that did it, not they.

 

[Starscream]

Today at 11:02 PM Outspoken said this in Post #5

"I wouldn't expect neither militant Muslims nor Chrisitans to apologize."

Why not?

Because I don't think people who are militant regarding their views tend to leave much room for apologizing.

 So you think the christians are more "christian" then the Islamics are "Islamic" then?

I'm afraid I don't understand this.  Can you please elaborate?

 The christians did appoligize even though it was their precessors that did it, not they.

Yes, but I don't see anything stopping the Islamics of tomorrow from apologizing for what a select few of the precessors are doing today.  Indeed, even now you will find countless scores of Muslims decrying the terrorists activities of modern times.

 

[Lacmeh]

Outspoken, it took a few hundred years for Christians to apologize, right?
So it´s only fair to to give the same timeframe to Muslims.

 

[Outspoken]

"Because I don't think people who are militant regarding their views tend to leave much room for apologizing."

So why do people always throw the crusades up in christians' faces when they aren't militant then?
I seem to remember you doing this once...or was it Havoc...hmm..


"Can you please elaborate?"

Well they both claim to be a tolerant religion. Thus Islamic miliants aren't as "islamic" as militant christians are "christian" according to the "main stream" believers.


"anything stopping the Islamics of tomorrow from apologizing for what a select few of the precessors are doing today. "

Do you realistically see this happening? Maybe I'm just being negative because I don't.

"even now you will find countless scores of Muslims decrying the terrorists activities of modern times."

Just as you did in the times of the crusades.