Children aren't even manipulated this easily...

[SgtMaj]

I don't practice any organized religion, but am fairly well-versed in several (religion has been a study of mine for 30 years). I'll take a religious man who wears it on his sleeve anyday over a man who has many faces and tries to be all things to all people.

Ok, and that has what to do with this thread/conversation exactly?

[kathyp]

So you're saying we should go to war against anyone that preaches Islam

where did i say that?

You may not like it, but what he called god is what you call god, he may have been twisted, but he still believed in the christian god. 

how do you know?

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

you said christians have started wars.  i would have thought you might have picked lincoln, the founding fathers, etc. 
the premise of your statement was that the war against iraq had a religious component.  while two men of faith may have taken us into iraq on two separate occasions, i see no proof that it was because of their faith they made that choice. 

[SgtMaj]

[...]By the way, I believe we were originally just talking about christians who started wars, not necessarily wars for christian reasons, which means the list could be expanded to cover most of the wars in the last 1000 years.

I thought I was only saying that christians don't have the violent aggressive conquering religious nutjob market all to themselves - don't make me drag ancient china into this.

Oh, well if that's all you were trying to say, then we are in agreement.  There aren't many religions out there that have totally clean hands throughout history.  Religion in general has the capacity to compel people do things they would not otherwise do it out of conscience.

[kathyp]

if you want to bring up ancient history, the pagans were pretty aggressive.  the greeks, romans, persians....how many gods does that cover?

[Bee Happy]

Spain isn't Europe?

Spain is not an islamic army, I said NAME THE ARMY, not name the county that you already named. 

hairsplitting? - I can honestly tell you it wasn't the 442nd infantry, but name the specific army? I couldn't even tell you the name of their general. But they conquered Spain. by extrapolation I am assuming that they used an army of some sort to accomplish this conquest.
In addition I will assume that since no 'Islamic' army gained a foothold in Europe for they rest of the crusades that their tactics and equipment were not sufficient to get them back into Europe.
history: the foundation of christianity is rebellion of sorts - Jesus was executed as a traitor to Rome and his followers persecuted (of course until they gained their own power.) today (legally) there is no official religion in "christian" societies - America being chief among them. America has no single declared church.
Muhammered ran to the government right away to tell the news of his new sca- visions; and it is a DIRECT link to the fact that today Islamic Mullahs have official power within the government in Islamic nations and there is no pretense of separation of church/state - none. Even if each Islamic Country tolerates various forms of Islam (barely) they often have -officially- no tolerance of non islamic religions.

[SgtMaj]

the premise of your statement was that the war against iraq had a religious component.  while two men of faith may have taken us into iraq on two separate occasions, i see no proof that it was because of their faith they made that choice. 

Not two men, one man... the other was just a puppet.  The premise of my statement was that Rumsfeld manipulated Bush through religion, into doing what Rumsfeld wanted him to even though it clearly wasn't the best course.  

[SgtMaj]

if you want to bring up ancient history, the pagans were pretty aggressive.  the greeks, romans, persians....how many gods does that cover?

Good, so you're in agreement with me then.

[kathyp]

Not two men, one man... the other was just a puppet.  The premise of my statement was that Rumsfeld manipulated Bush through religion, into doing what Rumsfeld wanted him to even though it clearly wasn't the best course

go back and read carefully what i wrote.

Good, so you're in agreement with me then.

on what grounds do you make that assumption?

[SgtMaj]

hairsplitting? - I can honestly tell you it wasn't the 442nd infantry, but name the specific army? I couldn't even tell you the name of their general. But they conquered Spain. by extrapolation I am assuming that they used an army of some sort to accomplish this conquest.
In addition I will assume that since no 'Islamic' army gained a foothold in Europe for they rest of the crusades that their tactics and equipment were not sufficient to get them back into Europe.

Ok, well just so you know it was the Moors, and it was in 711... and while they were still in Spain in 1096, the first crusade was an attempt to get them out of Jerusalem, not Spain.

[SgtMaj]

Not two men, one man... the other was just a puppet.  The premise of my statement was that Rumsfeld manipulated Bush through religion, into doing what Rumsfeld wanted him to even though it clearly wasn't the best course

go back and read carefully what i wrote.

I did, and you were trying to skew the premise of my statement.  Please go back and read carefully what I wrote: "The premise of my statement was that Rumsfeld manipulated Bush through religion, into doing what Rumsfeld wanted him to even though it clearly wasn't the best course."

Good, so you're in agreement with me then.

on what grounds do you make that assumption?

On the grounds that you were repeating what I had just posted just one post earlier but in your own words... but it was exactly the same sentiment, We could reassign the names to the quotes and it wouldn't make any difference... here, see for yourself:

There aren't many religions out there that have totally clean hands throughout history.

if you want to bring up ancient history, the pagans were pretty aggressive.  the greeks, romans, persians....how many gods does that cover?

See?  It doesn't matter who's name is assigned to what quote... they are saying the same thing.  But I do so love the thought that you can't stand to agree with anything I say so much so that you refuse to recognise any similarities.  It makes me chuckle.  Thank you for that.

[kathyp]

the moors were muslim.

the second crusade included iberian peninsula.

[kathyp]

did, and you were trying to skew the premise of my statement.  Please go back and read carefully what I wrote: "The premise of my statement was that Rumsfeld manipulated Bush through religion, into doing what Rumsfeld wanted him to even though it clearly wasn't the best course."

try again and read slowly.  hint:  there was nothing in my statement that had anything to do with rumsfeld.

[SgtMaj]

the moors were muslim.

Uh yeah, was I unclear about that?  Do I need to type slower for you? 

the second crusade included iberian peninsula.

Second being the key word

[kathyp]

you did not specify that you wanted to limit the reference to crusades to only the first one.  be more specific.

[SgtMaj]

you did not specify that you wanted to limit the reference to crusades to only the first one.  be more specific.

Does it really matter?  take out 99% of the wars and I still made the point.

[kathyp]

you are the one who wants to be picky.  i am just trying to play by your rules.

[SgtMaj]

you are the one who wants to be picky.  i am just trying to play by your rules.

Are you even going anywhere with this?

[kathyp]

nope

[Keith13]

the premise of your statement was that the war against iraq had a religious component.  while two men of faith may have taken us into iraq on two separate occasions, i see no proof that it was because of their faith they made that choice. 

Not two men, one man... the other was just a puppet.  The premise of my statement was that Rumsfeld manipulated Bush through religion, into doing what Rumsfeld wanted him to even though it clearly wasn't the best course.  

Ok here is what I have trouble with. People either need to pick one or the other was Bush an evil genious or was he an idiot. So many paint President Bush as this evil mastermind which orchestrated this mass hoodwinking of the American public into a false war. On the otherhand here he is an idiot that went to war because someone printed a pretty picture with religious verses on it.
Its one or the other

Keith

[SgtMaj]

Ok here is what I have trouble with. People either need to pick one or the other was Bush an evil genious or was he an idiot. So many paint President Bush as this evil mastermind which orchestrated this mass hoodwinking of the American public into a false war. On the otherhand here he is an idiot that went to war because someone printed a pretty picture with religious verses on it.
Its one or the other

Keith

I have never, ever heard of him being portrayed as a genius of any sort... or even mildly intelligent.