" Hawks Debate: Is Terror the Problem, or is it Islam? "

IT'S BOTH.

"Onward Christian soldiers! Hear our battle cry to take the infidels within our faith or to our Almighty God." -- a minor writing of a soldier just before the Dark Ages of mankind's history while Christians slashed the throats of Muslims

"IT'S BOTH."

That just about covers it -- case closed.

The response to terrorism is no more an attack on Muslims than a response to rape is an attack on males.

If all of those who are crushed and made to suffer are Muslim/males in those respective battles - too bad.

I suppose you'll inform us that Hitler was also a Christian.

Anyone can appropriate the label.

But Islam is a deception, those who adhere to it are deceived, and implying it has either peace or truth is dastardly.

We cannot conclude a war on terrorism without concluding a war against all of these agents, all of these entities.

Just give us time.

while Christians slashed the throats of Muslims

After the latter had done it to the former first.

After the latter had done it to the former first.

And you were there?

You are a nutcase racist, pal, using your religious convictions to alter the world.

I ain't condoning it, but whenever someone mentions the Christian Crusades, they conveniently neglect to mention the Muslim Crusades before them. Remember that after the Western Roman Empire had fallen, the Eastern half, which was Christian, remained. The Muslims then conquered the Holy Land. I doubt that when that happened it was a pretty sight.

You are a nutcase racist, pal, using your religious convictions to alter the world.

Islam is a Satanic religion. There is no way to salvation without Jesus Christ.

What you stated has no historical fact. The early migration of Christian missionaries from Europe into the middle-east later lead soldiers to follow for protection.

The Muslims did not create the situation other than historical distortion as you suggest. The Christians performed the castration and killing and raping into the middle-east based upon religious dialog from zealots of the Christian faith at that time.

It is an old religious feud that that is understandable, to this day.

references?

I ain't condoning it, but whenever someone mentions the Christian Crusades, they conveniently neglect to mention the Muslim Crusades before them. Remember that after the Western Roman Empire had fallen, the Eastern half, which was Christian, remained. The Muslims then conquered the Holy Land. I doubt that when that happened it was a pretty sight.

Yes, and the Romans never committed genocide or never fought with anyone they conquered or knew in the Middle East.

What would a war on Islam mean? Would it mean that "we" intend to kill all adherents of the teachings of Mohammed? This doesn't make sense to me on either moral or practical grounds. For example, denouncing the Northern Alliance, a coalition including many, many Muslims, and Turkey, a predominantly Muslim, though secular, nation would be folly.

The war on Islamic fundamentalists who have declared jihad on our civilization should keep us busy for many years. That seems like a sufficient intermediate-term goal.

But your key words are, "The Dark Ages", lets try to confine the discussion to relatively current events.

Now how did you turn a theological dispute into a racial agenda?

Speaking of racist, in your above post, you said "Christians" slashed the throats of Muslims, (a) as if Christianity was a monolithic organization at the time of the Crusades, and (b) as if Muslims never barbarously warred against "Christian" nations or as if Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, and so on, are such models of tolerance today.

Yes, and the Romans never committed genocide

Roman genocide after 313? I'm not aware of any.

Islam is a pornagraphic cult that is on its way out in an advanced world.

As an atheist, I'm most comfortable in proclaiming the truth.