It is but part of the difference, you friggin' numbskull. I have told you here repeatedly that the difference consists of the substantiveness of the opposition and, most importantly, that the original assault was applied only to those involved with some infraction, not with unattached innocents.
WhhaaaAAAT?! When the first Crusader took Antioch and Jerusalem, there was slaughter in the name of Jesus:
The crusaders entry into the Holy City was an orgy of killing and looting. In August a more regular army followed. Even this army was ill organized under its several leaders, undisciplined footmen immensely outnumbered the knights on horseback. The great prize had been won at the cost of a terrible blemish that served to poison relations between Christians and Moslems for years and contributed to the Moslem fanaticism that resulted in the expulsion of the Christians from the East. When Jerusalem fell the Crusaders indulged in a wholesale slaughter of the Moslem and the Jews who were inside, over the heaps of bodies they made way to the holy shrines. The slaughter was terrible; the blood of the conquered ran down the streets, until men splashed in blood as they rode. .. feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. None of them were left alive, not women or children. A letter to Paschal II from Godfrey described that in Solomon's Porch and in his temple the men rode in the blood of the Saracens up to the knees of their horses, 10,000 Turks killed. The followers of the cross were guilty of massacre, robbery and any maniacal perversion thought of. Children's brains were dashed out against the stones, or their living bodies were whirled in demoniacal sport from the walls. Women were outraged prior to being murdered.
latter-rain.com
Were the woman and children somehow deserving of the Christian's rape and slaughter? What about the Jews of the city? Their crime was simple: being a Muslim or a Jew in a city overrun by Christians.
See. You completely ignore the reality, because it didn't fit your argument. I might also call you a friggin' numbskull for such an statement, but I can see that it is systemic.
Congratulations. By altering reality to fit your theories, you qualify as a true neocon. |
