"us" vs. "them"

>
> 1000 years back 'they' started slaughtering civilians making pligrimages to
> the Holy Land. 'They' did not like it when 'we' fought back to defend the
> civilians.

What I learned was that the Crusades,
were, in the large, a massively brutal barbaric slaughter of the
"infidels" (i.e. Muslims) in an attempt to "take back" the Holy Land.
I.e. they weren't simply an innocent "pilgrimage".

Is that wrong?

Anyway, This isn't really the point you seem to have been making
over the past weeks though, as I've gathered (possibly incorrectly.) you
seem to be saying that Islam is a religion of war, or at least a religion
very interpretable as such, a religion that instructs its participants to
destroy all unbelievers. and that that is the sole main reason why "they"
are attacking "us," and why we must . . . actually, you haven't really
said what we must do, come to think of it.

But if the Islamic religion is the main reason for these attacks,
then why wasn't the US being attacked in, say, 1850? Certainly, we were
all infidels then, just as we are now. According to the religion, we
should still be destroyed then, just as now. Or, why isn't, say, the
nation of Brazil subject to Islamic war today? It's mostly Catholic,
right? They're infidels, shouldn't they die?

So then why are they, today, attacking the US, instead of some
other un-believing nation, at some other time?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
<snip>
> So then why are they, today, attacking the US, instead of some
> other un-believing nation, at some other time?

It is because they now have the ability to obtain powerful weapons, move easily from country to country, and communicate over long distances easily.

John Starrett