Europe more dangerouse than USA? (gunshots vs terror threat)

That is very vauge. you might want to present sources for that claim, otherwise i will certainly dismiss it.

 

http://www.plu.edu/~arnoldwp/sapnish-cortezs/home.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

 

More: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htm
http://indiglit.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/human-sacrifice-in-aztec-culture/

 

From the Aztec point of view: http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/682-the-aztecs-speak-an-aztec-account-of-the-conquest-of-mexico

 

http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/105556.html

 

i meant that it was primary the Human sacrifices that made the spaniards act so brutal, the fact that they practised human sacrifice is nothing new.

but this has'nt got anything to do with the current discussion, so lets just forget it, shall we?

EDIT: ok, i believe you. what's your point?

 

You asked me to back up my remarks. There is no way you had time to read the links, so I will assume you are oblivious and unwilling to see what the Spanish encountered, or the effect it had upon them, or that they actually allied themselves with certain tribes in an effort to stop the horror, so I will leave you in your ignorance and agree to not waste my time arguing with you.

 

I would like to interject here and remind you that christianity became a prominent eligion when the Roman Empire declared it the only official religion in the empire. Precisely Constantine in 337 of our era. It is now clear that christianity would have died if it weren't for stupid Romans. A bit more, while on the tangent, the same could be said for the other two arabic religions, judaism and islam. Had Romans not intorduced the christianity to the world, the other two may had never reach the status they have today. Stupid, stupid Romans...

Back to the interjection, it is safe to say that 20-30 years after 337, just about every Roman soldier would have had to be a christian. For the next 300 years, until Mohammed had his epileptic fits, Romans were setting ablaze all and sundry on their path to their own oblivion (thus creating that other monster, islamism, as a justified, at the time, resistance movement against the bloody opression under Romans.)

So to say that christianity was not militant until the birth of islam is a bit incorrect. Had I say that, my freund troy would accuse me of re-writing the history...

In fact, Romans are guilty of being firts to using christianity for conquest by force, later emulated by popes and Vatican to justify forced conversion of "infidels".

And it is also not true that there is nowhere in christianity written to kill the enemies of religion. It is actually an old ideology embedded in christianity since its' first days as a hebrew religion. Re-read the old testament for more references.

The tip: Henrik Sienkiewicz, famous polish writer wrote the book, being a good christian, using biblical "By fire and by sword" motto originally devised in the bible as an ideological fundation for the spread of the religion, for the name of his book.

I recommend the book highly. An excellent read. Beats all this anglo crap we are being bombarded with recently (one would be forgiven for thinking that there are no other writers in the world but those with anglo names.)hands and pants down.

 

Sorry? If you meant how the child sacrifices and capture of a man who had rosted a baby for lunch, or the slicing of people to present as gifts, or eating persons though sometimes substituting for turkey? or how a few missionaries/priests managed to document Aztec eywitnesses of the invasion? and how the conquistadores allied with the Tlaxcalans, as the Tlaxcalans were used as a source for human sacrifices?

sure i did not read all, skimmed through and read the things which seemed connected to your point. i understand you, and what is your point?

 

Reading is fundamental.

 

now you're just being cryptic. Your point is that the rather brutal way of crushing the aztec culture was in ways justified? i can agree with you there to an extent, but i dont see how that adds anything to the discussion about religions and war.

 

Understanding correctly is fundamental. Reading is just a helpful tool in the process.

 

Baloney. Now you're even blaming the murderous rampage of the Spaniards through the New World, and their brutal enslavement of the locals, on Muslims??

You're stretching your argument so thin I can see straight through it....

 

Go piglet!!!!

Hoyt can sometimes come up with haiku-quality answers that some of his wrong-wing friends, litterers of the forum, could learn a lot from, but silence followed this short question.

Thumbs up.

 

Same old patronising style, as if troy is the only one in the know. When in fact they are right and troy is the one missing the point.

England you did not, but the rest of the Europe you did. France, Italy, Yugoslavia. There was absolutely no need for usa to arm british air force and send it to bomb a small Italian city called Zara, on Dalmatian coast, for example. Or bomb Belgrade. Or clean up in Sicily.

Now that was quite a stupid way to drop yourself into a crapper. "carefully selected targets"...? And how was that carefully "selected" when a nuclear bomb destroys EVERYTHING indiscriminately.

"Carefully selected" target is one that you destroy WITHOUT killing unnecessary anyone around it.

That did not happen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilian vicitms were not part of the military targets.

McNamara himself admitted that his actions were that of a butcher and a war criminal. He confessed, crying like a baby (watch his documentary made just before the shithead died), that he is responsible for millions of deaths that could and SHOULD have been avoided because these people were INNOCENT civilians.

Yeah, but you know better than the mister Death himself, don't you?

You need to learn history from real sources, not from your CNN (which stands for Crap, Not News) ****.

And by the way, why is no one touching the subject of the thread?

EUROPE being more dangerous than the usa?

I suggest that is because we all know that the usa is a devil's own playground and a focal point of all evil in the world today, so it is easier for self-righteous apologists to point finger at "others" to divert the attention from themselves.

3 000 000 + people are incarcerated in the usa. More than in any other country in the world. And it could be as much as 5 000 000 but the lack of prison space is forcing usanian judges to let go many hardened crimsons walk free because they have nowhere to lock them up.

Prison building boom created "No new prisons" movement:

http://www.nonewprisons.org/prisons/

Austrian governator in California wants more prisons:

http://sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/pdf/articles/2006/Jul2006/story16.pdf

Ohio's OVERCROWDED prisons request to let go of 3 000 criminals due to the lack of space:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/09/ohio_prisons_chief_ernie_moore.html

So you think usa is a paradise? ********. According to the architects' society in the usa, “the U.S. crime rate is now similar to 1970, but our prison population is over six times as large.”

What is that telling you? The usa is a POLICE and GULAG state. There's NO other explanation for the obvious discrepancy between the fall in crime and growth in prison population

http://info.aia.org/nwsltr_print.cfm?pagename=caj_a_20050805_prisons

Yeah, troy. Me, and a few liberal cronnies of mine in the usa re-writing the history in your head.

How dare we...? Destroying your utopias and delusions. So not nice.

Where's that nuke?