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

That plus the witnessing of wholesale human sacrifice may have set them off a bit.

 

so your saying the devil made them do it?

 

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....