It's always difficult to argue with the mad. Does one point out their madness, or is it kinder not to?
What citizens? They did not fight back remember?
All right, I have no idea what you're talking about here. The people of the Eastern Roman Empire fought against invasion. The people of the Eastern Christian lands fought against invasion from 632 onward.
Which is why the Romans called other Europeans?
Again, specify.
Or didn't you realise it was odd that the Byzantine EMPIRE needed help from European barbarians?
Equally, madness. Explain? If possible.
that is offensive in nature.
As it is a response to outside aggression, it cannot possibly be.
Their religion never controlled the region
Neither had islam anything to do with it, Sam's new thesis aside.
and the first major people and religion that did that were still around in any numbers fought for the muslims
Well, Sam tells me that isn't so. She says that the Jews were never a major people, but are all Russians, and that they stole the land from the Caanites. Maybe the two of you should PM.
As much as bigots like you Geoff want to say that islam was spread by the sword alone it wasn't.
I have not said this. Nor am I a bigot, much as you would prefer this, little pj.
It spread along trade routes. It probably spread as much or more by peaceful means than christianity.
Very dubious indeed. North Africa, India, Arabia, the Middle East, the Balkans, Spain, Central Africa, Persia, the Eastern Roman Empire, Sudan?
That kind of peacefully? Moreover, of what value is your
tu quoque here, exactly? That the Crusades were
not counterattacks into invaded territory because islam was 'generally' spread 'peacefully' elsewhere? What exactly is your value to this forum?
Best regards,
Geoff