Can Terrorism ever be justified? What consitutes terrorism?

[P F Tinmore]

Many called the Irish Republican Army terrorists, others called them freedom fighters. It's a thin line at times

It's a funny thing that can be debated for an eternity. We used guerrilla war tactics to defeat the British during the American Revolution, and history regards them as freedom fighters. You never hear the Natives Americans who attacked American settlers referred to as freedom fighters, do you?

Well did we purposefully target innocent civilians? To me, that is what terrorism is. When innocent civilians are purposefully and intentionally targeted in order to make a "statement," whether that be political, social, religious, or whatever.

In the case of the Native Americans, yes we did. In the case of the British most of their civilians lived thousands of miles away.

And Israel's war against the Palestinians is virtually always in Palestinian neighborhoods. Is knowingly and willingly killing civilians substantially different than targeting civilians?

 

[turzovka]

Was the European invasion of the Americas and the forced conversions and subsequent genocide of the native americans terrorism?

The invasion? No, not really. Forced conversions? Yes, I would say so. However, I do not think forced conversions were anywhere near the norm for the spread of Christianity in the New World or anywhere else. A number of historians concure that 8 -10 millions Aztecs converted within a 10 year period voluntarily after the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared on the tilma of Juan Diego in 1531. Something tells me God played a part. Even the Inquisition was not a matter of forced conversions. Nor were the Crusades, even though the soldiers got out of hand in their violence or plundering. It was not about convert or die.

 

[aaronleland]

I thought it would be interesting to start a topic on this when I read this post in another thread:

DGS49, et al,

Like the Secretary-General says, "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." Not even this disparity in equipment and technological superior arms. THAT IS AN INVALID EXCUSE. But it is one that the Hostile Arab-Palestinian uses quite frequently.

First - what IS terrorism? There are so many definitions but they have some commonality best expressed in the UN declaration below:


UN General Assembly Resolutions

A 1996 non-binding United Nations Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, annexed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 51/210, described terrorist activities in the following terms:[43]


"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"


Antonio Cassese has argued that the language of this and other similar UN declarations "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."[44]​

In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there are many clear cut examples of terrorism and many less clear or easily "justified" examples...

The cold-blooded murder of an entire Israeli family in Itmar down to the smallest infant, while they slept in their beds: Itamar massacre: Fogel family butchered while sleeping

The cold blooded fire bombing of a Palestinian family's home while they slept that left a toddler dead, the two parents so severely wounded they died soon after, and a 6 yr old still fighting for his life: Duma arson attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A host of knife attacks against Israeli civilians, of which this is just one: Palestinian girls shot after stabbing elderly man with scissors

Israeli's stone a school bus full of Palestinian girls: Settlers pelt Palestinian school buses

The collective punishment of innocent civilians:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...e-punishment-is-revenge-plain-and-simple.html

A Palestinian woman attacks a guard at a check point: Terror of checkpoint knife attack: Palestinian woman pulls out knife & stabs Israeli guard

The abduction and burning alive of a palestinian teen: Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Price Tag movement that has been responsible for vandalism, destruction of property and livelyhood, and assaults on civilians: Price tag policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with the statement: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." and define terrorism as acts of violence, or intimidation against civilians for the purpose of a political, ideological, religious or cultural goal.

The only example that I would not consider terrorism is attacking a military target.

I feel that the deliberate targeting of civilians is never justified. Ever. If you wish to make a point I have no problem with blowing up government buildings (so long as there is no one inside of course) and cars etc. But the second you start killing people I have a problem with that.

That's why our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be debated for many years to come. We knew the Japanese were nearing defeat before we dropped the bombs, but sped up the process by destroying two cities. At this point in history it doesn't matter, but the morality of it will be discussed for a long time.

 

[turzovka]

Many called the Irish Republican Army terrorists, others called them freedom fighters. It's a thin line at times

It's a funny thing that can be debated for an eternity. We used guerrilla war tactics to defeat the British during the American Revolution, and history regards them as freedom fighters. You never hear the Natives Americans who attacked American settlers referred to as freedom fighters, do you?

Well did we purposefully target innocent civilians? To me, that is what terrorism is. When innocent civilians are purposefully and intentionally targeted in order to make a "statement," whether that be political, social, religious, or whatever.

In the case of the Native Americans, yes we did. In the case of the British most of their civilians lived thousands of miles away.

And Israel's war against the Palestinians is virtually always in Palestinian neighborhoods. Is knowingly and willingly killing civilians substantially different than targeting civilians?

Are you kidding?

Read the truth, which you will not find in most western media productions.

Israel has in more ways than any other nation in history gone out of its way to try and not harm citizens.

 

[ChrisL]

I just think it's an interesting subject to think about, and one that can never really be settled. Do good guys and bad guys really exist in war? What makes one group's ideology right and the other's wrong?

Well I imagine if one cannot believe in God then then have limited their ability to reason or set up moral principles.

But as some godless human denizen, who is left to his own wiles --- I think there is enough history that has past where we can see all men are born with a rudimentary ability to reason and have a conscience. Human nature, if you will? Where we can see that bashing someone on the head for no reason at all we can call wrong or unjust. Not feeding a baby might be wrong. Stealing a man's possessions, wrong. Etc. So what is your point? You think those invading marauders in the 7th and 8th centuries who took over North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and upwards to Europe, then forced many of them to convert to Islam or die --- You think even a godless person cannot comprehend the immoral act in all that?

Was the European invasion of the Americas and the forced conversions and subsequent genocide of the native americans terrorism?

Well, that was a different time, so no. There was no Geneva Convention. There were no "rules" back then, so people/armies got away with all kinds of horrible acts.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I thought it would be interesting to start a topic on this when I read this post in another thread:

DGS49, et al,

Like the Secretary-General says, "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." Not even this disparity in equipment and technological superior arms. THAT IS AN INVALID EXCUSE. But it is one that the Hostile Arab-Palestinian uses quite frequently.

First - what IS terrorism? There are so many definitions but they have some commonality best expressed in the UN declaration below:


UN General Assembly Resolutions

A 1996 non-binding United Nations Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, annexed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 51/210, described terrorist activities in the following terms:[43]


"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"


Antonio Cassese has argued that the language of this and other similar UN declarations "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."[44]​

In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there are many clear cut examples of terrorism and many less clear or easily "justified" examples...

The cold-blooded murder of an entire Israeli family in Itmar down to the smallest infant, while they slept in their beds: Itamar massacre: Fogel family butchered while sleeping

The cold blooded fire bombing of a Palestinian family's home while they slept that left a toddler dead, the two parents so severely wounded they died soon after, and a 6 yr old still fighting for his life: Duma arson attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A host of knife attacks against Israeli civilians, of which this is just one: Palestinian girls shot after stabbing elderly man with scissors

Israeli's stone a school bus full of Palestinian girls: Settlers pelt Palestinian school buses

The collective punishment of innocent civilians:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...e-punishment-is-revenge-plain-and-simple.html

A Palestinian woman attacks a guard at a check point: Terror of checkpoint knife attack: Palestinian woman pulls out knife & stabs Israeli guard

The abduction and burning alive of a palestinian teen: Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Price Tag movement that has been responsible for vandalism, destruction of property and livelyhood, and assaults on civilians: Price tag policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with the statement: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." and define terrorism as acts of violence, or intimidation against civilians for the purpose of a political, ideological, religious or cultural goal.

The only example that I would not consider terrorism is attacking a military target.

I feel that the deliberate targeting of civilians is never justified. Ever. If you wish to make a point I have no problem with blowing up government buildings (so long as there is no one inside of course) and cars etc. But the second you start killing people I have a problem with that.

That's why our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be debated for many years to come. We knew the Japanese were nearing defeat before we dropped the bombs, but sped up the process by destroying two cities. At this point in history it doesn't matter, but the morality of it will be discussed for a long time.

They weighed the difference between an invasion of mainland Japan and loss of huge numbers of American and civilian lives compared to the loss of the two cities. I think they made the right call

 

[P F Tinmore]

Many called the Irish Republican Army terrorists, others called them freedom fighters. It's a thin line at times

It's a funny thing that can be debated for an eternity. We used guerrilla war tactics to defeat the British during the American Revolution, and history regards them as freedom fighters. You never hear the Natives Americans who attacked American settlers referred to as freedom fighters, do you?

Well did we purposefully target innocent civilians? To me, that is what terrorism is. When innocent civilians are purposefully and intentionally targeted in order to make a "statement," whether that be political, social, religious, or whatever.

In the case of the Native Americans, yes we did. In the case of the British most of their civilians lived thousands of miles away.

And Israel's war against the Palestinians is virtually always in Palestinian neighborhoods. Is knowingly and willingly killing civilians substantially different than targeting civilians?

Are you kidding?

Read the truth, which you will not find in most western media productions.

Israel has in more ways than any other nation in history gone out of its way to try and not harm citizens.

Indeed, that is why Israel only kills Palestinians by the thousands.

 

[aaronleland]

I thought it would be interesting to start a topic on this when I read this post in another thread:

DGS49, et al,

Like the Secretary-General says, "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." Not even this disparity in equipment and technological superior arms. THAT IS AN INVALID EXCUSE. But it is one that the Hostile Arab-Palestinian uses quite frequently.

First - what IS terrorism? There are so many definitions but they have some commonality best expressed in the UN declaration below:


UN General Assembly Resolutions

A 1996 non-binding United Nations Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, annexed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 51/210, described terrorist activities in the following terms:[43]


"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"


Antonio Cassese has argued that the language of this and other similar UN declarations "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."[44]​

In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there are many clear cut examples of terrorism and many less clear or easily "justified" examples...

The cold-blooded murder of an entire Israeli family in Itmar down to the smallest infant, while they slept in their beds: Itamar massacre: Fogel family butchered while sleeping

The cold blooded fire bombing of a Palestinian family's home while they slept that left a toddler dead, the two parents so severely wounded they died soon after, and a 6 yr old still fighting for his life: Duma arson attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A host of knife attacks against Israeli civilians, of which this is just one: Palestinian girls shot after stabbing elderly man with scissors

Israeli's stone a school bus full of Palestinian girls: Settlers pelt Palestinian school buses

The collective punishment of innocent civilians:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...e-punishment-is-revenge-plain-and-simple.html

A Palestinian woman attacks a guard at a check point: Terror of checkpoint knife attack: Palestinian woman pulls out knife & stabs Israeli guard

The abduction and burning alive of a palestinian teen: Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Price Tag movement that has been responsible for vandalism, destruction of property and livelyhood, and assaults on civilians: Price tag policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with the statement: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." and define terrorism as acts of violence, or intimidation against civilians for the purpose of a political, ideological, religious or cultural goal.

The only example that I would not consider terrorism is attacking a military target.

I feel that the deliberate targeting of civilians is never justified. Ever. If you wish to make a point I have no problem with blowing up government buildings (so long as there is no one inside of course) and cars etc. But the second you start killing people I have a problem with that.

That's why our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be debated for many years to come. We knew the Japanese were nearing defeat before we dropped the bombs, but sped up the process by destroying two cities. At this point in history it doesn't matter, but the morality of it will be discussed for a long time.

They weighed the difference between an invasion of mainland Japan and loss of huge numbers of American and civilian lives compared to the loss of the two cities. I think they made the right call

I honestly think it's easy to debate both sides. That's why it's really a pointless argument that nobody will ever win.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's a funny thing that can be debated for an eternity. We used guerrilla war tactics to defeat the British during the American Revolution, and history regards them as freedom fighters. You never hear the Natives Americans who attacked American settlers referred to as freedom fighters, do you?

Well did we purposefully target innocent civilians? To me, that is what terrorism is. When innocent civilians are purposefully and intentionally targeted in order to make a "statement," whether that be political, social, religious, or whatever.

In the case of the Native Americans, yes we did. In the case of the British most of their civilians lived thousands of miles away.

And Israel's war against the Palestinians is virtually always in Palestinian neighborhoods. Is knowingly and willingly killing civilians substantially different than targeting civilians?

Are you kidding?

Read the truth, which you will not find in most western media productions.

Israel has in more ways than any other nation in history gone out of its way to try and not harm citizens.

Indeed, that is why Israel only kills Palestinians by the thousands.

If the Palis had the means they'd kill the Jews by the thousands

 

[Hollie]

Why is it that carrying a bomb onto a bus is terrorism but dropping a one ton bomb on an apartment building not?

There is definitely a double standard.

Well, I’m sorry, but your excusing the act of willful and calculated murder speaks volumes. It's the classic degenerative ailment of "Pal'istanian Mentality" Let’s put things in perspective, your heroes who commit the calculated act of boarding a bus with the sole intent of inflicting as much death and destruction as possible are in no way comparable with targeted strikes which are for the purpose of preventing your heroes from committing such acts.

Aside from the disregard you have for innocent lives that were snuffed out by your islamic terrorist heroes those of us who do care about what is reasonable and what must be done to protect innocent lives will take note of your using your religion as justification for murder.

You will find that your murderous heroes will eventually be subject to some high explosive justice of their own. That your heroes insist on using women and children as hoped-for shields is typical of the cowards that define islamic terrorists. Justice for your islamic terrorist heroes will be rendered in spite of your excuses for religiously sanctioned murder.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why is it that carrying a bomb onto a bus is terrorism but dropping a one ton bomb on an apartment building not?

There is definitely a double standard.

Well, I’m sorry, but your excusing the act of willful and calculated murder speaks volumes. It's the classic degenerative ailment of "Pal'istanian Mentality" Let’s put things in perspective, your heroes who commit the calculated act of boarding a bus with the sole intent of inflicting as much death and destruction as possible are in no way comparable with targeted strikes which are for the purpose of preventing your heroes from committing such acts.

Aside from the disregard you have for innocent lives that were snuffed out by your islamic terrorist heroes those of us who do care about what is reasonable and what must be done to protect innocent lives will take note of your using your religion as justification for murder.

You will find that your murderous heroes will eventually be subject to some high explosive justice of their own. That your heroes insist on using women and children as hoped-for shields is typical of the cowards that define islamic terrorists. Justice for your islamic terrorist heroes will be rendered in spite of your excuses for religiously sanctioned murder.

Are you trying to defend dropping one ton bombs onto civilians?

 

[montelatici]

Was the European invasion of the Americas and the forced conversions and subsequent genocide of the native americans terrorism?

The invasion? No, not really. Forced conversions? Yes, I would say so. However, I do not think forced conversions were anywhere near the norm for the spread of Christianity in the New World or anywhere else. A number of historians concure that 8 -10 millions Aztecs converted within a 10 year period voluntarily after the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared on the tilma of Juan Diego in 1531. Something tells me God played a part. Even the Inquisition was not a matter of forced conversions. Nor were the Crusades, even though the soldiers got out of hand in their violence or plundering. It was not about convert or die.

So, you don't believe that the Spanish Conquistadores were invaders? If it wasn't tragic that some believe such nonsense, it would be hilarious. What do you think Conquistadores means in English? LOL

As far as forced conversions, just take some time to read and don't just spout nonsense, you just make a fool of yourself when you write about issues you know nothing about.

"The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, "convert or die.""

Why Did The Native American People Convert To A Foreign Religion?

 

[Humanity]

the IRA's goal was a free and united Ireland away from England

Against the will of the majority... That make's them terrorists!

For me the definition is clear...

Terrorist - A minority fighting for the 'good' of a few
Freedom Fighter - A majority fighting for the good of the majority

 

[SassyIrishLass]

the IRA's goal was a free and united Ireland away from England

Against the will of the majority... That make's them terrorists!

For me the definition is clear...

Terrorist - A minority fighting for the 'good' of a few
Freedom Fighter - A majority fighting for the good of the majority

Some choose to be free, when they stand they become freedom fighters. A minority or majority doesn't matter

 

[Hollie]

Why is it that carrying a bomb onto a bus is terrorism but dropping a one ton bomb on an apartment building not?

There is definitely a double standard.

Well, I’m sorry, but your excusing the act of willful and calculated murder speaks volumes. It's the classic degenerative ailment of "Pal'istanian Mentality" Let’s put things in perspective, your heroes who commit the calculated act of boarding a bus with the sole intent of inflicting as much death and destruction as possible are in no way comparable with targeted strikes which are for the purpose of preventing your heroes from committing such acts.

Aside from the disregard you have for innocent lives that were snuffed out by your islamic terrorist heroes those of us who do care about what is reasonable and what must be done to protect innocent lives will take note of your using your religion as justification for murder.

You will find that your murderous heroes will eventually be subject to some high explosive justice of their own. That your heroes insist on using women and children as hoped-for shields is typical of the cowards that define islamic terrorists. Justice for your islamic terrorist heroes will be rendered in spite of your excuses for religiously sanctioned murder.

Are you trying to defend dropping one ton bombs onto civilians?

Are you trying to sidestep and dodge?

 

[turzovka]

So, you don't believe that the Spanish Conquistadores were invaders? If it wasn't tragic that some believe such nonsense, it would be hilarious. What do you think Conquistadores means in English? LOL

As far as forced conversions, just take some time to read and don't just spout nonsense, you just make a fool of yourself when you write about issues you know nothing about.

"The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, "convert or die.""

Why Did The Native American People Convert To A Foreign Religion?

Your Huffingtonpost article may have some truth to its claims, but I would not use that as my only source to come to solid conclusions. Do I believe Spanish Conquistadores were invaders? Yes, I do, especially the way they went about their business in many instances. But you asked the question in a very general way. You asked “Was the invasion of Europeans to the Americas an act of terrorism?” And I said, “no, not really.” So now you pull out your prize example and think you can label all European missions and settlements, etc. as terrorists. This is disingenuous and I think you should know that.

Back to your article, a few comments on some quotes.

>>The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, "convert or die."<<

Whether the Spanish conquerors were all that interested in converting the natives or not is not clear to me. Whether they said “convert or die” even less clear. I do know from my sources that priests accompanied these Spanish soldiers in order to try and be far more civil to the natives and not induce violence. And many missions bear that out. But if you are saying the Spanish soldiers and / or their practices had the blessings of the pope or the Vatican, I seriously doubt it. I do not have time to confirm my suspicions.

>>The Christian's concept of heaven was that if the heathen Indians were not Christians they would never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.<<

Oh, fine, so you can find the quote of some bishop or a few Jesuits or whatever. This absolutely is false and does not align itself with Catholic dogma, doctrine or the vast meaning of its teachings. Or the Bible. So you and Huffington would do me a real favor and spare the demagoguery.

>>We will never know the answer to that question, but perhaps Native Americans in the year 2011 should re-examine their concept of Christianity and look back on all of the spiritual beliefs they gave up.<<

They could have been researching this for the last 100 years if it meant that much to them?

>>The beliefs of the indigenous people appear to be far superior to those of the doom and gloom religions of the European settlers.<<

Well the author of this article is surely no theologian. He is telling the world Christianity has no leg to stand on because he has first hand experience tribal beliefs are kinder and more like who God should be. Note: There is a million pieces of empirical evidence out there that might suggest something different, but don’t let that hinder your certitudes.

>>It is no wonder that the Native Americans that met the first settlers had a hard time understanding their apparent lack of humor and the shame they felt about the human body.<<

Maybe the European culture and civilization was more advanced? Maybe if we left the Native Americans alone they might have changes come to their culture and ways without our interference, including ideas on sex and lust, etc. Maybe at some point they would object themselves to open displays of sex, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. Then who would you blame for them covering up their nakedness?

>>I am still left with the question that has bothered me all of my life: Why did so many indigenous people convert to the religions that came from a foreign land with a Bible in which not one indigenous tribe in the Western Hemisphere is ever mentioned?<<

Would it matter? Most nations or people are not mentioned explicitly in the Bible. We are not envious of that. We are grateful of God’s appearance on the scene and His promises.

 

[Humanity]

the IRA's goal was a free and united Ireland away from England

Against the will of the majority... That make's them terrorists!

For me the definition is clear...

Terrorist - A minority fighting for the 'good' of a few
Freedom Fighter - A majority fighting for the good of the majority

Some choose to be free, when they stand they become freedom fighters. A minority or majority doesn't matter

As I said, my definition is clear, for me... Using your example, the IRA, clearly terrorists... The majority in NI voted NOT to leave the UK...

Thus making the IRA a terrorist organisation... Pure and simple

So, using my definition, a terrorist fights for a minority and then what? They remain a terrorist! They then terrorise the majority!

A freedom fighter who is fighting for the good of the majority is clearly a freedom fighter and not a terrorist!

As I said, thats my definition, I don't expect others to adopt the same definition, simply accept that I may have a different opinion to you...

 

[montelatici]

Convert or die was a European policy vis-a-vis the native americans. The native americans were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Europeans. You denied the above and attempted to justify the actions of the Europeans implying that the actions of the Arabs in their invasions were somehow more despicable. That's the point.

 

[turzovka]

Convert or die was a European policy vis-a-vis the native americans. The native americans were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Europeans. You denied the above and attempted to justify the actions of the Europeans implying that the actions of the Arabs in their invasions were somehow more despicable. That's the point.

I think you are the one doing most of the denying and being very selective what you respond to.

The Arab invasions were far worse, far more oppressive and despicable, imo and that of many others. I really do not understand the motives of some like you. It is not very difficult to find horrible sins amongst Christians and then use that to say there is no difference from that and a true evil force. I do not get your type? You are being purposefully evasive to the facts and blatant observations.

 

[montelatici]

Convert or die was a European policy vis-a-vis the native americans. The native americans were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Europeans. You denied the above and attempted to justify the actions of the Europeans implying that the actions of the Arabs in their invasions were somehow more despicable. That's the point.

I think you are the one doing most of the denying and being very selective what you respond to.

The Arab invasions were far worse, far more oppressive and despicable, imo and that of many others. I really do not understand the motives of some like you. It is not very difficult to find horrible sins amongst Christians and then use that to say there is no difference from that and a true evil force. I do not get your type? You are being purposefully evasive to the facts and blatant observations.

How were the Arab invasions more despicable than the European invasions? There are no indigenous people to speak of in Australia, and many parts of North and South America. The Spanish were not eliminated, in fact there were enough of them to reconquer Spain and force the invading Muslims and Jews to convert or leave Spain, for example. I don't get your type.