Logically consistent?
First you tell us that the Crusades were fine because no treaties were broken..
When I point out that America broke treaties with the Indians, it’s okay.
Very logically consistent.
There is either an adherence to law or there isn’t. You take both sides of the argument and argue that both are correct. It all depends on your view on the combatants.
“Logically consistent?”
“First you tell us that the Crusades were fine because no treaties were broken..”
That’s not what I said. I showed that your comparison of the Christians’ response to Islamic conquest was different than your hypothetical about American Indians being morally justified to commit acts of terrorism. Apparently you can’t even get straight what was discussed and how - even regarding your own claims.
“When I point out that America broke treaties with the Indians, it’s okay.”
No, it isn’t okay. And I never said it was. Once again we see you can’t even get right what was said.
“Very logically consistent.”
Always. You’re actually attacking things I’ve never even said. You can’t even seem to notice the hypocrisy of attacking me for supposedly not being logically consistent all the while you attack things I’ve never even said.
“There is either an adherence to law or there isn’t.”
Incredible. What law among Christian states in the Middle Ages recognized Islamic conquest as morally justified and legally binding on the consciences and actions of Christians (while it is still going on no less!)? None. None at all. This is a clear example of how you seemingly have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“You take both sides of the argument and argue that both are correct.”
That’s completely false. I have done no such thing. What I do is make proper distinctions. You make none.
“It all depends on your view on the combatants.”
No. It all depends on having a clue - and you’ve shown you don’t have one.