“You are now denying that you wrote in this thread that America not honoring their treaties with the Indians was no big deal?”
I never said it was no big deal. There you go again saying I said something I never said. Why don’t you actually deal with what is posted rather than making things up that no one has posted?
I posted, for instance, the following:
“False. 1) They all agreed to recognize the seizures after the fact in various treaties. Thus, they have no claim.”
Notice that in no way is anything like the claim you made about what I posted.
And when you inferred or implied I said this: “So treaties forced upon a country being exterminated are righteous?” I responded with:
“No, and I never said that, but a treaty is a treaty.”
Do you see that? So, I wrote that “a treaty is a treaty” and yet here you are saying I said, “You are now denying that you wrote in this thread that America not honoring their treaties with the Indians was no big deal?” You’re making things up out of thin air and that is not an intellectually honest way to do this.
“Re-read what you wrote.”
No, you re-read it. All you’ll see is that I said the treaties are essentially null and void (”At times it did, but all of that became essentially null and void with the tacit agreement of all the parties involved. That wasn’t the situation in 1095.”) That is not the law, but this is the effect ultimately.
I’m going to go ahead and assume - until shown otherwise - that you’ll just make up more things I never, ever said.
You have made yourself crystal-clear now.
The Crusades were justified to reclaim land, but if a country tells another they will be exterminated unless they agree to sign a treaty, the signing of that treaty is legal.
Imagine if that logic was applied to all legal proceedings.
A man rapes a woman but afterwards gets her to sign a legal document saying that she cannot prosecute him while holding a gun to her head. Hey, it would be a legal document. Of course it would not hold up in court, but if a country does it, it must be honored.
Why should something be sacred if it potentially hurts millions but be a useless piece of paper if it affects one person?
A treaty signed under duress should be treated the same as anything signed under duress.
You have made yourself crystal-clear now.
The Crusades were justified to reclaim land, but if a country tells another they will be exterminated unless they agree to sign a treaty, the signing of that treaty is legal.
Imagine if that logic was applied to all legal proceedings.
A man rapes a woman but afterwards gets her to sign a legal document saying that she cannot prosecute him while holding a gun to her head. Hey, it would be a legal document. Of course it would not hold up in court, but if a country does it, it must be honored.
Why should something be sacred if it potentially hurts millions but be a useless piece of paper if it affects one person?
A treaty signed under duress should be treated the same as anything signed under duress.
Then there is my original point that the Crusades resulted at least indirectly in the murder of millions of Jews and yet it is to be viewed as a good thing.