[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Mokka

The drive to convert was based on the need for total domination by the Catholic Church... and they achieved it for the most part...went into all parts of the world leaving behind a messy footprint of destruction....Canada is still cleaning up the mess they left behind here with our aboriginal people's and their residential schools that were basically torches chambers for children...

Just because they didn't use bombs... doesn't mean they have not been as equally destructive.. and for centuries

Anglicans were equally as destructive, it's rare that the Christians are held to account for their destructive rampages and it was a long time ago so it's glossed over by many but I can totally see where you are coming from.

I still say the Religious element to the current situation is a cover it is being used by those orchestrating as a tool of control for both sides.

[Anaesthesia]

Originally Posted by Maru

Ironically enough it's a survival tactic. Our brains are designed to find contrasts. Look at it this way, when your experiences in life have taught you and your brain that meats come in warm color tones, you're going to think twice about that blue color meat.

Another example, if you go into a poorer neighborhood after living in a safe, sheltered wooden suburb, you will interpret most people as "acting" strange and that alone creates a sense of discomfort because it goes against your background and your brain and instincts are telling you to be alert and to look for potential predators or pitfalls.

Moreover, when we associate with groups (aka village mentality), we embolden our own psyche's and increase our resistance against "adversaries" because while our brains zoom into into contrasts, we are innately social so we also desire acceptance. Depending on one's past environmental conditions, keeping the contrasts in the front of our minds keep us alert to any potential red flags and people who may not have our best interests in mind... even if they seem harmless enough and are actually very friendly and gracious in appearances.

If the group you were associated with as a child or have come to associate with as a adult says it's OK to accept larger gaps in similarities (like being raised as a hippy), it's not such an issue. Almost always though, there is going to be some limit to yourself and your group's tolerance and to some degree it's a protection of self... usually defined along the lines of "unsafe" or "suspicious" thinking, modes, or ways of living. Things that would cause too much discomfort and cognitive dissonance eventually would tear at that's person perception of themselves and weaken their self-perceived role in the group or society.

This is very base and a poor description of each group, but let's say Team Blue (aka liberals) are taught to be suspicious of guns. Even though they were taught they were OK to own, and there are acceptable and legal uses for owning one, they were taught you can get along without owning one being necessary. This was the case in MD where I lived for a while in the US, a blue state. Discussion of guns is enough to get you in trouble and have the law called... even if it was a harmless discussion and meant nothing, that person saw a potential threat because of the person's discussion around their political beliefs, they made the call.

The law's hands were tied, but being that MD caters to the majority, Team blue, though the officer's were suspicious, they had nothing to charge so they left it well alone... though nothing came of it, members of Team Blue feel empowered because they "took one for the team", made the "right call" when they saw a potential threat and feel like good citizens, rather members of the perceived group, and it boosted not only their confidence but their self-esteem level.

The Team Red member who felt ostracized, not only posing a threat to his group's interest, but affecting that person's self-esteem and having their ego bruised to not be so easily accepted in the major worldview... as they perceived their openness and trust in discussing such topics as a minority an "olive branch" to the other team. So that member goes back to his group and voices this negative incident to his team as an example of how Team Blue is bad and cannot be trusted, yada yada...

Meanwhile in TX, primarily republican and though we have democrat cities with progressive groups and interests, we're used to having a gun by our frontdoor or somewhere accessible (sans bullets) should anyone "threaten" our turf. Most people talk about guns freely and this is a common hobby and interest, so people talk about what they own out of pride (boys and toys). Well, one of them says they don't care what others think about how they would go about it, but if someone trespassed their property, they would shoot them ASAP. A bystander, a member of Team Blue, a mom with four kids hears this conversation and asks the Team Red member why he would be so emboldened to just shoot someone right out without any kind of remorse... the Team Red members swarm in and overcome the mother's emotional response with logical retorts and though the contrast is clear to both groups, Team Red perceives it as a "win" because they shut down yet another member of "Team Blue"... and that member of Team Blue feels ostracized for what is perceived as an "olive" branch on their part, because they were interested in the and promoting not only her group's interest, but wellfare of the moral character of the community... so she goes back to her group, highlights this incident and illustrates how this is how Team Red can't be trusted... etc...

In short, both teams find themselves opposing on the same issue, so in order to set themselves apart and create competition to protect the village, Team blue speaks loudly they are suspicious of guns and the flamboyant use of such among Team red, whereas, Team Red retorts that they are suspicious of groups that want to limit rights and object to things out of the condition of "fear... etc etc

Both leads to a lot of unnecessary and irrational conclusions being drawn from both ends, but in our psyche is ingrained to accept one group over another because of the conditions of self-preservation. Even though perhaps there is cognitive dissonance evident to the individual, it is overlooked to further the interests of the group itself because ultimately it furthers the individual and can perceivably protect their place in the tribe and gives them a sense of strength in overall society.

I hope that is clear. CBB launch is on so I don't want to miss it I find this topic fascinating nonetheless. Overall, I think that it's good to think about what groups oneself may align, there are likely multiple and you'd be surprised sometimes to discover groups you align with without realizing it. The human brain has an amazing way of perceiving and zooming in and matching with these distinctive groups before we even know or can label them. A powerful and eye-openingly intelligent thing to discover about oneself and psyche as the whole I think.

CBB time <3

Beautiful, intelligent and eloquent post. Thank you.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I still say the Religious element to the current situation is a cover it is being used by those orchestrating as a tool of control for both sides.

This.

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Anglicans were equally as destructive, it's rare that the Christians are held to account for their destructive rampages and it was a long time ago so it's glossed over by many but I can totally see where you are coming from.

I still say the Religious element to the current situation is a cover it is being used by those orchestrating as a tool of control for both sides.

You are correct... Anglicans were equally destructive as are all religious who's underling goal is power and control... which is all religions. Religion is a tool made up to control the masses by the elite... to gain wealth and power.

And many of the destructive rampages are not that long ago... my country still has survivors of their destructive rampages living... and in many third world countries their destructiveness continues. Catholics, Protestants... most Western religions just have more subtle ways of manipulating and controlling to gain power... We as a society are enamored with those using bombs and people as bombs as weapons because it can actually impact anyone at anytime... especially the first world elite... but no one has cared for centuries how it has impacted the marginalized or third world poor members of society. It's why we hear about a bombing in the first world that kills 11 people...but not one in the third world that kills 300.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesia

Beautiful, intelligent and eloquent post. Thank you.

Feel free to add

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesia

Differences, people. Differences are what cause hate, right from the fat smelly kid who was ostracised in the playground - pretty sure he had family issues and couldn't talk to anyone about it. How about the muslims that covered their legs in school uniforms, how about anyone that is allowed to be different for religious reasons, right down to any difference you can think of basically. Playground mentality.

I hate the kids that physically bullied me in school for being a geek. I hate the kids that bullied my brother for being autistic. I hate a lot of things, but I did get to fight back. And yes, I also understand they were adolescent tw*ts. I still hate what they did to me / us. I never felt the need to do that.

Who wants everyone to be the same? And if you think about it, what happens when you get that wish? Do you think that will make everyone happy? That's just ridiculous. Vive la difference, forever.

....hmmmm, differences can cause fears, can cause prejudices and intolerances etc but I'm not sure about hate, Anaesthesia ..'hate' is something that not everyone is capable of, I don't think...(well maybe in the most extreme personal of experiences..)...you say that you felt/feel 'hate' but that 'hate' has limits/has boundaries, you know..?...with IS there does not appear to be any boundaries to their hate and it's not (I don't think..)..because of differences, whatever those differences may be...whether it be religions or whatever...'playground mentality' however awful and scarring etc can be rationalised but there is no rational in what IS do...they're indiscriminate in their hate and relentless in their hate and limitless in their hate... they haven't showed that they want 'power or control' like playground bullies etc, they've only showed that they want death...

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Maru

Ironically enough it's a survival tactic. Our brains are designed to find contrasts. Look at it this way, when your experiences in life have taught you and your brain that meats come in warm color tones, you're going to think twice about that blue color meat.

Another example, if you go into a poorer neighborhood after living in a safe, sheltered wooden suburb, you will interpret most people as "acting" strange and that alone creates a sense of discomfort because it goes against your background and your brain and instincts are telling you to be alert and to look for potential predators or pitfalls.

Moreover, when we associate with groups (aka village mentality), we embolden our own psyche's and increase our resistance against "adversaries" because while our brains zoom into into contrasts, we are innately social so we also desire acceptance. Depending on one's past environmental conditions, keeping the contrasts in the front of our minds keep us alert to any potential red flags and people who may not have our best interests in mind... even if they seem harmless enough and are actually very friendly and gracious in appearances.

If the group you were associated with as a child or have come to associate with as a adult says it's OK to accept larger gaps in similarities (like being raised as a hippy), it's not such an issue. Almost always though, there is going to be some limit to yourself and your group's tolerance and to some degree it's a protection of self... usually defined along the lines of "unsafe" or "suspicious" thinking, modes, or ways of living. Things that would cause too much discomfort and cognitive dissonance eventually would tear at that's person perception of themselves and weaken their self-perceived role in the group or society.

This is very base and a poor description of each group, but let's say Team Blue (aka liberals) are taught to be suspicious of guns. Even though they were taught they were OK to own, and there are acceptable and legal uses for owning one, they were taught you can get along without owning one being necessary. This was the case in MD where I lived for a while in the US, a blue state. Discussion of guns is enough to get you in trouble and have the law called... even if it was a harmless discussion and meant nothing, that person saw a potential threat because of the person's discussion around their political beliefs, they made the call.

The law's hands were tied, but being that MD caters to the majority, Team blue, though the officer's were suspicious, they had nothing to charge so they left it well alone... though nothing came of it, members of Team Blue feel empowered because they "took one for the team", made the "right call" when they saw a potential threat and feel like good citizens, rather members of the perceived group, and it boosted not only their confidence but their self-esteem level.

The Team Red member who felt ostracized, not only posing a threat to his group's interest, but affecting that person's self-esteem and having their ego bruised to not be so easily accepted in the major worldview... as they perceived their openness and trust in discussing such topics as a minority an "olive branch" to the other team. So that member goes back to his group and voices this negative incident to his team as an example of how Team Blue is bad and cannot be trusted, yada yada...

Meanwhile in TX, primarily republican and though we have democrat cities with progressive groups and interests, we're used to having a gun by our frontdoor or somewhere accessible (sans bullets) should anyone "threaten" our turf. Most people talk about guns freely and this is a common hobby and interest, so people talk about what they own out of pride (boys and toys). Well, one of them says they don't care what others think about how they would go about it, but if someone trespassed their property, they would shoot them ASAP. A bystander, a member of Team Blue, a mom with four kids hears this conversation and asks the Team Red member why he would be so emboldened to just shoot someone right out without any kind of remorse... the Team Red members swarm in and overcome the mother's emotional response with logical retorts and though the contrast is clear to both groups, Team Red perceives it as a "win" because they shut down yet another member of "Team Blue"... and that member of Team Blue feels ostracized for what is perceived as an "olive" branch on their part, because they were interested in the and promoting not only her group's interest, but wellfare of the moral character of the community... so she goes back to her group, highlights this incident and illustrates how this is how Team Red can't be trusted... etc...

In short, both teams find themselves opposing on the same issue, so in order to set themselves apart and create competition to protect the village, Team blue speaks loudly they are suspicious of guns and the flamboyant use of such among Team red, whereas, Team Red retorts that they are suspicious of groups that want to limit rights and object to things out of the condition of "fear... etc etc

Both leads to a lot of unnecessary and irrational conclusions being drawn from both ends, but in our psyche is ingrained to accept one group over another because of the conditions of self-preservation. Even though perhaps there is cognitive dissonance evident to the individual, it is overlooked to further the interests of the group itself because ultimately it furthers the individual and can perceivably protect their place in the tribe and gives them a sense of strength in overall society.

I hope that is clear. CBB launch is on so I don't want to miss it I find this topic fascinating nonetheless. Overall, I think that it's good to think about what groups oneself may align, there are likely multiple and you'd be surprised sometimes to discover groups you align with without realizing it. The human brain has an amazing way of perceiving and zooming in and matching with these distinctive groups before we even know or can label them. A powerful and eye-openingly intelligent thing to discover about oneself and psyche as the whole I think.

CBB time <3

..another stunningly eloquent post, Maru.....I'm just going to bold that last bit and say yes..a really empowering thing to discover about ourselves and our behaviour patterns and 'roles that we see ourselves' in, in terms of those people in our lives etc...(I'm a huge fan of CBT../as I've said once or twice....)...know and understand yourself/your thought processes and erase your fears/insecurities etc....

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Maru

Ironically enough it's a survival tactic. Our brains are designed to find contrasts. Look at it this way, when your experiences in life have taught you and your brain that meats come in warm color tones, you're going to think twice about that blue color meat.

Another example, if you go into a poorer neighborhood after living in a safe, sheltered wooden suburb, you will interpret most people as "acting" strange and that alone creates a sense of discomfort because it goes against your background and your brain and instincts are telling you to be alert and to look for potential predators or pitfalls.

Moreover, when we associate with groups (aka village mentality), we embolden our own psyche's and increase our resistance against "adversaries" because while our brains zoom into into contrasts, we are innately social so we also desire acceptance. Depending on one's past environmental conditions, keeping the contrasts in the front of our minds keep us alert to any potential red flags and people who may not have our best interests in mind... even if they seem harmless enough and are actually very friendly and gracious in appearances.

If the group you were associated with as a child or have come to associate with as a adult says it's OK to accept larger gaps in similarities (like being raised as a hippy), it's not such an issue. Almost always though, there is going to be some limit to yourself and your group's tolerance and to some degree it's a protection of self... usually defined along the lines of "unsafe" or "suspicious" thinking, modes, or ways of living. Things that would cause too much discomfort and cognitive dissonance eventually would tear at that's person perception of themselves and weaken their self-perceived role in the group or society.

This is very base and a poor description of each group, but let's say Team Blue (aka liberals) are taught to be suspicious of guns. Even though they were taught they were OK to own, and there are acceptable and legal uses for owning one, they were taught you can get along without owning one being necessary. This was the case in MD where I lived for a while in the US, a blue state. Discussion of guns is enough to get you in trouble and have the law called... even if it was a harmless discussion and meant nothing, that person saw a potential threat because of the person's discussion around their political beliefs, they made the call.

The law's hands were tied, but being that MD caters to the majority, Team blue, though the officer's were suspicious, they had nothing to charge so they left it well alone... though nothing came of it, members of Team Blue feel empowered because they "took one for the team", made the "right call" when they saw a potential threat and feel like good citizens, rather members of the perceived group, and it boosted not only their confidence but their self-esteem level.

The Team Red member who felt ostracized, not only posing a threat to his group's interest, but affecting that person's self-esteem and having their ego bruised to not be so easily accepted in the major worldview... as they perceived their openness and trust in discussing such topics as a minority an "olive branch" to the other team. So that member goes back to his group and voices this negative incident to his team as an example of how Team Blue is bad and cannot be trusted, yada yada...

Meanwhile in TX, primarily republican and though we have democrat cities with progressive groups and interests, we're used to having a gun by our frontdoor or somewhere accessible (sans bullets) should anyone "threaten" our turf. Most people talk about guns freely and this is a common hobby and interest, so people talk about what they own out of pride (boys and toys). Well, one of them says they don't care what others think about how they would go about it, but if someone trespassed their property, they would shoot them ASAP. A bystander, a member of Team Blue, a mom with four kids hears this conversation and asks the Team Red member why he would be so emboldened to just shoot someone right out without any kind of remorse... the Team Red members swarm in and overcome the mother's emotional response with logical retorts and though the contrast is clear to both groups, Team Red perceives it as a "win" because they shut down yet another member of "Team Blue"... and that member of Team Blue feels ostracized for what is perceived as an "olive" branch on their part, because they were interested in the and promoting not only her group's interest, but wellfare of the moral character of the community... so she goes back to her group, highlights this incident and illustrates how this is how Team Red can't be trusted... etc...

In short, both teams find themselves opposing on the same issue, so in order to set themselves apart and create competition to protect the village, Team blue speaks loudly they are suspicious of guns and the flamboyant use of such among Team red, whereas, Team Red retorts that they are suspicious of groups that want to limit rights and object to things out of the condition of "fear... etc etc

Both leads to a lot of unnecessary and irrational conclusions being drawn from both ends, but in our psyche is ingrained to accept one group over another because of the conditions of self-preservation. Even though perhaps there is cognitive dissonance evident to the individual, it is overlooked to further the interests of the group itself because ultimately it furthers the individual and can perceivably protect their place in the tribe and gives them a sense of strength in overall society.

I hope that is clear. CBB launch is on so I don't want to miss it I find this topic fascinating nonetheless. Overall, I think that it's good to think about what groups oneself may align, there are likely multiple and you'd be surprised sometimes to discover groups you align with without realizing it. The human brain has an amazing way of perceiving and zooming in and matching with these distinctive groups before we even know or can label them. A powerful and eye-openingly intelligent thing to discover about oneself and psyche as the whole I think.

CBB time <3

Damn hippys being all accepting and stuff, this seems a bit of a contradiction in terms though Maru, if we can be socialised into being more accepting of other cultures or 'groups' then it's not necessarily hardwired is it?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

Ironically enough it's a survival tactic. Our brains are designed to find contrasts. Look at it this way, when your experiences in life have taught you and your brain that meats come in warm color tones, you're going to think twice about that blue color meat.

Another example, if you go into a poorer neighborhood after living in a safe, sheltered wooden suburb, you will interpret most people as "acting" strange and that alone creates a sense of discomfort because it goes against your background and your brain and instincts are telling you to be alert and to look for potential predators or pitfalls.

Moreover, when we associate with groups (aka village mentality), we embolden our own psyche's and increase our resistance against "adversaries" because while our brains zoom into into contrasts, we are innately social so we also desire acceptance. Depending on one's past environmental conditions, keeping the contrasts in the front of our minds keep us alert to any potential red flags and people who may not have our best interests in mind... even if they seem harmless enough and are actually very friendly and gracious in appearances.

If the group you were associated with as a child or have come to associate with as a adult says it's OK to accept larger gaps in similarities (like being raised as a hippy), it's not such an issue. Almost always though, there is going to be some limit to yourself and your group's tolerance and to some degree it's a protection of self... usually defined along the lines of "unsafe" or "suspicious" thinking, modes, or ways of living. Things that would cause too much discomfort and cognitive dissonance eventually would tear at that's person perception of themselves and weaken their self-perceived role in the group or society.

This is very base and a poor description of each group, but let's say Team Blue (aka liberals) are taught to be suspicious of guns. Even though they were taught they were OK to own, and there are acceptable and legal uses for owning one, they were taught you can get along without owning one being necessary. This was the case in MD where I lived for a while in the US, a blue state. Discussion of guns is enough to get you in trouble and have the law called... even if it was a harmless discussion and meant nothing, that person saw a potential threat because of the person's discussion around their political beliefs, they made the call.

The law's hands were tied, but being that MD caters to the majority, Team blue, though the officer's were suspicious, they had nothing to charge so they left it well alone... though nothing came of it, members of Team Blue feel empowered because they "took one for the team", made the "right call" when they saw a potential threat and feel like good citizens, rather members of the perceived group, and it boosted not only their confidence but their self-esteem level.

The Team Red member who felt ostracized, not only posing a threat to his group's interest, but affecting that person's self-esteem and having their ego bruised to not be so easily accepted in the major worldview... as they perceived their openness and trust in discussing such topics as a minority an "olive branch" to the other team. So that member goes back to his group and voices this negative incident to his team as an example of how Team Blue is bad and cannot be trusted, yada yada...

Meanwhile in TX, primarily republican and though we have democrat cities with progressive groups and interests, we're used to having a gun by our frontdoor or somewhere accessible (sans bullets) should anyone "threaten" our turf. Most people talk about guns freely and this is a common hobby and interest, so people talk about what they own out of pride (boys and toys). Well, one of them says they don't care what others think about how they would go about it, but if someone trespassed their property, they would shoot them ASAP. A bystander, a member of Team Blue, a mom with four kids hears this conversation and asks the Team Red member why he would be so emboldened to just shoot someone right out without any kind of remorse... the Team Red members swarm in and overcome the mother's emotional response with logical retorts and though the contrast is clear to both groups, Team Red perceives it as a "win" because they shut down yet another member of "Team Blue"... and that member of Team Blue feels ostracized for what is perceived as an "olive" branch on their part, because they were interested in the and promoting not only her group's interest, but wellfare of the moral character of the community... so she goes back to her group, highlights this incident and illustrates how this is how Team Red can't be trusted... etc...

In short, both teams find themselves opposing on the same issue, so in order to set themselves apart and create competition to protect the village, Team blue speaks loudly they are suspicious of guns and the flamboyant use of such among Team red, whereas, Team Red retorts that they are suspicious of groups that want to limit rights and object to things out of the condition of "fear... etc etc

Both leads to a lot of unnecessary and irrational conclusions being drawn from both ends, but in our psyche is ingrained to accept one group over another because of the conditions of self-preservation. Even though perhaps there is cognitive dissonance evident to the individual, it is overlooked to further the interests of the group itself because ultimately it furthers the individual and can perceivably protect their place in the tribe and gives them a sense of strength in overall society.

I hope that is clear. CBB launch is on so I don't want to miss it I find this topic fascinating nonetheless. Overall, I think that it's good to think about what groups oneself may align, there are likely multiple and you'd be surprised sometimes to discover groups you align with without realizing it. The human brain has an amazing way of perceiving and zooming in and matching with these distinctive groups before we even know or can label them. A powerful and eye-openingly intelligent thing to discover about oneself and psyche as the whole I think.

CBB time <3

An amazing post. You are FAST becoming THE Queen of Tibb Maru.

(p.s. I did not want to respond until I had read it and fully digested it. )

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

That disgusting lying old fraud is at it again lying to his 3 world audience and still we report it in the first world





The world is at war, but it is not a war of religions, Pope Francis has said as he traveled to Poland on his first visit to Central and Eastern Europe in the shadow of the slaying of a priest in France.

After greeting reporters on his papal plane he returned to the topic to clarify that when he speaks of war, he is speaking of “a war of interests, for money, resources. … I am not speaking of a war of religions. Religions don’t want war. The others want war.”

-----------------

he should be arrested and locked up

Yes. LT Typical of him

[Livia]

As usual, it seems that a lot of non-believers have a lot more to say than the believers. Or perhaps believers are tired of having to say the same thing over and over and just quietly accept the absurd premise that they're all susceptible to suggestion and a little bit sillier than people without religion.

[Northern Monkey]

I think humans as a species will go to war with or without religion.We are just tribal animals like chimps but more evolved.Chimps are nasty bastards.If they see another chimp from another tribe out alone they will stamp on it and rip it's bollocks off.Seriously.
Religion is just an excuse for war.
The thing is.Most religions have evolved into a peaceful state.Islam is still young and is still fairly primitive and it's not a giant leap from its 'moderate' form to the Jihad embracing extreme form.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I think humans as a species will go to war with or without religion.We are just tribal animals like chimps but more evolved.Chimps are nasty bastards.If they see another chimp from another tribe out alone they will stamp on it and rip it's bollocks off.Seriously.
Religion is just an excuse for war.
The thing is.Most religions have evolved into a peaceful state.Islam is still young and is still fairly primitive and it's not a giant leap from its 'moderate' form to the Jihad embracing extreme form.

Great post Monkey.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I think humans as a species will go to war with or without religion.We are just tribal animals like chimps but more evolved.Chimps are nasty bastards.If they see another chimp from another tribe out alone they will stamp on it and rip it's bollocks off.Seriously.

I think this is a good point, from a psychological standpoint. There are a lot of people who don't believe that we are simply very intelligent primates. Or who do believe, but would like to forget, or would like to believe that we're so advanced that none of that matters now. But we are primates and HUGE parts of our "first impressions", first reactions, and emotional reactions are still infused with those same instincts. Identifying and accepting that is actually a huge part of being able to overcome those reactions ("Why do I feel this way? Is it rational? Is there a better way to look at it?")

Religion is just an excuse for war.
The thing is.Most religions have evolved into a peaceful state.Islam is still young and is still fairly primitive and it's not a giant leap from its 'moderate' form to the Jihad embracing extreme form.

You're right, I think religion is rarely the reason for war and can be used as an excuse - but it can also be used as a tool of war. Historically, a motivation to get normal men (farmers, traders, etc.) to march to war and conquer nations for little or no pay. The people asking them to march? They wanted the land, power and influence. People wouldn't go to war for those men - but they'd go to war for "God", and for access to Heaven.

I've said before that there is very little difference between Islam today and Christianity 800 years ago - and Islam is 800 years younger.

The problem, I guess, is that the global human population 800 years ago was less than 500 million and now it's 7 billion (terrifying on its own, truly) and they had wooden ships, horses, swords and arrows not high-powered assault weaponry and access to the globe on an overnight flight. So the actual situation unfolding is unprecedented... But the mindset certainly isn't.