No, that is not what bigotry is, Xris. You might try a dictionary. Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, or having the characteristics of a bigot. And a bigot is ": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
I am not obstinate in that I am only too happy to hear claims that run contrary to my own, though I should not be expected to take them seriously when they come without evidence (or some source) and when they directly conflict with the evidence I have at my finger tips. If you'd like a reference, I'd be more than happy to provide.
Further, I am not intolerant - you're more than welcome to display your views, regardless of their accuracy or merit: in fact, that is exactly how a discussion forum functions.
Therefore, me correcting your ahistorical narrative is not bigotry.
Again, I never once commented on the Iraq war in this thread, nor did I justify the Moorish invasion of Spain. Instead, I pointed out how your narrative of that invasion was incorrect, in that it did not correspond to the facts of the invasion as understood by the vast majority of historians.
Why you feel so compelled to turn my correction of your fuzzy history into a debate about the justification for a contemporary invasion is beyond me.
And a bigot is ": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
Except that, according to everything I have read, I am not incorrect and that my explanation is not an exaggeration.
My only point was to correct your narrative of the events.
No, I do not think that Moorish occupation was necessary - I would much rather have had the Spaniards and Goths unilaterally disarm and treat everyone like brothers.
Though, I do know that the people of Spain were, by and large, far better under Moorish rule than under Gothic rule, and were, by and large, better under Moorish rule than under the Spanish dominion that followed the Reconquista's push south.
You would think so, Arjuna, but some people just prefer to irrationally hate large populations of people. It's a shame. I hate on a case by case basis (not to justify that hatred, but to be honest, when I hate, it's a particular person - except in college football... freakin' hate Tennessee and USC...).
The point of the debate was and is that Islam was not a peaceful religion and just like everyone else it had its horror stories.
you cant define history or claim to be more knowledgeable than I ,least of all abuse me for disagreeing.
I do believe that the vast majority of Muslim only wish to be free to worship, bring up a family and be reasonably happy. The christian bible recommends all types of horrendous things to homosexuals adulterers and non believers, thankfully they do not abide by the scriptures as they did in recent history. Muslims are the same, I believe, but the problem arises for Christians and Muslims when these horrors are used to convert disadvantaged youths into fundamentalist nutters.
How many nations are Christian because of Christian conquest?
How many Christians commit daily violent acts in the name of the Bible?
Christian nations are the freest on earth while only three nations with more than 20% muslim population are considered free.
It's just funny that those who will get crushed - progressives, feminists, gays, etc - are the apologists.
What do you mean by apologists please? Because I can tell you, as a femminist, I dont apologise for nothing.
Sounds like you might just become a fundamentalist jihadi , i can see the similarities to extreme right wing attitudes and in their aims.