To be sure, Muslims are peaceful people, in my view, they built it to claim peace.
While I agree with you as to the reasoning behind this, it does not negate the fact that effect is decidedly quite different.
The Qu'ran doesn't encourage terrorism.
Then explain the 109 passages where it directs the faithful to wage war on the infidels, and claims that any believer that does not fight is less than the infidel?
While it may not be interpreted as promoting violence by most, it certainly has many passages that seem that way and will inevitably be construed as such.
one day you'll visit some Arab country and see for yourselves how stupid you were to think they were taught to kill.
I have been to several Arab nations. I have also have the privilege of attending mosque on several occasions. Please disregard the ignorant bigots and stick to facts. There are many places in the Qu'ran where it speaks of violence against non believers as a good thing.
While I agree that as a faith Islam does not overtly teach violence, the Qu'ran contains many passages that are seen that way when taken at face value. Just as the Bible and Torah do. No one is terribly different from the other.
nothing to do with the religion even if they use it as a motive.
That seems like a very ignorant statement. If religion is the motive then it has everything to do with religion.
it isn't really muslim its a new type of religion all together.
That's because the religion is called Islam, and these people are followers of Islam. They have called a Jihad, which is a holy war, much like the Christians of old called a Crusade. The only difference is that it is only a small minority of Islamic practicioners that have answered or even recognize this Jihad.
THE CRUSADES WERE A BARBARIC SLAUGHTER OF THE MUSLIM MANKIND WITH A RELIGIOUS EXCUSE BUT A POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL MOTIVE.
Actually the first Crusade was called because the Muslim Saracens conquered the holy land, destroyed the churches, and forbade Christian pilgrims from visiting their holy areas. This prompted the Pope to call a Crusade to gather the armies of the Christian nations to retake the Holy Land in order to allow pilgrims to visit their sacred sites.
I don't know quite what went wrong between them, but I suspect it has a lot to do with all three religions having vying for the 'holy land'
A lot of it has to do with pride. If any of the religions admitted and recognized that the Holy Land held great importance to the other religions, it would be forced to recognize them as having legitimate claims to the area, as well as lending more validity to their faith. When your faith tells that only you are right and your god and holy areas are yours alone it is difficult to admit that another faith may be just as right.
i hate it how some stereotypical Americans just say how muslims are terrorists or something along the lines that muslims are bad.
Those aren't stereotypical americans as you put it. They are called bigots. And bigotry is not specific to americans.
These things happened thousands of years ago, there isn't any memory of it, yes the hatred created from the MUTUAL killing still exists. However there is no 'mental scarring'.
Agreed. If the memory of these actions and the hatred and intolerance resulting from it did not exist we would not be seeing the conflicts over the same issues that we see going on today.
That's what you think, it's ignorance you are displaying there.
Actually it's you who is showing ignorance. He never stated that the people aren't affected, he simply said that there is no 'mental scarring', which there cannot be. Mental scarring as the term is being used refers to psychological damage resulting from a traumatic experience.
These people were not alive during the crusades therefor any psychological damage is a result of current events, which are occurring due to the intolerance and hatred which has been perpetuated in the area partially as a result of the Crusades.
