No, fortunately nothing I've said has really been refuted. You, for one, have not done anything but bring strawman arguments and pathetic attempts at justification to the table.
In your first line you say I did not refute anything you said. On your second line you say I did, although in terms you did not like or found to be meaningful (which I presume you call "straw man" whatever. Which one of the two by-polar BerzerkFuries would you like me to believe?
You can't make a post without comparing Islam to a number of other religions, again trying to justify violence by referencing things Christians did 800 years ago. Funny how you forget that 800 years ago, the Muslims were just as violent as the Christians.
Who says you "can't"? You! I mean, I do not frame your conversation within boundaries to my liking. The only thing I ask of you is to reciprocate this wish. I do not ask of you to agree with me on anything. I do ask for you to be objective and take past facts into account. This is so because history, specially when dealing with religion, is capricious, hence trying to prevent me from explaining how we got from point A (which is in the past) to point B, which is the present by refuting why I say by alleging that looking at all that took place from point A to B is not acceptable is ludicrous.
So in essence, this is where we stand right now: You make a stupid comment and you stubornly regress to the "straw man" argument (I still do not know what you mean by it, as well as Nordic's constant use of the word "apologetic") when I make a perfectly fair and balanced comparison showing you or I or our country doing exactly the same thing.
When looking at religion, you MUST take everything into account. It's like with finances. Do you go to your broker and say "invest in companies that are making money but don't look at past performance"?