If a Christian killed a Muslim and then another Muslim came on this board complaining about violent Christians, and I said something like "I hate it when Muslims look down their noses at Christianity when their own religion has had all sorts of violent terrorists," I doubt anyone would be calling the Muslim out for defending his religion and its followers, even if I didn't personally say he himself was one of those terrorists. And I doubt anyone would be taking my side, either. At the very least, I'd be told I should have phrased my comment in a less inflammatory way and clarified exactly who I was tarring with my nasty little brush. And understandably so. But those rules don't apply when it's Christians being treated that way. Instead, we are told we're either too thin-skinned, are told we should have given the original poster the benefit of the doubt and assumed the most positive interpretation of his words is what he meant, or told our objection proves the other person's point. What I see here is blatant favoritism, regardless of how well you guys try to dress it up.

When a Muslim does something terrible today it absolutely has no bearing on how we should view or treat any other Muslim and in no way justifies any sort of retaliatory actions towards them.

When a Christian did something terrible 300 years ago, it is still relevant today and should be taken into account when deciding how valid any other Christian's opinion or beliefs are. It also at least partially justifies retaliatory actions against them today because we don't live in a bubble and actions in the past can come back to haunt us in the present.

What is this, Bizzaro-Stormfront?

No, that's you putting words in his mouth to spin his statement in the most positive way you can. His actual statement was far more simplistic.

And my point was that you were acting like he identified with them automatically and that proved your point, when instead, he identified with them because the initial argument lumped him in with them and continued from there.