Crusade vs Jihad wars:Can it be solved?

[LuisDantas]

Hillbillies aren't going to the middle east with suicide bomb vests because there's no need. They're able to sit on their rear ends at home and watch satellite TV while the military drops state of the art explosives on muslims for them.

Calling that an act for peace, no less...

 

[LuisDantas]

I wouldn't call these religious wars. Despite the rhetoric, it's politicians using some short-sighted people with the terminology. In Europe, if someone called for a crusade I think everyone would laugh him out of the hall. Neither would most Europeans(I don't know Catholics) think positively about that word.

Europe today is far less attentive to the Pope than it was centuries ago. It has also learned the price of war twice over in the last 100 years. One would expect and hope it to be practically impossible to motivate current Europeans towards war on religious grounds, and the available evidence supports that perception.

If ISIS is a creation of Saddam's ex-military, it's quite obvious that they too are being used. They have used religious terror just as a weapon, most of them probably don't care what this will do to people's view of Islam. It will make ordinary people lose their faith, when they don't identify with what was done.

I don't know about that. It is my understanding that the Baathists that supported Saddam and form the core of ISIS (or did at first, anyway) were pretty much without options and may even be something of a Doomsday cult expecting the intervention of Allah. No doubt some opportunists adhered to them at some point, but ISIS does not strike me as a promising long-term project.

As an outsider, I feel any violence in name of religion is ridiculous. Probably fanatics on any side would like to kill such atheistic people as I am. I hate all wars.

Hear, brother.

 

[Marisa]

The clash between Crusade and Jihad still continues and there seems to be no end.

Do you think this can be solved without need for prophecies to be fulfilled?

Sure. Just as soon as people value human beings more than mythological beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

One major difficulty is IMO the simple challenge of spreading information and making it trustworthy. Many Middle East communities are plagued by both poor communications and a near-tradition (unfortunately fairly justified) of mistrusting "Western" perspectives as a matter of course. In a very real sense, the tale may be more powerful than the fact here.

Considering how often and how casually assorted European, Israeli, British and American decision-makers disregarded their basic rights, I can't say that is at all surprising. But it is still their fault if they refuse to accept such plain facts as that the Crusades have long stopped.

Unfortunately, my experience suggests that many (most?) Muslims may be more likely to suspect ISIS of being "closet atheists" or some such bizarry than they are of truly believing that there is such a thing as Muslim hazardous extremism.

Seeing how to this day we have refused to deny them their justification in the form of overwhelming military aggressiveness, I don't expect a true solution anytime soon.

 

[Marisa]

Hillbillies aren't going to the middle east with suicide bomb vests because there's no need. They're able to sit on their rear ends at home and watch satellite TV while the military drops state of the art explosives on muslims for them.

And yell epithets at busloads of brown kids a little too close to the border.

 

[leibowde84]

If so why did Bush say Crusade. Clearly there is crusade, just like there is jihad. We cant deny both of them. This is the reality.




Existence of Crusade admitted by Bush.
US President George W. Bush, from a rally for the troops in Alaska, February 16, 2002. : "I want to tell you something, we've got no better friends than Canada. (Applause.) They stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren."[9]

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.


The tenth Crusade is a fact.

lol. You proved my point. The meaning of the word "crusade" (notice how it is not capitalized) is this:

"any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement oof an idea, cause, etc."

I know that the English language is difficult in this respect, as many terms have multiple meanings. But, there is absolutely no indication that Bush was referring to the Crusades of the middle ages, and you were very misleading, claiming that Bush referred to a "10th crusade". This is all in your head. Jihad, on the other hand, is used by the very men fighting for it as their reasoning.

 

[leibowde84]

@leibowde84 thanks for making excuses... But i believe Bush, he is man who used Crusade term to mean Crusade. He was serious when he used that word. Centuries later, some christian leader in the far future will turn Bush into saint!

Again, the non-capitalized word "crusade" does not mean what you are claiming it does. Just pick up a dictionary and you will easily see.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know man, I grew up in New Hampshire I and I've heard people say that we should just just nuke/bomb flat the middle east many times. Pretty whacky things people say.

No way to escape that. There are plenty of crazy/ignorant people in every country. But, those are not the feelings of the majority of this country ... not even close. So, why should they represent us in any way?

 

[leibowde84]

If so why did Bush say Crusade. Clearly there is crusade, just like there is jihad. We cant deny both of them. This is the reality.




Existence of Crusade admitted by Bush.
US President George W. Bush, from a rally for the troops in Alaska, February 16, 2002. : "I want to tell you something, we've got no better friends than Canada. (Applause.) They stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren."[9]

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.


The tenth Crusade is a fact.

Just out of curiosity, how can you consider this a "Crusade" when the US is not fighting on behalf of any religion?

 

[JRMcC]

No way to escape that. There are plenty of crazy/ignorant people in every country. But, those are not the feelings of the majority of this country ... not even close. So, why should they represent us in any way?

Well I actually don't think that these people really meant what they said. They're joking, but only partially.

The fact is that everyone is very comfortable with the amount of Muslims killed in the war on terror. Consider this hypothetical: Say there is some crazy christian in Alabama plotting to blow up a mosque in Iran. Iran finds out about it, and blows up the building this guy is in and 9 innocent white Americans are killed in the process. Would anyone here think that's ok?

So it's not that Americans sit around wishing death upon Muslims, but I think they are generally content with what's been happening to them. Know what I mean?

 

[JRMcC]

Emphasis on those people merely saying such things.....

Right like I said in response to Leibow (post 18) they're not completely serious but those words still mean something.

 

[leibowde84]

Well I actually don't think that these people really meant what they said. They're joking, but only partially.

The fact is that everyone is very comfortable with the amount of Muslims killed in the war on terror. Consider this hypothetical: Say there is some crazy christian in Alabama plotting to blow up a mosque in Iran. Iran finds out about it, and blows up the building this guy is in and 9 innocent white Americans are killed in the process. Would anyone here think that's ok?

So it's not that Americans sit around wishing death upon Muslims, but I think they are generally content with what's been happening to them. Know what I mean?

In your hypothetical, would the US Government be OK with this action? Also, did the innocent people killed know anything about the man's intentions of blowing up the mosque?

 

[JRMcC]

In your hypothetical, would the US Government be OK with this action? Also, did the innocent people killed know anything about the man's intentions of blowing up the mosque?

A. No.
B. There's no way to know but 2 of the victims were under the age of 15.

 

[leibowde84]

A. No.
B. There's no way to know but 2 of the victims were under the age of 15.

I would say this. I, personally, am OK when those who associate with known terrorists become collateral damage. If you associate with any of them, you are putting a target on your back. Also, there is a big difference between governmental action and vigilante extremism. But, these aren't even the most important difference.

When the US Government kills innocent people, they are collateral damage. They are not the targets. With Islamic Extremist groups, innocent civilians ARE the target. Don't you think that is an important clarification?

 

[JRMcC]

I would say this. I, personally, am OK when those who associate with known terrorists become collateral damage. If you associate with any of them, you are putting a target on your back. Also, there is a big difference between governmental action and vigilante extremism. But, these aren't even the most important difference.

When the US Government kills innocent people, they are collateral damage. They are not the targets. With Islamic Extremist groups, innocent civilians ARE the target. Don't you think that is an important clarification?

Sure, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that most innocent civilians in the middle east that are killed are associated with terrorism and therefore partially guilty. Also I don't think a 9 year old boy, for example, is deserving of death for being associated with adults who are terrorists or insurgents.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that most innocent civilians in the middle east that are killed are associated with terrorism and therefore partially guilty. Also I don't think a 9 year old boy, for example, is deserving of death for being associated with adults who are terrorists or insurgents.

It wouldn't be his fault. Maybe the fault of his parents. But, that aside, at least he isn't the target. I think that puts the US forces far above the Jihadis.

 

[JRMcC]

It wouldn't be his fault. Maybe the fault of his parents. But, that aside, at least he isn't the target. I think that puts the US forces far above the Jihadis.

Maybe we are the lesser of two evils.

 

[leibowde84]

Maybe we are the lesser of two evils.

There is a distinct possibility. But we are lesser by far, imho.

 

[Etritonakin]

Bush may have mentioned "a crusade" -but crusade is not a very specific word.

"The Crusades" were about access to, and control of, religious sites in and around Jerusalem (but surely included all of the characteristics of any war).

I seriously doubt Bush had any real religious motivation to control or access the "holy land" or religious sites.

Though technically allies, the U.S. and Israel -which is in the area of Jerusalem -are not planning some crusade together. In fact, their goals and motivations are quite separate and often different.

The average person in the "west" is certainly not motivated to conquer the Muslim world or to do them harm -though they certainly had various reactions to 9-11, etc.

Unfortunately, the average person does not often get the chance to actually get to know people from other places and cultures.

As for solving it.... That is dependent on many individuals and leaders. Forgiveness, fair treatment and choosing peaceful ways would do much good, but such things are not easy for humans -especially after things have already turned bad.

 

[leibowde84]

Bush may have mentioned "a crusade" -but crusade is not a very specific word.

"The Crusades" were about access to, and control of, religious sites in and around Jerusalem (but surely included all of the characteristics of any war).

I seriously doubt Bush had any real religious motivation to control or access the "holy land" or religious sites.

Though technically allies, the U.S. and Israel -which is in the area of Jerusalem -are not planning some crusade together. In fact, their goals and motivations are quite separate and often different.

The average person in the "west" is certainly not motivated to conquer the Muslim world or to do them harm -though they certainly had various reactions to 9-11, etc.

Unfortunately, the average person does not often get the chance to actually get to know people from other places and cultures.

As for solving it.... That is dependent on many individuals and leaders. Forgiveness, fair treatment and choosing peaceful ways would do much good, but such things are not easy for humans -especially after things have already turned bad.

Thank you for posting this. I agree ... it seems absolutely ludicrous to think that Bush was referring to The Crusades, rather than just a crusade against terrorism.