Perhaps. I'm honestly not quite sure.
In any case, unfortunately, that is not quite enough. This "lesser of two evils" mentality is getting us all nowhere worth the trouble, and has been doing so for decades at least.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Crusade vs Jihad wars:Can it be solved?
- Thread starter Servant_of_the_One1
- Start date
In any case, unfortunately, that is not quite enough. This "lesser of two evils" mentality is getting us all nowhere worth the trouble, and has been doing so for decades at least.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
I still don't think they can be compared to actual jihadis though, like the image suggests.
JRMcC
Active Member
I should have asked this sooner, but what is even really meant here by "jihadis"?
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
My assumption, given the nature of OP, that he is refering to Islamists who use violence to push their religious agendas.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
So, then what is the solution? We all know that the unneeded deaths and destruction are terrible, but it doesn't do any good unless we can find another way to kill the terrorists. One thing we cannot do is give up and let the terrorists win. Anyone who thinks that us stopping our war on terror will cause the terrorists to stop their jihad is ignorant of reality.
That is self-defeating, as Israel and GWB both proved far too often for anyone's good. To kill terrorists, particularly with the kind of weapons that the USA DoD has, is to motivate more, further desperate, terrorism.
Clearly some other approach must be found. One that denies the Jihadists the evidence of a powerful enemy that they want in order to justify themselves and does not betray local tribal allies when it becomes convenient.
The way I see it, it is necessary to shame terrorism out of its motivation. The cost will be dire, and I am not altogether sure there are enough people interested in attaining such an august goal. But I see no real alternative that does not lead to glorified genocide.
JRMcC
Active Member
Just curious, in your opinion: those militants who consider defeating Assad part of their religious agenda jihadis? I mean a lot of those guys are on our side. It seems like people use the term jihadi to mean any muslim bad guy.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
I agree that the term can get thrown around a lot.
Personally though, I don't believe anti-Assad forces are "on my side", I have absolutely no stake in Syria's affairs.
However, given that OP does tend to show incredible pro-Muslim bias, I'm assuming he is talking about what he sees as innocent defensive Muslims vs offensive and aggressive "Westerners".
So fighting or 'crusading' against terrorists who blow up women and children is bad? And Bush didn't attack anyone for Christianity. That's what a crusade is. The debate is he attacked for WMD's or oil, but not for Christ. Jihad terrorists do it to spread Islam hence the difference.
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.
One final thing. Jihad Has been going on since Muhammad in one form or another right? The Crusades ended 800 years ago. Jihad is an offensive war when you can fight. The Crusades were a defensive war to get back the land that was invaded by muslims. Not. The. Same.
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
gnostic
The Lost One
Bush is a bloody moron. Why would you take anything he say seriously?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
It is understandable from the perspective of those whose first language is not English, etc.
Seeing things correctly is also necessary for peace.
From the perspective of the west, a similar tendency is to associate all of Islam with terrorism -which doesn't help anything -but conflict understandably makes people overly suspicious and wary.
Most people just want fair treatment and an end to conflict, but countering the momentum of conflict is difficult -and most people don't have much of a say in the matter individually.
Individuals can only treat people fairly, forgive, speak out when they understand what is a good path to take and make peace at every opportunity -and must do so on all sides if progress is to be made -but that can have a significant collective effect.
Don't want to speak ill of any, but Bush would definitely not be my first choice to be the voice of the people or state.
Well, you & I do seem to have common ground.
Anyone interested in jihad and Islam should dig deeper into the unique history of the
ME Arabic culture of killing.
ME Arabs have been involved in tribal warfare well before Islam was born.
Dig it up on the net, it's interesting to learn the culture of murdering one another
because of any difference though all the basic same people.
Drink from one tribes water well and get killed for it. Just a bit of why they did and still
do murder one another.
How does anyone change a culture thousands of years ingrained in the cellular memory
of ME Arabs???????
I believe change must come from within to be meaningful.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Couldn't agree more. Bush was a dud.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
No not really.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
That is merely a conspiracy theory. Do you have any actual evidence to back up this seemingly ludicrous claim, or are you going off pure speculation?
I'm sorry but is there any documentation he attacked strictly to spread the message of Jesus? As that would actually go against the teaching of Jesus
Oh, baloney. You are looking for reasons to justify your unfounded belief that
the West is somehow in collusion to attack Islam.
I assure you we do not want to attack Islam.
It would be wonderful if ME Arabs would just grow up and assimilate into the 21st
Century with most of the rest of the world.
The tribal wars of the ME Arab simply spilled over into the Shiites, murdering Sunni, Wahhabi
plotting against both sects and others.
Why don't you ruck up, and Google up the history of violence
in the ME well before Islam?
Violence, thousands of years in the making, is ingrained in the culture of the ME peoples.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Maybe we have located the major issue. The erroneous belief that the west cares what religion the terrorists are. To the vast majority here, terrorists are terrorists. There have been many from multiple religions.
Augustus
…
Bush era foreign policy was driven by neoconservative ideologues rather than Christian ideologues. It was the idea that liberal democracy represents a universal human value that drove the wars rather than a desire to impose Christianity on the Middle East.
The wars were about spreading ideology through the utilitarian use of violence, but that ideology was liberal democracy rather than Christianity.
Closer to the 1st democratic crusade (small c) than the 10th [Christian] Crusade.