Is the Iraq war just a modern day crusade ?
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Nah, I wouldn't describe it as a crusade, the idea of the crusades was to raise the cross over Jerusalem and other associated 'holy' sites.
This is more to do with a plan to impose a particular model of freedom by coercion...
The only similarity is the locale and the participants, and the sinister nature of the intentions involved.
This is more to do with a plan to impose a particular model of freedom by coercion...
The only similarity is the locale and the participants, and the sinister nature of the intentions involved.
The Crusades were mostly fought to loot the Muslim and Jewish world. They brought back a ton of loot from the "holy sites".
People were hacked, they had watched for centuries as the Muslims advanced their religion by warfare in Europe and christians were largely silent. They wanted to take pride and a big piece of what the muslims had taken from them.
People were hacked, they had watched for centuries as the Muslims advanced their religion by warfare in Europe and christians were largely silent. They wanted to take pride and a big piece of what the muslims had taken from them.
However, they didn't conquer over half of the known world...
The premise isn't all that valid. At that period muslims had taken over much of Europe at this period they are reduced to sending their children in to blow themselves up as they argue for the morality of bringing the rest of the world to the same level....
Yeah... That's the actual directed action. Kill yourself.... They equate.
You can do better than that US...
Muslims send their children in with the actual order to kill yourself because they simply don't have the power to effect the change that they used to. When they were taking over Europe it was not with suicide attacks they fought, they were powerful. In fact, I would bet that they would call such a thing an "evil" at that time. Suicide is one of the greatest "sins" in the Koran.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
At that period muslims had taken over much of Europe
Southern Spain isn't much of Europe, though no doubt if they hadn't been stopped in the Pyrenees they would have taken much of Europe.
Your point is correct, however. Powerful entities rarely use suicide tactics, they are the tactics of the weak.
However it is difficult to make a moral difference between suicide tactics and bombing from 15,000 ft, if the consequences are the same....
Southern Spain isn't much of Europe, though no doubt if they hadn't been stopped in the Pyrenees they would have taken much of Europe.
Your point is correct, however. Powerful entities rarely use suicide tactics, they are the tactics of the weak.
However it is difficult to make a moral difference between suicide tactics and bombing from 15,000 ft, if the consequences are the same....
I was speaking to the direct "sending our kids to die".
We send them there to bomb from a high level, etc. not to actually die. With the muslims it is directed action. "Die and take a few with you."
It is an action of the desperate.
As am I. Taking pride back after getting your ass handed to you by a superior force is not the same as what the US is doing now. It is also not religious based. The US isn't there to "take back the holy land for christendom" or at any direction of a church.
It isn't the crusades. It is a wholly different war with a different cause.
Not true. Strapping bombs to yourself and being sent in as a "martyr" is actually sending them to die.
What part of that are you having difficulty with? The action of the desperate shows that they are not the powerhouse they were when the Crusades began.
Yet it still directly is sending them to die. The US does not send them to die. They send them into a dangerous place to do a job, knowing that some will die.
There is a huge difference between the two, it is a matter of rhetoric. You stated, "The US sends them there to die, just like they do."
It is not true. If we sent 140K young men in there to literally die like they do, there would have been 140K deaths, not 3K or whatever the level is right now.
Those that we are battling often do. You keep making these silly remarks.
You stated we sent our kids there to die. I have shown that we do not. We don't say, "Go and die for our glory." They often do. Pretending that it is the same is pretense only and not based in reality.
If it was the same, many more of our kids would be dead because it would actually be their job to die.
So, once again. USCit, when was the last time we actually literally sent a kid to die in a war? Yes, we send them to fight knowing their chances of dying are high, but we have never, as far as I know, sent in our kids to commit suicide for the better glory of us or our religion.
I think the Bushies use messianic talk about "evil-doers" to sell the war to the fundies, and keep them jazzed up about continuing their war.
In reality, I think the war on Iraq has much more pedestrian geopolitical reasons.