Reflections on Jihad, Crusade, Europe and the Middle East

[ComradeBadger]

It can be argued that Islam is presently at the same stage in it's relgious lifecycle that Christianity was when it embarked upon the Crusades. There are a few similarities beyond the simple Jihad-Holy War comparison.

The idea of 'taking the cross', the call to arms from a 'respected' leader,the idea of fighting a percieved incursion into traditional territory and the extrapolation of that into justification to invade their lands.

On the other hand, in the case of the Crusades, Europe was experiencing a period of stability and expansion, something that the Muslim world in general isn't presently undergoing.

What do you think on this matter? I can expand on both points if anyone cares enough.

 

[CptStern]

I dont think it's a holy war, that's just something leaders on both sides say to get the masses all stirred up ..certainly some of the rhetoric is the same: Bush's lead up to the war sounded like a call to arms akin to a holy war "good vs evil-doers" etc. I think there's definately an element that wants this to be a holy war, what better way to get martyrs to die for your cause? doesnt matter if they're wearing this uniform or this one

 

[$kelet0r]

the middle east has no single unifying force beyond religion and as they feel threatened as an entity by the US, Europe and the Asian powers they rally under that banner
however, islam is not a centralised power and therin lies its weakness, while islam may be playing catch up to a pre enlightenment stage it will not do so universally which means that this there will be stability achieved through it


and shouldnt this forum be closed lol

 

[ComradeBadger]

I dont think it's a holy war, that's just something leaders on both sides say to get the masses all stirred up ..certainly some of the rhetoric is the same: Bush's lead up to the war sounded like a call to arms akin to a holy war "good vs evil-doers" etc. I think there's definately an element that wants this to be a holy war, what better way to get martyrs to die for your cause? doesnt matter if they're wearing this uniform or this one

Yea, I never said it was a 'true' Holy war, which I personally believe is an oxymoron

 

[CptStern]

and I would agree


how is the war played up in brit media? ..the US media has pretty much resigned to their "we have to stay the course for the memory of those that have fallen" stance but I still dont know why/how the UK is still involved. You'd think after the downstreet memos the shit would hit the proverbial fan and the public would demand for the troops to be brought home

 

[Solaris]

It can be argued that Islam is presently at the same stage in it's relgious lifecycle that Christianity was when it embarked upon the Crusades. There are a few similarities beyond the simple Jihad-Holy War comparison.

The idea of 'taking the cross', the call to arms from a 'respected' leader,the idea of fighting a percieved incursion into traditional territory and the extrapolation of that into justification to invade their lands.

On the other hand, in the case of the Crusades, Europe was experiencing a period of stability and expansion, something that the Muslim world in general isn't presently undergoing.

What do you think on this matter? I can expand on both points if anyone cares enough.

I would disagree, theres such a small minority of Muslims who take part, or even support the extremist groups that call for Jihad.

 

[$kelet0r]

I would disagree, theres such a small minority of Muslims who take part, or even support the extremist groups that call for Jihad.

well that isnt entirely true when instead of outrage in the muslim world over suicide bombings there's a tacid approval in the sentiment well the americans/english/random foreigner had it coming to them

 

[ComradeBadger]

Well, since I don't actually have a television I haven't seen the news in a while :E

But the public isn't really demanding the troops to be brought home, there seems to be a mood of 'Well we're better at this than the US, so might as well stick it out, make a good job of it'

 

[Ome_Vince]

There has been a big mistaking in how we in present day see the holy crusades.
Before i explain why, let me just state that i AGREE THEY WERE WRONG
Anyways, the Crusades were not an offensive war, they were actually a despirate defensive war in fear of anihilation.

It wasnt a sudden power-surging pope that thought: "hey lets take back the holy lands and kill all the muslims" and that mobilised Europes biggest collective war. No my friends, thats not even close.
First the facts, then the theory i and many others share:
Islam was founded somewhere in 600 ( cant remember exact date ). From the start, MOhammed fought a holy war against Mecca. After conquering this, he continued to sack Christian lands. When he died his legacy was enormous jihads by his followers vs Christian lands.
In contrary to what most people think, Europe was not "world leading", "powerfull" or "technologically advanced". These were dark times for the Christians, and the Islamic people had their "golden age".
It can be dated back that they had not a single military defeat/jihad that failed.
Eventually they conquered most of the old Christian world. They conquered Africa from the Christians, Egypt etc. The Berber people held out for about 35 years i believe until eventually they were conquered.
Invasion of spain and sicily made Europe scared. Eventually they started sacking the old Byzantine empire.
This old reminant empire (which was located where now Turkey and Syria are ) contained the largest Christian city in the world : constantinopel.
When the Muslims started conquering and defeating the Byzantines up until 1190, the Byzantine Emperor visited the pope and asked for help.
The pope Urban the second i think issued the first Holy Crusade to claim Jerusalem. Byzantine Emperor wasnt really pleased since he asked for help, and now the army was going for some tactically stupid mission to Jerusalam.
Anyways, those were the facts.
I believe and many with me, that in Europe there was a general fear over the years that slowly but surely Islam was conquering and moving upwards. They were allready in Europe, and conquered spain and sicily.
The pope's speach about an armed pilgrimage ( which we call crusade ), was the drop that caused Europe to massively respond to this "threat".
Crusades had little effect, Jerusalem was captured for 100 years until blablabla taken back and chrisitans were anihilated.
So there are a few things to keep in mind. Why would the Christians even suddenly care so much for Jerusalem which had been under muslim control for so long?
There was 1 more factor which was the trigger: the turks conquered Jerusalem from some other Islamic tribe, and they destroyed the Sepulcher church ( where JEsus was crucified ). He denied pilgrimage from Christians ( these were fundementalist muslims vs the tollerant muslims previously in control of Jerusalem ).

anyways, allready long story short, through the ages there were more than 7 crusades, and up until the 15th - 16th century the Middle-East was superior and kicking western butts. Even so that Byzantines were destroyed, and the Hagia Sophia which was a Christian church is now a mosque.
Byzantines were destroyed and the Islam came right up into France and Austria until finally defeated by joint armies of the west.
After that Europes power grew so massively, the enquisition conquered back spain and Europe turned on each other since they saw the middle-east as a pittyfull place not worht waging war over.

Ok, so i hope i sparked some nice discussion here, since there are many ways to view facts.

 

[CptStern]

Well, since I don't actually have a television I haven't seen the news in a while :E

But the public isn't really demanding the troops to be brought home, there seems to be a mood of 'Well we're better at this than the US, so might as well stick it out, make a good job of it'

really? even though it was based on lies?

 

[Solaris]

well that isnt entirely true when instead of outrage in the muslim world over suicide bombings there's a tacid approval in the sentiment well the americans/english/random foreigner had it coming to them

Thats my opinion right there and Im not relgious.

 

[$kelet0r]

the problem in Britain is that the centre left -Labour went to war and support that decision and the main opposition would rarely be seen to pull away from the US - the right aka the Conservatives
the lib dems attracted the anti war vote and look how they did :|

:
Originally Posted by john3571000
well that isnt entirely true when instead of outrage in the muslim world over suicide bombings there's a tacid approval in the sentiment well the americans/english/random foreigner had it coming to them

Thats my opinion right there and Im not relgious.

i'm not sure i understand

 

[CptStern]

the problem in Britain is that the centre left -Labour went to war and support that decision and the main opposition would rarely be seen to pull away from the US - the right aka the Conservatives
the lib dems attracted the anti war vote and look how they did :|

I did not know that ..you're screwed

 

[The Mullinator]

I won't give my opinions on what I am posting here. This is just something people should read and keep in mind.
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/ISLAM.HTM
http://www.indembassyhavana.cu/culture/culture-history-musliminvasions.htm
http://hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.htm (Highly biased, but still good to read)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours (probably the best one to read)

I point out these articles to let people know that although Islam is a peaceful relgion in teachings it is historically violent as well, with or without the European crusades. In fact they invaded Europe nearly 400 years before the first crusades (Battle of Tours).

 

[Bob_Marley]

really? even though it was based on lies?

Yes. We screwed up and believed those lies (well, I didnt but most of the population did) so I believe that most people think that as this is partaitlly Britan's fault we should stay and clean up the mess we made until we can handover to to Iraqi's, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later.

Also, Look at what has happened in may other long-term ocupations/support of unpopular govenments/"peace keeping" conducted solely by the US - Veitnam and Somalia spring to mind. Compare this to the record of the British armed forces - Maylaya, Aden, Bornieo, Northen Ireland. Those didnt get irrevicably screwed up.

We would rather stick it out to the end than go down in history as the nation who abandoned a new demorcracy in it's hour of need. Make of that what you will

 

[CptStern]

Yes. We screwed up and believed those lies (well, I didnt but most of the population did)

yes but Blair knew it was a lie before the went to war ..the downstreet memos prove that. Surely there must be some accounting for that

so I believe that most people think that as this is partaitlly Britan's fault we should stay and clean up the mess we made until we can handover to to Iraqi's, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later.

Also, Look at what has happened in may other long-term ocupations/support of unpopular govenments/"peace keeping" conducted solely by the US - Veitnam and Somalia spring to mind. Compare this to the record of the British armed forces - Maylaya, Aden, Bornieo, Northen Ireland. Those didnt get irrevicably screwed up.

We would rather stick it out to the end than go down in history as the nation who abandoned a new demorcracy in it's hour of need. Make of that what you will

yes but it's exactly the same thing that happened when the UK ran iraq as part of the british mandate ..old contracts are being renewed, people are profiting for this little escapade into iraq ..surely that accounts for something in winning the public over into believing the coalition has no place in iraq ...the alternative I guess is to leave iraq to it's own devices which may in turn lead to civil war ...but that may be inevitable anyways

 

[Bob_Marley]

yes but Blair knew it was a lie before the went to war ..the downstreet memos prove that. Surely there must be some accounting for that



yes but it's exactly the same thing that happened when the UK ran iraq as part of the british mandate ..old contracts are being renewed, people are profiting for this little escapade into iraq ..surely that accounts for something in winning the public over into believing the coalition has no place in iraq ...the alternative I guess is to leave iraq to it's own devices which may in turn lead to civil war ...but that may be inevitable anyways

You have to remember with Iraq that it is not a natural nation. it's not even that old. It was formed by the British who bassically said "all right, you Shias, kurds and sunnis are gunna live together and you're gunna like it" Iraq has only had two periods of stability in its past, the first when the British were still running the joint with agreements from all the tribal leaders and when Saddam was in power.

The reason we must stay is to prevent a new period of civil war in Iraq that will probubly end the same way the last time did - a single strong leader with big ambitions takes power and runs a dictatorship for the next 30 odd years.

And it isnt just the Americans who are profiting from this - British PMCs are winning most of the major contracts from the US and Iraqi Govenments. And More British trianed troops in the area may well help to stabalise the nation.

if the nation is going to civil war, it goes to civil war. But the British military will do everything to prevent that and will probubly be one of the last to give up.

 

[CptStern]

yes but the london bombing was in retaliation to britian being part of the coalition ..you'll pay the price for allying yourself to the devil

 

[DeusExMachina]

The US is pretty evenly divided on the stance on whether the war is right or not. Hell, even the vagina O'Reilly thinks the war is bullshit :|.

 

[CptStern]

yes but "wrong intelligence" and "lied to from the start" are seperate matters all together

 

[DeusExMachina]

I don't know much about "the start" since I was out in New Hampshire. When I came back and turned the television on, all of sudden, Saddam is our main enemy and bin Laden is nowhere to be seen. I thought I had traveled in time to 1991.

 

[CptStern]

it literally began on 9/11

 

[DeusExMachina]

I'd expect nothing less from Rumsfield .

 

[gick]

I certainly agree that there are similarities between the crusades of the middle ages and the Jihads/War on Terror of today. Just like the crusades, I can see this dragging on for centuries - There is no way you can defeat terrorism. By invading Muslim countries all you are doing is handing Al Quada more and more reasons to call the War on Terror a War on Islam. And we all know that there is no reasoning with religious fundamentalists.

 

[VictimOfScience]

I am not sure about the comparison to the crusades, though some interesting arguments have been made. After reading America's Secret War by George Friedman, I believe the idea he posits that Bin Laden and Al Queda attacked the US not to hurt the US (though that helps), but to incite rage in the Muslim world against the retaliatory strike that would inevitably come from the US and would (hopefully) be seen as an attack on Islam itself. This would ideally start to galvinize the Muslim world and unite them in the common goal of re-establishing the Caliphate. This, of course, will not happen anytime soon as there is far too much internal struggle and conflict within the Muslim world to bring something like this into existence in the foreseeable future. Very interesting read though--this war started long before 9/11....

 

[Bob_Marley]

I am not sure about the comparison to the crusades, though some interesting arguments have been made. After reading America's Secret War by George Friedman, I believe the idea he posits that Bin Laden and Al Queda attacked the US not to hurt the US (though that helps), but to incite rage in the Muslim world against the retaliatory strike that would inevitably come from the US and would (hopefully) be seen as an attack on Islam itself. This would ideally start to galvinize the Muslim world and unite them in the common goal of re-establishing the Caliphate. This, of course, will not happen anytime soon as there is far too much internal struggle and conflict within the Muslim world to bring something like this into existence in the foreseeable future. Very interesting read though--this war started long before 9/11....

indeed, it could be said that it started atleast as far back as '79 when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and the Christians (the US and other western powers who supported the mujehadeen) and Muslims (the mujehadeen and supporters accross the muslim world) came together to drive out the athiest (the USSR). Now the major atheist power is gone (and seems likly to stay that way unless solaris gets his way) the religions have set their gun sights upon each other.

yes but the london bombing was in retaliation to britian being part of the coalition ..you'll pay the price for allying yourself to the devil

The Iraq war was a major reason why those men carried out those attacks I'll admit. But if we're going to go down that road then if Israel didnt exist then surely there would be much less terrorism today. Hell, If you follow that logic, to make sure that the world is free of terrorism then surly Charlimen should have been defeated by the Muslims and so Europe and probubly the Americas would be muslim nations. then surely there would be no terroism atall.

Now, dont get me wrong, I was against going to war in Iraq from day one. And I still remember everyone saying how silly I was when i said that it'll turn into a very longterm military commitment. But, now that whats done is done, we cant change the past so we must rebuild what we destroied when we invaded. If you are seriosly suggesting a complete and immedeate coalition pull out, I would say that is insanity. We pull out now and the govenment will collapse, civil war will become reality and Iraq will become a trianing ground for extremeists. And, most likely we'll end up with another Saddam.

The reason I say it'll become a training ground is because whilst right now it seems that the whole place has a rather high insergent population they are, speaking generally, confined to Iraq and quite content to stay there due to the high numbers of US and coalition troops that they can attack. If these troops were removed however, there is noone to keep them in check and no real reason to stay in Iraq. And that means they'll move out of Iraq. Which means they'll busy themselves destabilising the region and possibly making attacks in Europe and the Americas.

 

[Ome_Vince]

agree with the book. Same as i stated in my previous post.
We're all falling for the "master plan", but in contrary to what some say, i think its actually working, and on short term too.
Look how f$%^ked up relations "on the street" are with Muslims-Christians?
Bin Laden wants to be seen as the new Sala Hu Din and he will be, for many muslims he is.
Hence 9/11,--> Bin Laden knew with Bush in power, this was the right time to strike.
He might not be the "uber minds" behind it, he's probably just a member, foreman, face, hero etc.
In general, muslims dont see Bin Laden as an "evil man". Most agree that the USA had it coming, etc.
Consider this, i recently read the US gives financial aid to the Palestinians.
After 9/11 mass parties were held by the palestinians. There was video of them dancing in the street of joy.
If i was president, i would cut the money line in a second.
I visited Tunesia and Turkey after 9/11, and in Tunesia people were "apologising for 9/11 because they were muslim"? which kinda was weird :S, and in Turkey the first thing they ask you is if you like the invasion of Iraq ( if you do your in trouble )