Should the West begin a new crusade?

If only there was a one world there would be little need to fight over resources and religions. Maybe then we could move forward instead of to the side all the time.

Originally posted by Justmytype
Yes, they got lucky with the planes on 9/11, but whats to say, they throw a teenager with a bomb in his packback onto a subway or better yet onto a bus and into one of the tunnels going into NYC. ....Kaboooooooom

Exactly.. And if it were not for Bush it would've happened again already. The only thing that has prevented another terrorist attack on US soil in the last 3 years is the Bush government and their methods. Thats not to say that they will not get through and attack the US again anyway. But they will have alot harder time getting it done.

But, you can be sure if Kerry and the "Tree Hugging" Democrats get voted it. The terrorist jobs will get a whole lot easier. At that point you may as well just let them in because the UN won't do anything to stop them stop them.

I'm going to vote 'no' on this, because,. I really don't think its important to reclaim the holy land.

Seriously, the word 'crusade' isn't latin for 'attack muslims'. Its not even the same sort of word as 'jihad'. It means specifically, a war to reclaim the holy land. So why not just say

"should the west declare war on islam'

to which I again answer 'no', if for no other reason than that it'd be terribly inconvient for the westernized muslims. I mean, they'd be drafted, and then spend all their time shooting at mirrors. Bizzare.

What a coincedence me and my friend were talking about this today.


I would gladly join a crusade if one comes up. I really don't like how arabs treat us Westners/Asians/Hispanics with disrespect and feed us with all this crap about how democracy is evil when in fact they are the ones doing the killing and murdering. So if the pope gives a thumbs up on the idea of a crusade I will be 100 % behind him. Just think about it due to the infedels in the middle east they have caused us to fall behind in technology and in many other areas. Because of them our children fear going back to school becuase their might be a hostage take over because of them many people in NYC are tramatized becuase of them! Many people in Spain now are not supporting america. So thank you Islamic Radicals for making our Generations live through this F****** hell.

reading a lot of the threads on ATS i've started to believe that a war in the middle east is a serious possibility that reminds me of the world war that happened during the original crusades. Lets face it the powerful few [politicians] will decide what happens and when and with all the rhetoric going round just now, im moving to the country someplace with its own water supply.

In answer to my question I say,

It has started but its not a quest for the holyland but for black gold and the end of islam.

To Muslims, the term "Crusade" generally means religiously-motivated genocide and colonization. George Bush once referred to his war on terror as a crusade, which was quite honestly one of the most frightening comments he has made - you will notice that he has not mentioned it since.

The Arabic "jihad", roughly translates to "holy struggle", "struggle" or "striving", which can be a personal or communal struggle.
Extremist factions within Islam have adopted the term for their own ends and to certain people in the west this means religiously-motivated terrorism or "Holy War".

The fact is the terrorists who have adopted the term jihad as a means to justify their inhuman agenda are an extreme minority and if we commit genocide of the Muslims in the name of God just because they believe something different to Christians and their perceived view of the world then we would be just as bad as the terrorists who committed the 9/11 atrocities, no - actually we would be worse.

Your post is either flame-bait or you really do need to re-evaluate your reality.

[edit on 29-9-2004 by shanti23]

The Arabic "jihad", roughly translates to "holy struggle", "struggle" or "striving", which can be a personal or communal struggle.[/QUOTE]
Originally, a crusade was a war to reclaim the holy land. Similiarly, a jihad was a 'struggle' all right, but a military struggle, against nonmuslims that had invaded muslim lands or non muslims living at the borders of muslim land. Supposedly there were different conventions for fighting against those two different classes. In modern times, crusade can be a non military struggle, and similarly jihad can be a non military struggle. Infact jihad for a long time had been that. Irregardless when one talks about a crusade in the middle east, they aren't talking about donation drives and soup kitchens, and when a muslims talks abouta jihad against the west, he isn't talking about changing the channel when brittany spears comes on or not buying coca-cola.

Originally posted by shanti23
Extremist factions within Islam have adopted the term for their own ends and to certain people in the west this means religiously-motivated terrorism or "Holy War".

What difference does it make if the word has been perverted or not, the context in which it is used is whats important, and almost everytime its used its used in the holy war meaning.

actually we would be worse.

Yes, genocide=bad. Its amazing that these sorts of things have to be re-iterated.[edit on 29-9-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
If only there was a one world there would be little need to fight over resources and religions. Maybe then we could move forward instead of to the side all the time.

But how would the shares of resources be fairly distributed?

The only way would be something like communism, in theory everyone recieves the same.

But communism is "evil" isnt it. lol.

Originally posted by Nygdan
What difference does it make if the word has been perverted or not, the context in which it is used is whats important, and almost everytime its used its used in the holy war meaning.

It makes all the difference Nygdan. You will notice that there are no Muslim countries that have initated war with the west, in recent history. In fact, the kidnapping of Ken Bigley has shown the solidarity of the UK Muslims in attempting to provide a solution by physically going over to Iraq in order to negotiate for his release, hardly the sign of a universal Islamic jihad against the west.
These things need to be put into perspective.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes, genocide=bad. Its amazing that these sorts of things have to be re-iterated.

What point are you trying to make with that remark?
My point was that a crusade entails genocide and the initial poster of this thread suggested that we should start a crusade. I was comparing that ideology to the events of 9/11 and remarking that it would make us terrorists.

Originally by Munro_DreadGod
If only there was a one world there would be little need to fight over resources and religions.

So after you've put the Muslims against the wall, who's next on your list?

[edit on 29-9-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by shanti23

Originally posted by Nygdan
What difference does it make if the word has been perverted or not, the context in which it is used is whats important, and almost everytime its used its used in the holy war meaning.

It makes all the difference Nygdan. You will notice that there are no Muslim countries that have initated war with the west, in recent history.

The ottomans were part of the central powers. Regardless, it doesn't make a difference when people like bin laden and other radicals are talking about jihad they mean armed struggle, just like when bush talks about a crusade he means an armed struggle. Also the crusades were to regain the holy land, not to wage war against islam, so bush isn't even using the correct military meaning.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes, genocide=bad. Its amazing that these sorts of things have to be re-iterated.

What point are you trying to make with that remark?
That genocide is bad. There's a lot of people in this and other threads calling for it (obviously not you). It amazes me.

My point was that a crusade entails genocide

No they don't. Even in the limited region of the holy land the crusades didn't seek to exterminate muslims.

I was comparing that ideology to the events of 9/11 and remarking that it would make us terrorists.

It would make us evil vile repugnant murderers that the world would probably rise up against and at least try to destroy.

Originally by Munro_DreadGod
If only there was a one world there would be little need to fight over resources and religions.

great, so, whats the most popular religious sect in the world? 'Christianity' is to general, so I think it goes to 'Hindus'. Ready to convert?

Since i believe its the same god, no matter what religion you call it, then if converting to any religion, if it brings unity is ok with me.

Maybe we should get everyone to become atheists.


[edit on 29-9-2004 by AceOfBase]

Our civilisation is programmed for self destruction because we are at each others throats on everything. The only way forward is to somehow unite do away with money, politics and religous hatred. Be prepared for the destruction, as it aint gonna happen in my lifetime unless ET shows an aggressive side as thats the only way we will unite.

I say we carpet nuke the whole middle-east. Problem solved.

Originally posted by Shmigoli
I say we carpet nuke the whole middle-east. Problem solved.

No wonder countries like Iran are trying to seek nuclear technology as a deterrent.

Originally posted by Shmigoli
I say we carpet nuke the whole middle-east. Problem solved.

You know, only morons make statements like that. First off, if you 'carpet nuke' the middle east, or rather if it were even possible to kill everyone there, then everyone of middle eastern ancestry will react so violently that 911 won't even be remembered. Hell, people who are not of middle eastern ancestry will stand up against genocide like that. Besides, its not possible to 'carpet bomb' the middle east and kill everyone there. Hell, the US couldn't 'carpet bomb' vietnam into submission, how the hell is anyone supposed to do someting a thousand times more drastic over an area that is, er, in case your bigoted genocidal little gray matter didn't realize, is bigger. Instead of carpet bombing the middle east and wiping out all the jews, christians, muslims, zorasterians and other peoples that are there, how about we just start rounding up racist little-minded violent useless people like yourself and start cramming your pathetic unimportant bodies into execution chambers eh? Your kind is not welcome in the civilized western world. Entire wars have been fought to keep people, like you, out of power.

aceofbase
nuclear technology as a deterrent.

Iran is not seeking nukes as a detterent. They claim they aren't going to make weapons first off, and secondly, they can't build up a detterent force. They'd have to replicate the soviet arsenal in order to have a detterent. Pakistan and India don't have a detterent force agianst the US, neither would Iran.

Qoelet, I think the problem will be resolved very soon. With oil being such a big problem there wont be international trade on the current scale for much longer.

The food and good that are produced in the third world will stay in the third world. T

here will be much less influence in domestic problems for the third world and the developed countries will learn to be much more self sufficient. The developed countries will adapt and they will be less consumer based, things will scale back.

Christianity is, regrettably, no longer in control of the wests conscience. Through mass immigration by other cultures (who have a much harsher and less sentimental outlook on life) things will change dramatically.

The Asians and Indians who have fled to the west will get into positions of power pretty soon and they will be the first to clamp down on immigration, fair trade and mercy missions to the third world, and all notions of 'nanny state' rights. There will be no 'shaming' them. Do you know of any asian country that has any immigration platform? There are none of any note, and they will be dictating policy the world over.

Discrimination, corruption, tolerance - well we will doubtless see what will happen to those concepts.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
If only there was a one world there would be little need to fight over resources and religions. Maybe then we could move forward instead of to the side all the time.

It would never happen. People would still fight with each other. They're stupid. When all the stupid people are dead, the world will be a peaceful place. Of course, there won't be anymore politicians or tech support.

Syrian response to attempted assasination of Assad

King Hussein kicking PLO out of Jordan thousands dead on both sides

More Jordan killing PLO info

The Dictators of the Middle East are killing and outlawing the radicals calling for the destruction of the West. The radicals assasinated Anwar Sadat on October 6, 1981. The radicals attempted to kill Hafez al-Assad of Syria on 1980 June. The Arab dictators fear what that what happened to Iran and the Shah on January 16, 1979. As long as the Arab dictators keep a lid on Arab fundamentalism then no crusade is necessary on our part although the radicals have been fighting one against the West for decades.

in the middle east. You bet, its just a pity theres so many fanatics as well.