The war in the Middle East, a Crusade?

by **Risottia** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:39 pm

Soyut wrote:Some Historians contend that the original crusades were simply and excuse for Europe to loot and raid the middle east which was pimpin rich from "silk road" trade with Asia.

They forget the problems the European society had with lots of noble warriors running around... focusing such aggressivity away from the "Christian lands" was a major aim of the Church.
Anyway, yes, money was the biggest motivator for the Crusades.

It's not completely accurate to say that this war is a modern-day crusade, but who else thinks the similarities are striking? or not.

That's because it's a war. I've never seen a war were the attacker wasn't expecting a positive economical result.

by **Brandenburg-Altmark** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:42 pm

This war has nothing to do with religion. If it were about religion, why did the US choose Iraq, in the very middle of the middle east, with only a modest supply of oil. Why would they not choose, say, Saudi Arabia? They could conquer the region in full force and set up shop for cheap oil to the west. I'm not saying the war is about oil, simply pointing out that even religious motivation has to be guided by other motivations. If the war was not simply a retaliation(no matter how futile the method of retaliation is, and it is very very futile,) and instead was a calculated move for some ulterior motive, why not pick a better location to smash?

by **Station 12** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:46 pm

Crusades generally have something to do with religion.

This one's for oil.

Oil is not religion.

by **Parthenon** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:55 pm

Crusades don't operate under rules of engagement...

by **Western cuba** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:59 pm

Station 12 wrote:Crusades generally have something to do with religion.

This one's for oil.

Oil is not religion.

Well according to some Americans it is. As there holy twinkies are made in factories run by oil.

by **F1-Insanity** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:59 pm

The USA would've been financially better off just buying the oil from ol' Saddam.

by **Izraal** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:01 pm

by **Western cuba** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:04 pm

Also I noticed before the US overthrew him he had already ruled for 25+ years. So why invade him because of Kuwait screw Kuwait we should of just bought oil from him. If im not mistaken I think he was a Sunni which believe that only the direct anscestors of Muhammad can became leader that may be shia though. but get the point most of the terrorists are Shia are Sunni which ever one follows that idea. Anyway If we got along with Sadam afghan and iraq would of mostly not happened palistene whould still happen though.

by **Brandenburg-Altmark** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:16 pm

Western cuba wrote:Also I noticed before the US overthrew him he had already ruled for 25+ years. So why invade him because of Kuwait screw Kuwait we should of just bought oil from him. If im not mistaken I think he was a Sunni which believe that only the direct anscestors of Muhammad can became leader that may be shia though. but get the point most of the terrorists are Shia are Sunni which ever one follows that idea. Anyway If we got along with Sadam afghan and iraq would of mostly not happened palistene whould still happen though.

Yes, Shi'ites are the ones who believe a direct descendant of Muhammad is the only legitimate ruler of a caliphate.

by **Western cuba** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:23 pm

Well as you know the terrorists are mostly Shia so in my opinon if we never invaded Iraq these men would of never of thought of us and hated us. Not all Shias and muslims are bad though. Some are very peacefull. Also if you hear a person say muslims only kill. Ask them if there Christian they'll mostly be like yeah but Christians very kill. Right away wrong. Just look at it the bible is full of death and war. Also look the crusades in the middle ages who were the attackers. The christians.

by **Thethunderdome** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:24 pm

A crusade? Really?

by **Brandenburg-Altmark** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:27 pm

Western cuba wrote:Well as you know the terrorists are mostly Shia so in my opinon if we never invaded Iraq these men would of never of thought of us and hated us. Not all Shias and muslims are bad though. Some are very peacefull. Also if you hear a person say muslims only kill. Ask them if there Christian they'll mostly be like yeah but Christians very kill. Right away wrong. Just look at it the bible is full of death and war. Also look the crusades in the middle ages who were the attackers. The christians.

Well, Iraq has a very large Shia minority, and in plenty of places Sunni is a minority. Still, the Caliphate wasn't peaceful either. They staged multiple wars of aggression against the Byzantine Empire and the christians in northern Spain. The medieval Jihads were as brutal as the medieval Crusades.

by **Western cuba** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:28 pm

Well I trying to just get a point. That Jews, Christians and Muslims are kill.

by **Brandenburg-Altmark** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:30 pm

Western cuba wrote:Well I trying to just get a point. That Jews, Christians and Muslims are kill.

...and my tank is fight, could you tell me what that means in english?

by **Western cuba** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:31 pm

Are you talking about my tank is fight

by **Brandenburg-Altmark** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:32 pm

Western cuba wrote:Are you talking about my tank is fight

No, what I'm asking is, "What does 'Jews, Christians and Muslims are kill.' mean?"

by **Western cuba** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:35 pm

Oh sorry English is not my first language czech is. I had a grammar mistake. The word are is not supposed to be there. I meant to say That Muslims , Christians , and Muslims kill.

by **Brandenburg-Altmark** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:35 pm

Western cuba wrote:Oh sorry English is not my first language czech is. I had a grammar mistake. The word are is not supposed to be there. I meant to say That Muslims , Christians , and Muslims kill.

There we go. It's very true, though I don't see why you put muslims twice.

by **Western cuba** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:37 pm

I meant Jews as you see my grammar skills are poor so is my paying attention skills. :lol:

by **Cybach** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:41 pm

If it's a crusade we sure as hell are making a gigantic muck job of it and not going about it right. Not enough massacres and too many unbelievers still alive in the "conquered territories."

by **Antilon** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:25 pm

It's simply an economic war with religious undertones. Although I wouldn't be troubled much if the war was classified as a Crusade, considering the evidence...

by **Courtsland** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:37 pm

First of all this post is bias, and stereotypical!
Second, you are wrong I am a Christian and I do not believe in the war, along with many other Christians I know!
Third, Just because 90% of the populations is Christian does not mean that all of them are pro war. There are many Christian organizations that are anti war organizations.
Fourth, please do not generalize any group of people, because there is always a but, or an exception to the stereotype.

by **Conserative Morality** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:59 pm

Courtsland wrote:First of all this post is bias, and stereotypical!
Second, you are wrong I am a Christian and I do not believe in the war, along with many other Christians I know!
Third, Just because 90% of the populations is Christian does not mean that all of them are pro war. There are many Christian organizations that are anti war organizations.
Fourth, please do not generalize any group of people, because there is always a but, or an exception to the stereotype.

All Christians have something to do with Christ.

My apologies.

by **Christmahanikwanzikah** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:28 pm

Hm, I thought Jerusalem was under Is...raeli..... control...

Those Iraqi bastards!

by **Greed and Death** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:47 pm

It is no crusade, We are jsut in Iraq until his happens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlIm-riM ... re=related
Minute 35 seconds.

The war in the Middle East, a Crusade?

Who is online