- This topic has 8 voices and 38 replies.
-
Posts
-
Something I hope to get from my studies is how this GWOT isn't a religious war. It may very well be one, and is viewed as one by the radical sects, but I have this crazy idea about how to “psyop” the opponent, and/or the people they are trying to intimidate, into thinking it's not. There are a lot of ties between Chritianity/Islam/Judaism that could be”exploited”(for lack of a better word) not just for our advantage or best interests, but for peace.
Something I hope to get from my studies is how this GWOT isn't a religious war. It may very well be one, and is viewed as one by the radical sects, but I have this crazy idea about how to "psyop" the opponent, and/or the people they are trying to intimidate, into thinking it's not. There are a lot of ties between Chritianity/Islam/Judaism that could be"exploited"(for lack of a better word) not just for our advantage or best interests, but for peace.
1) To radical fundamentalists of any stripe is is always a religious war; seems odd that what we put on TV has that much sway on their religion... must be pretty weak foundation if reality TV is wrecking it, IMHO.2) In order to convince anyone that what's going on isn't religious we just keep saying "it's about the freedom of culture and that they can just ignore our culture and let us do what we do and we will extend them the same freedom"... sadly it seems they will no more allow us to continue to portray "reality" that they consider a corruption than we can fore go trying to export our style of democracy which they can not begin to understand.3) Yes! The common ties of the three major western religions... when do we get over "my God is better than your God and has shown us the right way" and realize "my God is your God" and what he showed us all those years ago has and is so often been co-opted by men that want power and don't really care if they have to re-interpret (manufacture) God's word to get their point across. This is the down side of free will; we are free to re-interpret God's word as we will.Just my two cents....Wally
As Wally said there are people who will claim it to be a religious war. I think it's rather obvious that if it were truly a “religious war” we could have demolished all the mosques in Baghdad and forced them away from their prayers, etc. It seems to me that the portrayal of the War on Terror as a “religious” war is probably to stir up the masses and to raise their ire.There is an interesting article explaining the need to meet Islamic influence and conquerers before they rolled on through Europe (see The Real History of the Crusades). When you think about it, the Holy Land is situated roughly midway between Europe and the Muslim lands of northern Africa and the Middle East, and the thinking was that it was far better - perhaps necessary - to meet them before they were on Europe's doorstep. This is political thinking, not religious thinking. This is from The Real History of the Crusades:
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
I think the parallels between the Crusades and modern combat against Islamic terrorism in foreign lands are there, and 9/11 was a "straw that broke the camel's back", so to speak. Islamic terrorism had been going on for decades beforehand, so it wasn't like it just materialized that morning in September.
I think it's time to renew this topic.My thoughts (warning: some may find it offensive)Muslims and Jews got along back then (isn't that ironic?) and BOTH were persecuted by the Catholic church. The Byzantines did not want an all out war when they asked for help against the Seljuk Turks. After all, they were enjoying being the center of trade between the east and the west. Muslims, Jews, Christians all got along just fine with trade, bartering etc.1st crusades- Jerusalem, many women and children were killed and beheaded by the crusading Christians. (yet, nowadays people say Islam is the religion of terrorism..and a lot of that completely incorrect argument is based on because terrorists show beheading videos. :-). I'm not saying ANYONE is the religion of terrorism, I'm just pointing out a fact. 2nd Crusades - Crusaders lost terribly..all because of 3 or 4 cities retaken by the Muslims (I have a big "why bother" question here about this one)After the Third Crusades - the Venetians saw an opportunity to overtake Constantinople's predominance in trade, so THEY (the crusaders, not the Muslims) destroyed Constantinople.Effects: The Christians' "holy war" was not just against the Muslims, it was also against the Jews and all other "infidels".NOW do people understand where I'm coming from when I often come to the defense of Islam or Muslims? Do you now get why I think the "crusades mentality" (many deny they have this, but it is what it is) is absolutely WRONG? Why have the Muslims/Islam been considered the "bad guys" throughout all this? I just don't see it. The Muslims wanted an empire. No one else, none of the absolutely egotistical kings or popes wanted an empire back then either? The Muslims were also very good at doing business with the West and vice versa. This was not about religion, regaining the "Holy Land", was just a pathetic excuse to start a war that engulfed all of Europe and the Near East and ended relationships between the West, Muslims, and Jews for good...even to this day Europe has problems with the anti-semitism that began with the Crusades. (Nevermind Hitler's holocaust, what about the holocaust and pogroms against the Jews during the Black Plague?)Are my facts incorrect?Is my history class and book teaching me a Leftist view of history? (I'm sure some would say so)I'm sort of angry and shocked how common history ("history" that lacks factual evidence) has given a bad rap to Muslims and Islam. IMO, this is where diplomacy died. This is where the history and policy lessons of those like Cyrus II became completely irrelevant.Thought comment: Show me why the Crusades were justified. Show me were the Muslims persecuted the Jews or non-Muslims as much as the West did, and maybe I'll change my mind about all this.
The Crusades were a pipe dream for the idealists, and a shady opportunity by the greedy. Liberating the Holy Land was a nice idea, but the ones who carried out the campaigns were more brutal and oppressive than the ones they were ousting. I would argue that the Crusades were not carried out by men of religion, but by men of the world who wanted power, glory, fame, and wealth for themselves moreso than the liberation of the Holy Land. IMHO
I have a different take on this (perhaps not surprising), but I am short on time at the moment. However, I will pose these questions to Skiguy as it seems his critique of the Crusades should address them.First, don't you think that it is quite possible, and perhaps necessary, to distinguish historical Islam from modern Islam of the 20th Century and later? In other words, weren't the Muslims of the Middle Ages fighting for different objectives (still under the Islamic name), in a different manner, which changes things altogether?Second, how do you think the Muslims retook the Holy Land in the first place? Was it through bloodshed, or through peaceful means? I bring this up because we hear of Christian persecution during the Crusades, but it certainly begs the question of how the Muslims would have taken back or fought off the Crusaders to merit a Second Crusade, Third Crusade, etc. I think that this absence of information colors the picture about the kinds of historians/textbook telling the tale.Third, why the Crusades in the first place? Why would thousands of soldiers be willing to travel thousands of miles to battle in some far off land? Why would leaders want to send or lead them there? What geo-political or sovereign purposes did it serve? I think that if this issue isn't clear in the first place the Crusades might sound a bit like more like a drunken shooting spree than a military campaign with religious overtones. What you might find is an interesting story of a medieval "Vietnam"....one which kind of echoes the current GWOT, believe it or not.As for anti-Semitism goes, I think we had a thread around here somewhere which discussed some of the roots of it. I'll try to dig it up.
First, don't you think that it is quite possible, and perhaps necessary, to distinguish historical Islam from modern Islam of the 20th Century and later? In other words, weren't the Muslims of the Middle Ages fighting for different objectives (still under the Islamic name), in a different manner, which changes things altogether?
To answer the question: Basically, no. Like everyone else who fought at that time, they were fighting for their lives and existence and they came to power through violent means. That's just a fact and way of life back in the Middle Ages.I think the extremist Muslims (mainly Iranians) are desiring the glory days of a caliphate, but I don't think that's the present day goal of Islam. And the current conflict over Jerusalem? So if we "successfully" fight off the Muslims, should Jerusalem be Jewish or Chrisitian? Look at Iran now. The president wants to wipe them off the map. In my research for Cyrus, I've come across many personnal Iranian blogs talking about Iran's (Persian) history and how it so much in conflict with what's happening now. Their founding father is mentioned in the Jewish/Christian holy book in a very good way. From a PSYOP perspective, we need to use this!Phid, I'm not trying to bash the Catholic Church, but I think this was a very dark time in their history. And I'm not trying to sugarcoat the Muslim conquests either. I'm fairly certain they weren't just peacefully given Jerusalem, and I'm sure they committed what we would define today as atrocities...just like everyone else did at that time.
Why would thousands of soldiers be willing to travel thousands of miles to battle in some far off land?
I think for a number of reasons. They were paid to be soldiers, if they abandoned their duties, bad things would happen to them. They were obeying the orders of their kings and had no choice. The Catholic Church and popes were the final authority about religious matters (and many political matters) and had major influence over a lot of people. Whether that's good or bad is a subject for another thread.I know I've changed my opinion over the last year about what's happening now (flip-flopped, if you will, but never changed sides). The Crusades and this current conflict is not about religion. There's issues about religion (and they should be addressed diplomatically...and I wish the government of our country would put aside this "seperation of church and state" thing and do it), but that's not the main driving force behind it. But it's a good excuse to continue it. :-
I don't doubt your answer about Iran and present-day Islam, but then it seems like your answer should have been “yes”, that modern Islam can be distinguished from the goals of the Islam of the Middle Ages. At least that's what I thought you essentially thought after reading what you wrote. Basically you had one expanding empire around the Mediterranean coming up against another empire which was not expanding, or at least I don't think in the same way/rate as its southern neighbor. The Holy Land was in between these two empires and became the meeting ground. This seems to be quite the different scenario than modern-day politics in which there are competing elements of Islamic extremist factions, friendly and non-friendly Islamic nations, and the Jewish factor in a complicated matter. And I don't doubt that there were atrocities committed by Christians during this time, but I question the role of religion in these, as well as the absence of information about atrocities committed against Christians. I've learned that episodes of history can be used as tools of bias by people on the left to push their own preferences or ideology in a way which is hardly fair, and I think the Crusades is one such event that needs to be examined on a variety of levels for a more complete story. Although the Crusades did obviously have religious overtones, it was led by kings/leaders of Europe, right? So we had a mixing of religious and secular authority going up another empire with religious and secular authority. Surely governments of this time were concerned with their own sovereignty and kingdoms when undertaking such missions...hardly a case of religious zealots blindly going into battle. As for the reasons behind the Crusades, I will try to find a link to an article that you should read that you might like...and then you can let us know if it differs from the accounts of the readings you've been doing. ** duh, I had listed it in this thread beforehand. Here it is:http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
First, don't you think that it is quite possible, and perhaps necessary, to distinguish historical Islam from modern Islam of the 20th Century and later?
No, because the same problems they had at their beginning are still with them. And it's pretty identical from then until now. You have the ones who think Muhammed was pure Islam and, to be a genuine Muslim, one must not deviate from his teachings, and then you have the ones (Taliban for example) who do not think Muhammed was pure Islam and think that Islam must become more radical. PLus you have a third line of thinking that Islam must adapt to the modern world. IMO, that's the majority of them, but I could be wrong.
Third, why the Crusades in the first place? Why would thousands of soldiers be willing to travel thousands of miles to battle in some far off land? Why would leaders want to send or lead them there?
How many Europeans were trained warriors back then? Would you agree "a lot"? I would imagine the leaders (political and religious) thought it better to unite them for a common cause instead of fighting each other. Of course when they were done with the Muslim "threat",they got right back into it with each other. (example: The very religious-based Hundred Year War)
I'm not sure how many soldiers were around back then. However, I would imagine that the number of soldiers would rise or fall based on the demand for them; what you suggest here is that the supply of them was already high and therefore they needed to be sent off somewhere to fight. I think that this argument is faulty because it assumes a large pre-existing soldier pool which causes war, whereas I would think that the war would cause a large soldier-pool.Furthermore, is there any evidence that the European soldier pool proportion toward the end of the 11th Century was any greater than the European soldier pool in centuries before? I don't know that there was a greater percentage of soldiers in the 11th Century than in previous years, yet they didn't send Crusades in just any century.And one more furthermore - the Hundred Years' War began in 1337, well after the Fourth Crusade (ending 1204). Even though the Ninth Crusade went to the 1270s, I think that was likely much smaller in scale anyway. Generations would have passed between the last major Crusade and the HYW, which suggests that the Europeans were not simply war-hungry.So I guess the bottom line of what I think is that Europeans were not testosterone-laden macho men who merely wanted a fight. I think they were probably more like us than we generally imagine and valued their own lives and did not prefer going to war just for the sake of fighting.At least this is my assumption of the matter based on my limited knowledge of the Middle Ages.
Yes, but didn't lord/vassal system give rise to a demand for soldier “protecors”? I don't know if testosterone-laden is that good a word, but you have to think, they were trained to be soldiers basically since childhood, weren't they? That's all they knew. At the very least, that was their job. So, yes, I do speculate that there were many soldiers and many if not most of them, where ready and wanted to fight. If they had no universal enemy, then they would eventually start fighting each other. (and they did). It sure seemed there were a lot of “my lord is better than your lord” altercations going on back then.I think the number of warriors isn't a strong argument, because if they knew how to fight efficiently, if they were trained in various forms of warfare, then they wouldn't need large numbers to win. How many times did a smaller, more organized army beat a larger army?
I don't know that there was a greater percentage of soldiers in the 11th Century than in previous years, yet they didn't send Crusades in just any century.
Couldn't you say that's because Islam didn't really become a viable threat to Europe until then?
I guess I don't have enough information to go upon, especially as to whether there was a high number of soldiers during this time. Do you know if this is actually true? It seems that soldiers would not simply “want to fight” as you say, or at least I don't know where you get that from. Being a soldier is a non-income producing profession, unless he's used in a way to loot and pillage. But was this the kind of problem that was larger around the time of the Crusades than any other prior time in history? Surely it went on since the fall of Rome in one form or another to some degree. But I simply don't know how much it was done, and whether this was a big enough reason to unify the many armies of kingdoms to send off to the Holy Land. But here, look at this:
The 11th ? 13th centuries mark the high point of medieval civilization. ... The church underwent reform that strengthened the place of the pope in church and society but led to clashes between the pope and emperor. Population growth, the flourishing of towns and farms, the emergence of merchant classes, and the development of governmental bureaucracies were part of cultural and economic revival during this period.
http://www.answers.com/topic/middle-agesSo if the time period surrounding the Crusades was accompanied by economic expansion and community growth, it would seem that private sector jobs would increase, thereby taking away the numbers who might otherwise be soldiers. In other words, more people would have gone into farming, tailoring, carpentry, etc. to fill new market needs. This would have left fewer people needing/wanting to work as soldiers. Furthermore, Baron-Lords could have achieved wealth through land holdings and economic progress, rather than by invading other villages. These people did live by moral codes, after all.To draw a possible parallel, it seems that the gang warfare of the early 1990s in the U.S. dropped off toward the late 1990s as the economy boomed, creating lower unemployment and robust workforce. So I could argue that the desire to "fight" decreases in times of economic prosperity.
