NationStates Jolt Archive

Just poking around for more opinions.

Please keep your fire retardant handy, and flames in your pants.

They are both evil. I pick neither.

Can I say 'Non-Denominational Roundtable Discussions to be followed with Tea and Biscuits'?

They are both based purely upon hatred and fear. Hating those that do not share their own point of view and fear that the continued existence of those they hate will lead to their own destruction.

Can I say, encouraging flaming is not good, mmmkay?

I pick agnostic Pacifism.

i don't know what this is asking.. but i'm gonna vote crusades since it was only a war to try and retake the formerly- christian land lost to muslim invaders... :(

You cannot force me to choose between two haneous choices!

Lesser of two evils, my ass!

Neither. religon is a very sensitive thing. I wish it weren't, it really gets me when people fight over religion. Although now no one is going to openly declare a christian war against islam, cos 1) it's not 12thcentury,
2) OIL,OIL,OIL 3)maybe a war to change the dictator regime of a muslim country in the name of democracy? :headbang:

Hopefully I will live to see the day when education kicks in and people don't hate each other just because previous generations were affected. Ya won't hate your neighbour if they think the pope or queen is head of the chruch and there is an extra line in the protestant Our Father. I think even hoping for a solution to Palestine is just asking too much at this stage. I think they'll have N Ireland long sorted before that happens.

So what do people think about yasser arafat?

What I find interesting is how few people are willing to think about these to realize they are both organized in the name of peace and designed to save lives. The Christian Crusades were an attempt to thwart the growing European war being sparked by Frederick which would likely have devestated all of Christiandom, but by screating the Crusades the frisky young men were diverted to fight in Turkey and Arabia while saving the lives of numerous innocent Europeans who would have suffered in the war. Likewise, the Islamic Jihad goes a long way to allowing the most volitile elements of Islamic society to wage a form of war against westerners, thus preventing annother misserable inter-Islamic fracaas among the many Islamic nations which can barely stand the thought of each other. War (abroad) as a means of peace (at home). That said, the Jihad is so far more sucessful than Crusades as we have not yet seen a "Sack of Constinople", but I'm sure one is in the cards.


***this may just be me being overly cynical, and maybe these events were actually based upon deeply held beliefs instead of cold political caluclation, but I wouldn't put money on it.***

What I find interesting is how few people are willing to think about these to realize they are both organized in the name of peace and designed to save lives. The Christian Crusades were an attempt to thwart the growing European war being sparked by Frederick which would likely have devestated all of Christiandom, but by screating the Crusades the frisky young men were diverted to fight in Turkey and Arabia while saving the lives of numerous innocent Europeans who would have suffered in the war. Likewise, the Islamic Jihad goes a long way to allowing the most volitile elements of Islamic society to wage a form of war against westerners, thus preventing annother misserable inter-Islamic fracaas among the many Islamic nations which can barely stand the thought of each other. War (abroad) as a means of peace (at home). That said, the Jihad is so far more sucessful than Crusades as we have not yet seen a "Sack of Constinople", but I'm sure one is in the cards.


That is no excuse. In the first crusade, the Christians slained every Muslim woman and Child they found in Jerusalem. In the current Islamic Jihad, no matter of what anyone thinks of the US 3000 civilians needed not to pay with their lives in 9/11.

Neither. Both are pointless ways of proving that you god is better than their god, or at least that a god is better than no god. The message to modern crusaders and jihadists is that I hope that if there is a heaven and hell, you would go to hell for murder. "I killed them for my beliefs" is not a valid point, and never was

That is no excuse. In the first crusade, the Christians slained every Muslim woman and Child they found in Jerusalem. In the current Islamic Jihad, no matter of what anyone thinks of the US 3000 civilians needed not to pay with their lives in 9/11.How about the Nuba people in the Sudan? Heck Jerusalem is only a city - the Sudan is a whole nation. Ther have been more than a few massacres by the Islamic Jihads, thank you. I supose, also, that we know that all the muslims were killed comes from the reports of Iftikhar ad-Daula, since he was there and was by defintion killed, even though he survived - this is not to say that the massacre was not a terrible thing, but the Crusaders did not kill everyone: refer to the contemporary accounts of how terrible it was Our men followed [the city's defenders], killing and beheading them all the way to the Temple of Solomon. There was such slaughter there that our men waded in blood up to their ankles....Soon our men were running all around the city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules, and houses filled with all kinds of goods. Rejoicing and weeping for joy, our people came to the sepulcher of Jesus our Savior to worship and pay our debt....Our men then took counsel and decided that everyone should pray and give alms so that God might choose for them whomever the pleased to rule over the others and govern the city....The living Saracens dragged the dead outside the gates and made heaps of them as large as houses. No one ever saw or heard of such a slaughter of pagan peoples, for funeral pyres were formed of them like pyramids and no one knows their number save God alone.But even then, i would like to point out that when the Islamics took Acre from the crusaders some time later, they did in fact kill every Frank, man woman and child so they're not entirely blameless.

How about neither of them?

A great many people have died from them.

How about neither of them?

A great many people have died from them.
This seems to be the idea most people have, so it seems silly that the poll doesn't include this

Neither one is good. As a Christian I can say that the message of Jesus Christ was lost in the crusades, made to be subserviant to the desires of greed and passion on the part of humans. Christians the world over have been living that down, and I also think it is unfair to hold it over Christians today. Any true Christian will realize that it wasn't Christians who went in and slaughtered Muslims. It was human beings enslaved to visions of riches and power.

I have a feeling that it is the same with Muslims, a minority has hijacked a religion, which I still believe is wrong but thats beside the point. I don't see Muslims coming out and putting down these acts of violence or making any effort to stop them. In a way, Muslims are stuck in a time warp, still fighting the crusades when they've been over for a good 600 years.

Islamic Jihad all the way!
The crimes of the United States and the West against the Islamic World are too numerous for me to even begin to list so I can't blame them for wanting payback. I'm hoping though after they bomb few more buildings though the eventually feel better and get the rage out of their system. The whole religous war thing is so 12,000 A.D.

Islamic Jihad all the way!
The crimes of the United States and the West against the Islamic World are too numerous for me to even begin to list so I can't blame them for wanting payback. I'm hoping though after they bomb few more buildings though the eventually feel better and get the rage out of their system. The whole religous war thing is so 12,000 A.D.

What's that?

The only possible reference I can think of for this is the Butlerhian Jihad in Dune, but otherwise....

WTF?

I think they're both equally bad.

Islamic Jihad all the way!
The crimes of the United States and the West against the Islamic World are too numerous for me to even begin to list so I can't blame them for wanting payback.
The Crusaders could be said to have similar "justification". For about 500 years prior to the crusades several parts of Europe were subjected to Islamic occupation and invasio, mainly Spain.

Wow, people were actually ignorant enough to vote in this thread?!

Wow, people were actually ignorant enough to vote in this thread?!
not many. most have done what any non war mongering person would say: I don't agree with either

not many. most have done what any non war mongering person would say: I don't agree with either
True - I guess that last post of mine was just me over-reacting to the 20-some votes that were cast already

True - I guess that last post of mine was just me over-reacting to the 20-some votes that were cast already

20!!! Shit, last I checked it was 3! God-damn warring psychos!

The whole religous war thing is so 12,000 A.D.

I guess we are stuck with it for a long time then.

Wow, people were actually ignorant enough to vote in this thread?!Hey I gave my justification, until the Jihad decides it is easier to turn on and sack an allied muslim nation they are better than the crusades. I'm sure they will, but until then they're better.

The Crusaders could be said to have similar "justification". For about 500 years prior to the crusades several parts of Europe were subjected to Islamic occupation and invasio, mainly Spain.
Well obviously both choices are terrible, but I feel that what the current lslamic fervor is trying to say: Westerners stop killing us and go away! There is a reason why the terrorists don't target Sweeden.
Christians on the other hand beleive the genocidal massacre of the palestinian people and the establishment of a greater Israel will bring about the rapture described in the book of revelations.
So I think Islamic Jihad is more justifiable. I don't feel like going into a rant about the crusades,colonialism, Zionism and the current Wars. Personally I think all religions are kind of scary. Even the Dali lama is a homophobe.

Islamic Jihad is better, when it's done the way it's supposed to be.
Jihad is simply worship of god. This is typically prayer or donations or things like that. Some people like Osama bin Laden have taken Jihad and twisted it into a form of war for some radicals. This "jihad" is bad. Normal Jihad is perfectly fine though.

A jihad is more than just a holy war. It can also be a struggle to improve yourself commonly by resisting basic desires that may interfere improving yourself. Like not staying up really late and getting drunk while away at college.

Well obviously both choices are terrible, but I feel that what the current lslamic fervor is trying to say: Westerners stop killing us and go away! There is a reason why the terrorists don't target Sweeden.
Christians on the other hand beleive the genocidal massacre of the palestinian people and the establishment of a greater Israel will bring about the rapture described in the book of revelations.
So I think Islamic Jihad is more justifiable. I don't feel like going into a rant about the crusades,colonialism, Zionism and the current Wars. Personally I think all religions are kind of scary. Even the Dali lama is a homophobe.

The Jihad is nothing more then a tool to be used by the old school religious freaks to control the hearts and minds of the new generation. Due to their fixation on religion, they have made very few cultural and technological evolutions. The newer generations are seeing our way of living and are wanting to move towards it, while the old school want them to maintain the old ways. By making the US an enemy it gives them leverage. IT has nothing to do with what we have done, They would kill me as an American simply because i represent what they are trying to avoid. If the US and Sweedens place were interchanged they'd be declaring Jihad against Sweeden. And as to your statement about more Justifiable, their is absolutly no justification what so ever in targeting Non combatants. You can't say one is more justified then the other because neither one has any justification what so ever.

A jihad is more than just a holy war. It can also be a struggle to improve yourself commonly by resisting basic desires that may interfere improving yourself. Like not staying up really late and getting drunk while away at college.

The way i understand it is that Jihad was orgianlly the war within a man of good vs evil. I have never study the Koran, but my history professor specialised in Middle easter studies.

The way i understand it is that Jihad was orgianlly the war within a man of good vs evil. I have never study the Koran, but my history professor specialised in Middle easter studies.
I suppose that's another way of putting it.

I like Jewish holy wars more than Crusades and Jihads. Not only do you get to kill lots of people, you can enslave some too!

I like Jewish holy wars more than Crusades and Jihads. Not only do you get to kill lots of people, you can enslave some too!
"Jewish Holy War"?!?

I've heard of it before, but they dont seem to stand out in history as much as the former two.

You missed out 'Quest for the Holy Grail"

I voted for Islamic Jihad.

'To DESTROY the GREAT SATAN' sounds cooler, like something from a adventure book.

<Umm, it wasn't me who start that Crusade :D :confused: >

I can't see how one would be better than the other. The only difference is that the crusades are mainly past (although the big W sometimes leads to doubt that) where the Jihad is more a thing of the present. That is because Islam now is in the age Christianism was when it went for crusades. :headbang:

Is that 'Islamic Jihad' as in the organisation, or as in the ideology. Both are better than the crusades. I get the feeling that neither of the interpretations is understood by many people, mainly due to misrepresentation in the media. Jihad at least has an ideological basis, whereas the crusades were simply to capture wealth and territory.

A jihad is more than just a holy war. It can also be a struggle to improve yourself commonly by resisting basic desires that may interfere improving yourself. Like not staying up really late and getting drunk while away at college.


You sure about that? Or was Mahatir making it all up?

Jalihad as that is only meant to keep christians out of Islamic terratory, a Crusade is to take terratory from the 'inferdals'

Jalihad as that is only meant to keep christians out of Islamic terratory, a Crusade is to take terratory from the 'inferdals'Actually the Crusades were nominally to free the Christian Holy Lands from the Infidels. Likewise the current Jihad is nominally to free the Muslim Holy Lands from the infidels. No advantage as to their nominal purpose, if the Crusades were to take territory from the infidels then likewise the Jihad must be considered also to be taking territory from the infidels.

The Crusaders could be said to have similar "justification". For about 500 years prior to the crusades several parts of Europe were subjected to Islamic occupation and invasio, mainly Spain.

No, it was the Christians who were the Barbarians in this region. The Muslims brought peace, prosperity, knowledge and tolerance to Spain.
The Christians then spent 700 years fighting themsleves and the Muslims and brought the Inquisition.

Wow - 56 people voted in this poll?

FREE YOUR MIND!!!!!

they are the same

Speaking of the Inquisition, they're still around under the guise of FBI, CIA and SS in the USA.

neither, they both suck.