NationStates Jolt Archive

Really, what is the god damned difference between them?

They both fight (fought) for a faith

They both are (were) willing to kill themselves for their faith

They both are (were) killing innocent civilians because they were of different faiths than them

They both use (used) what could be considered terror tactics to achieve their goals

Both started fighting because the other side attacked first, but then decided that even after the other side stopped hostilities to continue attacking.

Both feel (felt) that the enemy occupies their holy land. (Hell, both the Crusaders and the Jihadists have the SAME god damned holy land)

Both are (were) completely dedicated to their faith

Both believe (believed) that their faith is absolute and that anybody who disagrees with them should die

There are (were) people from their faith who disagree with what the fighters are doing

Both are (were) fighting against an enemy much stronger than them (The Muslims were much more advanced than the Christians during the Middle Ages), yet continue to fight because of their devotion to their faith

The said continuance of fighting will sometimes result in them gaining the upper hand, but their power will quickly be usurped by the enemy, who are coming back with bigger guns (swords)

About the only difference between the two is their faith. Besides that they seem almost completely identical.

So why do we consider the Crusaders to simply be people who's faith was misguided, and who made serious mistakes, but weren't really evil men, but at the same time consider the Jihadists to be unfaithful, who made intentional serious mistakes, and who are completely evil men?

Because the Crusades happened centuries ago, and we've apologised for them.

Crusades were a thousand years ago. Get over it.

Well, the crusades happened over 800 years ago at a vastly different time where everyone was a lot poorer, a lot more repressed, and a lot less educated than they are now. Hell, if the Muslims have the right to be pissy about the Crusades, I should be going batshit insane because of the Norman invasion of Britain.

You know, maybe it's time for the jihadists to move on from the politics and lifestyles of the 12th century and get with the times...

Because the Crusades happened centuries ago, and we've apologised for them.

Crusades were a thousand years ago. Get over it.

The worst effect the Crusades had was to freeze Islam into a defensive posture toward Western Europe and by that to stop any real progress in the Islamic world towards modernity. Every contact by the West with the Islamic world is looked upon with suspicion, as if it were a renewal of the Crusades. The mere shape of Israel on the map recalls that of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and as simplistic as that maybe, probably reinforces this "the Crusaders are at again" mentality. We see it in Saddam Hussein's emulation of Saladin (who was a Kurd, interestingly enough) and in the names of some of the earlier anti-Israel groups, such as Ayn Jalut and one named after the decisive battle at the Horns of Hittin.

That said, Muslims need to wake up and look around. The Crusades did end hundreds of years ago and they won. Time to grow up and join the modern world.

Crusaders still exist!

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/images/crusader2.jpg

what where they thinking when they named that honestly!

and http://www.crusadertravel.com/

The worst effect the Crusades had was to freeze Islam into a defensive posture toward Western Europe and by that to stop any real progress in the Islamic world towards modernity.

Where did you get that idea? The Ottoman Empire once stretched from present day Iraq to the gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Turks were at the center of knowledge and art in the 1400's.

Where did you get that idea? The Ottoman Empire once stretched from present day Iraq to the gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Turks were at the center of knowledge and art in the 1400's.

Yeah, they WERE the center of advancement IN and BEFORE the 1400's.

I myself said the Muslims were the most advanced in the middle ages.

I never said after that they were.

They didn't exactly share their technology with the West because of the Crusades, though. They did before the Crusades, and some times between them when relations were good enough, however. And we loved it. But then we fucked it all up.

You see, after the Reinessance and the Scientific Revolution, the West quickly became advanced. However, Muslims, having the anti-west view because of the Crusades said "Fuck you. We have all we need here.", even though the West was freely offering it, even after the Muslims were greedy with their technology.

So really it's the Crusaders fault that the Muslims are where they are now. If they had never sewn the seeds of distrust amongst the Muslims, the Muslims would probably be the center of the world, as they would've taken the Western technology and made it so much better.

Only now are they actually trusting us enough to slowly take what we have to offer.

Allow this political cartoon to illustrate.

http://www.kirktoons.com/february_2006/pop_2_1_06.html

While the Crusades were horrible, most history books seem to neglect the historical fact that they were launched as a counter-attack to Islamic aggression in Europe.

Where did you get that idea? The Ottoman Empire once stretched from present day Iraq to the gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Turks were at the center of knowledge and art in the 1400's.

Uhm ... I beg to differ. The Ottomans were not at the "center of knowledge and art" in the 1400's. They didn't take Constantinople until 1453 and when they did they painted over all the art in the cathedrals. By the 1400's the Renaissance was under way in Europe. By the 1500's Western Europe was expanding to North and South America and the Far East. While the Turks were attacking Vienna in 1529 and 1689 great advances were being made in the arts and sciences. Aside from big cannons and tulips, what have the Ottomans given the world?

O,h, and stretching from Iraq to the Danube doesn't make you a center of arts and sciences. Actually, they were bigger than that, nearly encircling the Black Sea at one point and controlling most of North Africa. But name me one Ottoman painter or sculptor or composer or poet or scientist from those years, say 1400 to 1700.

While the Crusades were horrible, most history books seem to neglect the historical fact that they were launched as a counter-attack to Islamic aggression in Europe.

Which I noticed in my OP.

The first Crusade was supposed to be purely defensive.

But then came the more zealous Crusaders who believed that Islam needed to be wiped from the face of the Earth.

That's when the Crusades began to get fucked up.

Aside from big cannons and tulips, what have the Ottomans given the world?
Kebabs.

<SNIP>

Look further back than the 1400's. If it wasn't for the Muslims, we wouldn't have a lot.

Aside from big cannons and tulips, what have the Ottomans given the world?

http://www.atronregen.com/images/CollectionSpring/ottoman.jpg

Kebabs.

http://www.atronregen.com/images/CollectionSpring/ottoman.jpg

*bowing* I stand corrected.

Really, what is the ... damned difference between them?

Not much, if any real difference. And I don't think people have a better opinion of the Crusades than they do of Jihad.

The difference is that the 'christians' stopped fighting their crusades centuries ago, and Jihadists are still fighting theirs.

Uhm ... I beg to differ. The Ottomans were not at the "center of knowledge and art" in the 1400's. They didn't take Constantinople until 1453 and when they did they painted over all the art in the cathedrals. By the 1400's the Renaissance was under way in Europe. By the 1500's Western Europe was expanding to North and South America and the Far East. While the Turks were attacking Vienna in 1529 and 1689 great advances were being made in the arts and sciences. Aside from big cannons and tulips, what have the Ottomans given the world?

O,h, and stretching from Iraq to the Danube doesn't make you a center of arts and sciences. Actually, they were bigger than that, nearly encircling the Black Sea at one point and controlling most of North Africa. But name me one Ottoman painter or sculptor or composer or poet or scientist from those years, say 1400 to 1700. Yes, but while those point of his were off, the fact that they were expanding does seem to conflict with the idea that they were frozen in a defensive position.
Edit: It should also be added there was alot more motivating the samoe of the crusaders then just the spread of religion, many nobles that joined in did so because conquest in the Holy Lands offered them an oppurtunity to own land denied them in the west due to the laws on inheiratence. The fourth crusade is a major example of this being hijaked to serve the economic interests of the Venitians.

Kebabs.

To be entirely honesty, kebabs only became good after they were changed to suit German tastes.

The Crusaders had a leper on their side. There's the difference.

So why do we consider the Crusaders to simply be people who's faith was misguided, and who made serious mistakes, but weren't really evil men,

We do?

The Crusaders had a leper on their side. There's the difference.

Wooohooo lepers!

So why do we consider the Crusaders to simply be people who's faith was misguided, and who made serious mistakes, but weren't really evil men, but at the same time consider the Jihadists to be unfaithful, who made intentional serious mistakes, and who are completely evil men?

Well, back then, everyone was fucking stupid. Now, it's just the terrorists.

Crusades were a thousand years ago. Get over it.

However, the eastern world doesnt see time like the western world sees time, In the eastern world, Centuries pass like years to do us, thats why its no problem for them to carry on hatred and war for so long. They don't care about time like the west does, the west wants everything and now. Instant gratification. It is the biggest thing that will be our downfall. The east is like, time is relative, theres millions of years to go? then so be it, million years of war, if thats what it takes to win.

However, the eastern world doesnt see time like the western world sees time, In the eastern world, Centuries pass like years to do us, thats why its no problem for them to carry on hatred and war for so long. They don't care about time like the west does, the west wants everything and now. Instant gratification. It is the biggest thing that will be our downfall. The east is like, time is relative, theres millions of years to go? then so be it, million years of war, if thats what it takes to win.

That's because they're fucking stupid.

Quick answer: Crusaders were fighting for a piece of land, Jihadists are fighting moreso for an ideal. There was an ideal behind the Crusaders, but the Jihadists generally don't try to invade a region for control. More or less, it's really quite a bit more complicated.

i always wonder at this comparison between the crusades and the current radical muslim jihadist movement. it seems terribly patronising to me. the jihadist movemement at the moment is a response to the current political/economic/social climate. it has nothing to do with the middle ages. just cuz western europe had a problem with muslim advances in the 12th century doesn't mean muslims are getting all medieval on our asses now that it's the US that has the cultural hegemony. it's simply a response to how Western culture is insinuating itself into a society that does not share its values/ethics/morals/arts/technologies/menus/choreaographers with the arrogance and force of someone who 'knows' they're right and does not have any ears.

not that that excuses suicide bombers. they're just the worst syptom of a diabolical disease.

That's because they're fucking stupid.

No, your fucking stupid and ignorant. Its because they dont see any barriers in terms of Time, effort, resources, or people. They want victory. And they'll fight till the end of time to win. The same thing with Vietnam and the other parts of the oreint, the only thing you really can do to beat it is use nukes and whipe out the population, but what have you really won there? nothing. The west is simply to fat and lazy, They want short wars, quick victories and over by christmas with no-one dead. War isnt a fucking football game. Its a competition of death between two people's, cutlures, or ideas. Where millions die.

To be entirely honesty, kebabs only became good after they were changed to suit German tastes.

kebabs in turkey are even better.

However, the eastern world doesnt see time like the western world sees time, In the eastern world, Centuries pass like years to do us, thats why its no problem for them to carry on hatred and war for so long. They don't care about time like the west does, the west wants everything and now. Instant gratification. It is the biggest thing that will be our downfall. The east is like, time is relative, theres millions of years to go? then so be it, million years of war, if thats what it takes to win.

And you also fall millions of years behind until you have absolutely no chance of winning. What a great strategy...

If you gave a crusader all the knowledge we have now, they would probably feel awful about what they did. Jihadists know what they are doing and they like it.

No, your fucking stupid and ignorant. Its because they dont see any barriers in terms of Time, effort, resources, or people. They want victory. And they'll fight till the end of time to win. The same thing with Vietnam and the other parts of the oreint, the only thing you really can do to beat it is use nukes and whipe out the population, but what have you really won there? nothing. The west is simply to fat and lazy, They want short wars, quick victories and over by christmas with no-one dead. War isnt a fucking football game. Its a competition of death between two people's, cutlures, or ideas. Where millions die.

Because they're fucking stupid. Everything is war them them. Fighting and conflict. They're barbarians who don't know how to resolve their conflicts with words.

While the Crusades were horrible, most history books seem to neglect the historical fact that they were launched as a counter-attack to Islamic aggression in Europe.

this argument also irritates me. it's as if you believe that muslims were the only people being aggressive during the dark ages. the only reason there was such a strong reaction against them was because they posed a threat to christendom, not actual people. the dark ages are named such for a reason, everyone was fucking everyone one else, and viciously. it took an outside enemy to pull christian europe together. muslim aggression in europe was not a stand-alone, unprecedented, unexpected, unwarrented event, it was simply something that occurred in the spirit of the times. there's a reason it was called the dark ages after all.

If you gave a crusader all the knowledge we have now, they would probably feel awful about what they did. Jihadists know what they are doing and they like it.

that's just moronic speculation. the only thing that drives that idea is white supremacy.

And you also fall millions of years behind until you have absolutely no chance of winning. What a great strategy...

um, what the hell are you talking about? how many Insurgents have you seen carrying spears? tell me that. No, I see them carrying modern RPG-29's that can blast a hole in the side of the M1 Abrams, the most advanced tank the west has to offer which is supposed to be nearly inpenetrable by ordinance. Even if the east does still use old weapons, I could probably give more than 10,000 american names on the Vietnam Memorial that were killed by cong slashing thier throat, or by a primitiave bamboo booby trap.

Because they're fucking stupid. Everything is war them them. Fighting and conflict. They're barbarians who don't know how to resolve their conflicts with words.

AND YOUR SAYING THE WEST KNOWS HOW TO DO THIS! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE FIRST TWO WORLD WARS?

this argument also irritates me. it's as if you believe that muslims were the only people being aggressive during the dark ages. the only reason there was such a strong reaction against them was because they posed a threat to christendom, not actual people. the dark ages are named such for a reason, everyone was fucking everyone one else, and viciously. it took an outside enemy to pull christian europe together. muslim aggression in europe was not a stand-alone, unprecedented, unexpected, unwarrented event, it was simply something that occurred in the spirit of the times. there's a reason it was called the dark ages after all.

Actually, the Crusades happened long after the Dark Ages had ended.

Back then, there were still a lot, even a majority of the population, of non-Christians in Europe and everyone was too disorganized to even consider military operations on the scale of the Crusades. These were professional wars fought by educated men with a powerful centralized administration and a lot of money and resources.

They weren't bands of armed men tromping off to the Holy Land but rather huge, organized armies that meant business...just look at the castles they built to see the level of coordination that went in to the whole mess.

AND YOUR SAYING THE WEST KNOWS HOW TO DO THIS! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE FIRST TWO WORLD WARS?

Yeah, and we haven't had a war in the West since then. Not to mention the whole EU thing...that's pretty much unprecedented in the history of the world.

Yeah, and we haven't had a war in the West since then. Not to mention the whole EU thing...that's pretty much unprecedented in the history of the world.

There has been conflicts applenty though. Also, the whole cold war thing, and nuclear armements kind of make open war rather unappealing with major world powers.

Yeah, and we haven't had a war in the West since then. Not to mention the whole EU thing...that's pretty much unprecedented in the history of the world.

Well so have you forgotten the fact that the only thing stopping the west from annihlating eachother has been nukes, ever hear of "MAD". Then no, there has been, the Balklands fought about 10 years of civil and ethnic conflict in the 90's, or did you just forget that, then EU? UN? um, no not the first, The Iriqoui Confederation of the major Indian tribes of America would probably be the first ones.

Because they're fucking stupid. Everything is war them them. Fighting and conflict. They're barbarians who don't know how to resolve their conflicts with words.

You know, its mentalities like this that make me wonder whether or not we've progressed past the age of Aristotle and his asian "barbarians".

Actually, the Crusades happened long after the Dark Ages had ended.

Back then, there were still a lot, even a majority of the population, of non-Christians in Europe and everyone was too disorganized to even consider military operations on the scale of the Crusades. These were professional wars fought by educated men with a powerful centralized administration and a lot of money and resources.

They weren't bands of armed men tromping off to the Holy Land but rather huge, organized armies that meant business...just look at the castles they built to see the level of coordination that went in to the whole mess.

so the only thing you actually argued against was me extending the dark ages past what you would class as such.. call em the murky ages for all i care. there has never been a period of agreession and counter-aggression that has occurred in isolation of it's preceding periods.

Yeah, and we haven't had a war in the West since then. Not to mention the whole EU thing...that's pretty much unprecedented in the history of the world.

WW2 was only 60 odd years ago. seconds in terms of human history.

Well so have you forgotten the fact that the only thing stopping the west from annihlating eachother has been nukes, ever hear of "MAD". Then no, there has been, the Balklands fought about 10 years of civil and ethnic conflict in the 90's, or did you just forget that, then EU? UN? um, no not the first, The Iriqoui Confederation of the major Indian tribes of America would probably be the first ones.

Yeah, the Balkans have been a problem. But that problem has been worked out and they are on the road to stability and economic recovery. We may have had to use violence, but we didn't initiate the conflict. Also take in to account the fact that that was a Communist bloc nation with limited ties to the West since WWII.

The Iroquois Confederation was also a lot smaller than the EU; they had a population of about 12,000 and a much smaller economic base. That's on the scale of a small town; it's a great achievement nonetheless, but far from what the EU has accomplished.

AFAIK, there hasn't been a Cold War between Western Europe and the US (as a matter of fact, I believe they are part of NATO) and the Soviet Union or the Eastern Bloc were not Western nations by any stretch of the imagination.

so the only thing you actually argued against was me extending the dark ages past what you would class as such.. call em the murky ages for all i care. there has never been a period of agreession and counter-aggression that has occurred in isolation of it's preceding periods.

Well, I think we have to realize that there was a pretty strong organized force behind the whole thing, and that a lot of these men were well educated.

It's more of a warning against dogmatic thinking in general rather than anything else; even if you've got an education, if you don't think logically you're going to run in to trouble.

WW2 was only 60 odd years ago. seconds in terms of human history.

So, we were able to completely recover economically and rebuild diplomatic ties within two generations of WWII but the Middle East has failed to do the same in 800 years?

That seems like a bit of a problem...

So, we were able to completely recover economically and rebuild diplomatic ties within two generations of WWII but the Middle East has failed to do the same in 800 years?

That seems like a bit of a problem...

Well see I would agree with you that being stubborn doesnt get you very far. Infact it does take you back, however they are not"backwards", By anymeans.

Well, I think we have to realize that there was a pretty strong organized force behind the whole thing, and that a lot of these men were well educated.

It's more of a warning against dogmatic thinking in general rather than anything else; even if you've got an education, if you don't think logically you're going to run in to trouble.

bin laden is a university educated engineering professional with a clear ability to organize. many of the people who have blown themselves up in the jihadist cause have been well educated individuals. dogmatic thinking gets the best of us.

So, we were able to completely recover economically and rebuild diplomatic ties within two generations of WWII but the Middle East has failed to do the same in 800 years?

That seems like a bit of a problem...

no mention of the trillion dollars worth of national debt owed by european and north american nations, wholly supported by the economies of the middle and far east.

Well, the crusades happened over 800 years ago at a vastly different time where everyone was a lot poorer, a lot more repressed, and a lot less educated than they are now. Hell, if the Muslims have the right to be pissy about the Crusades, I should be going batshit insane because of the Norman invasion of Britain.

You know, maybe it's time for the jihadists to move on from the politics and lifestyles of the 12th century and get with the times...
QFT.

If Nailitr wanted to demonstrate that Jihadists suffer from a 12th century mentality, he's done that well. If this is another attempt of Western self-hatred, don't expect me to partake in the sickening stupidity...

Well see I would agree with you that being stubborn doesnt get you very far. Infact it does take you back, however they are not"backwards", By anymeans.

I would say they are intentionally forced to be "backward" by their governments. They could modernize if they wanted to but the government prevents it because it would threaten their stranglehold on power.

You've got these corrupt, repressive governments and militant religious organizations ruling over an impoverished people that almost completely lack access to education, good jobs, opportunities, or the most basic health and social services.

They have a lot of problems, to say the least, and they're not going away easily.

no mention of the trillion dollars worth of national debt owed by european and north american nations, wholly supported by the economies of the middle and far east.
No mention of the fact that these countries, without Western markets to export to, would be festering in misery. Of course, China will soon become even more dependent than it is now, what with its energy needs.

No mention of the fact that these countries, without Western markets to export to, would be festering in misery.

China and India were the dominant economic powers for centuries; at the moment, they are merely re-taking past positions.

The "dependence" is very much mutual.

QFT.

If Nailitr wanted to demonstrate that Jihadists suffer from a 12th century mentality, he's done that well. If this is another attempt of Western self-hatred, don't expect me to partake in the sickening stupidity...

considering europe barely got out of a "12th century mentality" 70 years ago i fail to see how your point has any relevance whatsoever. cultural development procedes at different rates. 70 years is nothing considereing how much more advanced islamic, and other, civilisations have been over cristian european civilisation over the centuries.

China and India were the dominant economic powers for centuries; at the moment, they are merely re-taking past positions.

The "dependence" is very much mutual.
That is what I just pointed out, is it not? There is this belief that the West is somehow entirely dependent on these economies, which is nonsense. They are interdependent, if anything.

The presumption is that in the Middle Ages, people didn't have enough of an education to smarten up and realise that what they were doing might be wrong, and that today everyone should have that education, thereby making [the various Muslim terror groups] willingly ignorant.

This misses a big point, though.

Arab nations aren't known for their education standards (no thanks to nations who shall go unnamed who started us down this bomb-strewn road back when they reorganised the Middle East into their little playgrounds).

No mention of the fact that these countries, without Western markets to export to, would be festering in misery. Of course, China will soon become even more dependent than it is now, what with its energy needs.

it's a symbiotic relationship. the uS would be dead in the water without china and the near east.

no mention of the trillion dollars worth of national debt owed by european and north american nations, wholly supported by the economies of the middle and far east.

China and India are modernizing at breakneck speed, and our debt is powering their economies as well as our own...they're reaching our level, and they're reaching our level within the century. We are interdependent on each other; the global economy means that our debt finances global growth, and Chinese or Indian creditors borrow the money to develop and control their money supply. It cycles around and produces a lot more growth than what would be possible without it.

Unfortunately, all the Middle East has is energy, and at that sources of energy whose days are rapidly approaching their end. Their governments refuse to make the changes that could bring them up to our standard of living, and instead focus on enriching themselves or advancing some ridiculous religious cause while their people live in forced poverty and unemployment. We're talking 50 years, 100 years tops...this is likely within our lifetimes that the Middle East's energy supplies will run dry and they will be left with nothing to prop themselves up with.

considering europe barely got out of a "12th century mentality" 70 years ago i fail to see how your point has any relevance whatsoever. cultural development procedes at different rates.
So the Crusaders were around 70 years ago then? Yeah, thought not.

70 years is nothing considereing how much more advanced islamic, and other, civilisations have been over cristian european civilisation over the centuries.
Has-beens. Civilizations come and go in turns.

bin laden is a university educated engineering professional with a clear ability to organize. many of the people who have blown themselves up in the jihadist cause have been well educated individuals. dogmatic thinking gets the best of us.

Yeah, that's why education alone is not enough to defeat radicalism. You need the freedom to express yourself and make political decisions as well; the only way to defeat radicals is to freely challenge them and expose the foolishness of their ideas. Also, a higher standard of living helps; if people can get an education, express themselves freely, and get good jobs and earn money to improve their lives, they tend to be a lot less radical and more willing to embrace change.

After all, the Crusades didn't really end until the economic boom of the Renaissance and the flourishing of independent thought brought dogmatism in to permanent decline. War didn't end, but the stranglehold that centralized religion had on people had been broken.

China and India are modernizing at breakneck speed, and our debt is powering their economies as well as our own...they're reaching our level, and they're reaching our level within the century. We are interdependent on each other; the global economy means that our debt finances global growth, and Chinese or Indian creditors borrow the money to develop and control their money supply. It cycles around and produces a lot more growth than what would be possible without it.

Unfortunately, all the Middle East has is energy, and at that sources of energy whose days are rapidly approaching their end. Their governments refuse to make the changes that could bring them up to our standard of living, and instead focus on enriching themselves or advancing some ridiculous religious cause while their people live in forced poverty and unemployment. We're talking 50 years, 100 years tops...this is likely within our lifetimes that the Middle East's energy supplies will run dry and they will be left with nothing to prop themselves up with.

is that an echo? you know i could have sworn i've heard that said about some other countries recently.

capitalism fucks everyone who isn't controlling it. that's the nature of the game. that's the nature of the world we live in. if you can only see it working in the actions of people 'other' from you that's your problem.

...this is likely within our lifetimes that the Middle East's energy supplies will run dry and they will be left with nothing to prop themselves up with.

If I know people, they'll find something.

So the Crusaders were around 70 years ago then? Yeah, thought not.

Has-beens. Civilizations come and go in turns.

you're deliberately misunderstanding what i wrote. i am contending that the "12th century mentality" you talk of was still going strong well into the 20th century.

you're deliberately misunderstanding what i wrote. i am contending that the "12th century mentality" you talk of was still going strong well into the 20th century.
Yes, and thank God we eventually ditched it. My reference to the OP was taken out of context to begin with. Comparing the Jihadists to the Crusaders is a nice little exercise in futility, but other than that I fail to see its relevance. Everyone knows both were/are fanatics. That was my point.

Pushistymistan;11932103']If I know people, they'll find something.


I hope...with all the sand and perfect weather they could become the world capitol of the solar and semiconductor industries, and they might even have a good amount of wind. Not to mention the tourism opportunities.

They have a ton of potential, but the trick is getting them to develop it.

They have a ton of potential, but the trick is getting them to develop it.
Just look at the Emirates. One of the few countries in the region actually making returns to scale, and about the only one I'd even consider living in. They know their oil will one day run out, so they're shifting to becoming a tourist paradise. Clever move.

Yeah, that's why education alone is not enough to defeat radicalism. You need the freedom to express yourself and make political decisions as well; the only way to defeat radicals is to freely challenge them and expose the foolishness of their ideas. Also, a higher standard of living helps; if people can get an education, express themselves freely, and get good jobs and earn money to improve their lives, they tend to be a lot less radical and more willing to embrace change.

After all, the Crusades didn't really end until the economic boom of the Renaissance and the flourishing of independent thought brought dogmatism in to permanent decline. War didn't end, but the stranglehold that centralized religion had on people had been broken.

i completely agree. maybe if it wasn't for the stranglehold the west has over some of these nations their people wouldn't feel so ready to blow shit up for the sake of self-determination and freedom of expression. not that i personally find muslim extremist expression particularly palatable, any more than any equivalent religion. i just think peolpe have the right to choose.

They have a ton of potential, but the trick is getting them to develop it.

Isn't it true that resource-rich developing countries often do worse economically in the long run than resource-scarce ones?

Without the foreign intervention and with the collapse of the oil-supported oligarchies, the Middle East might well do substantially better than they are now.

I hope...with all the sand and perfect weather they could become the world capitol of the solar and semiconductor industries, and they might even have a good amount of wind. Not to mention the tourism opportunities.

They have a ton of potential, but the trick is getting them to develop it.

When the incentive is to get fucked over by angry mobs of people who see no way out, and the answer (ie, more violence) won't solve squat anymore, you can bet they'll get off their own asses and figure it out.

Okay, so that's a bit...misanthropic, but it was just an alternate point.

Really, what is the god damned difference between them?

They both fight (fought) for a faith

They both are (were) willing to kill themselves for their faith

They both are (were) killing innocent civilians because they were of different faiths than them

They both use (used) what could be considered terror tactics to achieve their goals

Both started fighting because the other side attacked first, but then decided that even after the other side stopped hostilities to continue attacking.

Both feel (felt) that the enemy occupies their holy land. (Hell, both the Crusaders and the Jihadists have the SAME god damned holy land)

Both are (were) completely dedicated to their faith

Both believe (believed) that their faith is absolute and that anybody who disagrees with them should die

There are (were) people from their faith who disagree with what the fighters are doing

Both are (were) fighting against an enemy much stronger than them (The Muslims were much more advanced than the Christians during the Middle Ages), yet continue to fight because of their devotion to their faith

The said continuance of fighting will sometimes result in them gaining the upper hand, but their power will quickly be usurped by the enemy, who are coming back with bigger guns (swords)

About the only difference between the two is their faith. Besides that they seem almost completely identical.

So why do we consider the Crusaders to simply be people who's faith was misguided, and who made serious mistakes, but weren't really evil men, but at the same time consider the Jihadists to be unfaithful, who made intentional serious mistakes, and who are completely evil men?

no differences. I think all religions go through this phase when they're about 1300 years old. it's like religious puberty. they're born in prosperous civilisations which then fall (rome, and then the kaliphate fell to the mongols) and then they sort of pitter around a little bit then they go nuts and invade people for a couple hundred years. I'm sensing a pattern...

Yes, and thank God we eventually ditched it. My reference to the OP was taken out of context to begin with. Comparing the Jihadists to the Crusaders is a nice little exercise in futility, but other than that I fail to see its relevance. Everyone knows both were/are fanatics. That was my point.

as far as i'm concerned the tone of your first post in this thread was more in support of the first position you cited than the second. however, my exchange with you was to do with economics not ethnic one-up-manship.

as far as i'm concerned the tone of your first post in this thread was more in support of the first position you cited than the second. however, my exchange with you was to do with economics not ethnic one-up-manship.
Why bring up economics though? I know that non-Western civilizations have had their highs and lows as well, if that is what you meant.

Why bring up economics though? I know that non-Western civilizations have had their highs and lows as well, if that is what you meant.

of course it was, and there's no reason to judge muslim civilisation any lower or higher than the crusades of the dark ages or even the current christian nutjob fundamentalism of some nfluencial portions of the US now. and economics was a relevant comparison at that point seeing as judging a culture on just one aspect, such as religion, is ridiculous in the extreme.

Isn't it true that resource-rich developing countries often do worse economically in the long run than resource-scarce ones?

Generally, yes. I imagine it's more accurate to consider how rich countries are in valuable natural resources (like gold, rare industrial metals, or oil) or their ability to cultivate cash crops when determining that aspect because it's those goods that tend to prevent industrialization and economic diversity.

It's mainly because those commodities tend to stay valuable enough that the government can kind of remain in power through inertia, and if they do fall the government will collapse and all of the negative effects of civil war or other instability will set in.

However, if they have a lot of coal, iron, or other less valuable but more useful goods they will tend to develop more because they have the materials needed for industrialization rather than products that can generate easy cash. I imagine it's that need to earn investment and develop the economy rather than just sell raw trade goods that has the biggest effect.

Without the foreign intervention and with the collapse of the oil-supported oligarchies, the Middle East might well do substantially better than they are now.

It most likely will. There will be a tough time in the aftermath of such a collapse, but the opportunities will be a lot greater especially if we make a real effort to capitalize on them and give the region the help it needs to develop.

i completely agree. maybe if it wasn't for the stranglehold the west has over some of these nations their people wouldn't feel so ready to blow shit up for the sake of self-determination and freedom of expression. not that i personally find muslim extremist expression particularly palatable, any more than any equivalent religion. i just think peolpe have the right to choose.

The West isn't innocent by any stretch. The governments may be the ones causing terror, but we're the ones that keep them in power. Without us, they would collapse and their people would turn on their oppressors rather than the artificial ones set up by their governments.

I think we know where we should start if we want to solve the problem. It begins with the letter "o"...

of course it was, and there's no reason to judge muslim civilisation any lower or higher than the crusades of the dark ages or even the current christian nutjob fundamentalism of the US now. and economics was a relevant comparison at that point.
Ehrm, but I was referring to the Jihadists, not Muslim civilization...

Generally, yes. I imagine it's more accurate to consider how rich countries are in valuable natural resources (like gold, rare industrial metals, or oil) or their ability to cultivate cash crops when determining that aspect because it's those goods that tend to prevent industrialization and economic diversity.
Sort of like apartheid South Africa. No matter how many sanctions were imposed against it, nothing happened to it. Gold and diamonds, and high agricultural output, made it too rich to be scathed.

Ehrm, but I was referring to the Jihadists, not Muslim civilization...

no, i know, sorry. i'm really tired. i meant jihadists, i'm just letting myslef get riled that's all.

The West isn't innocent by any stretch. The governments may be the ones causing terror, but we're the ones that keep them in power. Without us, they would collapse and their people would turn on their oppressors rather than the artificial ones set up by their governments.

I think we know where we should start if we want to solve the problem. It begins with the letter "o"...

which governments are you speaking of here?

Sort of like apartheid South Africa. No matter how many sanctions were imposed against it, nothing happened to it. Gold and diamonds, and high agricultural output, made it too rich to be scathed.

Pretty much. The government had the cash to pay for what it needed thanks to its gold and diamonds, and combined with self-reliance in food production as well as their extensive coal deposits (they turned coal in to diesel fuel to replace the imports lost in the embargo), they were ready to hunker down and wait.

A similar situation occurred in the 70's in the USSR; the oil embargo gave them the influx of cash necessary to continue to fund the military and keep themselves around for longer than they would have survived without it. (Ironically, if they had used the money to buy industrial, technological and agricultural equipment instead, they probably would still be around.)

which governments are you speaking of here?

Well, pretty much any nation that imports Middle Eastern oil. I'd say the US and the countries of Europe are involved, as well as Japan. China's another one, but they aren't really developed enough to fall in to the same category; still, they are supporting the regimes in the ME as well.

Well, pretty much any nation that imports Middle Eastern oil. I'd say the US and the countries of Europe are involved, as well as Japan. China's another one, but they aren't really developed enough to fall in to the same category; still, they are supporting the regimes in the ME as well.
China has pretty much secured its oil supply in the near-future from Saudi Arabia I believe -- the latter has declared that it would push to maximum output to sate demand. The problem is we haven't got much of a choice but to import oil from these regimes; Europe gets a lot of its oil from the North Sea and Russia, but the latter is finicky, and on occasion has used its energy supply to extort nearby nations. Moving to alternative energy will take time, so until then we've got few other options.

China has pretty much secured its oil supply in the near-future from Saudi Arabia I believe -- the latter has declared that it would push to maximum output to sate demand. The problem is we haven't got much of a choice but to import oil from these regimes; Europe gets a lot of its oil from the North Sea and Russia, but the latter is finicky, and on occasion has used its energy supply to extort nearby nations. Moving to alternative energy will take time, so until then we've got few other options.

That's true. It should be our goal to get there, but in reality that will still take a long time to achieve. Our most logical course of action should be to try and reduce oil consumption and increase funding for alternatives, especially through tax credits and the like; even so, it would still take a couple of decades to approach oil's share of the world energy pie.

theres not much difference to be honest. Both twisted their faith to meet their ends and left innocents dead in their wake.

What's the difference between the Crusaders and the Jihadists?

During the centuries the crusades lasted, no difference.
The christians have advanced from barbarism somewhat (on the whole). The muslims, not at all (on the whole).
Let's see the films of the Iraqi people on the day that Saddam is hung. Might be an indication.

That is what I just pointed out, is it not? There is this belief that the West is somehow entirely dependent on these economies, which is nonsense. They are interdependent, if anything.

Without cheap manufactured goods, I suspect that many western economies, particularly those that rely heavily on having huge deficits, would come crumbling down.

Yes, but while those point of his were off, the fact that they were expanding does seem to conflict with the idea that they were frozen in a defensive position.
Edit: It should also be added there was alot more motivating the samoe of the crusaders then just the spread of religion, many nobles that joined in did so because conquest in the Holy Lands offered them an oppurtunity to own land denied them in the west due to the laws on inheiratence. The fourth crusade is a major example of this being hijaked to serve the economic interests of the Venitians.

I guess I should have been clearer. The Turks certainly did expand territorially after the Crusades ended. Here's what Amin Maalouf, director of a weekly international edition of the leading Beirut journal an-Nahar and one-time editor-in-chief of Jeune Afrique, wrote in his The Crusades Through Arabs Eyes:

Although the epoch of the Crusades ignited a genuinie economic and cultural revolution in Western Europe, in the Orient these holy wars led to long centuries of decadence and obscurantism. Assaulted from all quarters, the Muslim world turned in on itself. It became over-sensitive, defensive, intolerant, sterile - attitudes that grew steadily worse as world-wide evolution, a process from which the Muslim world felt excluded, continued. Henceforth progress was the embodiment of 'the other'. Modernism became alien.Should cultural and religious identity be affirmed by rejecting this modernism, which the West symbolized? Or, on the contrary, should the road of modernization be embarked upon with resolution, thus risking loss of identity? Neither Iran, nor Turkey, nor the Arab world has ever succeeded in resolving this dilemma. Even today we can observe a lurching alternation between phases of forced Westernization and phases of extremist, strongly xenophobic traditionalism.

This was written in 1989. I fear the Mulsim world has swung into a phase of xenophobia it may never recover from.

Crusaders were organised by national governments.

<snip>?

What are you smoking? Most people, at least on this forum, consider the crusades and those who participated, to be evil, not misguided. Every time someone condems the Islamist terrorists on this forum someone else brings up how evil the crusaders were.

Fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if those attacking us are misguided or evil or whatever. All that matters is whether they are dead or alive, free or imprisoned. I vote for locking them up or killing them.

Yeah, they WERE the center of advancement IN and BEFORE the 1400's.

I myself said the Muslims were the most advanced in the middle ages.

I never said after that they were.

They didn't exactly share their technology with the West because of the Crusades, though. They did before the Crusades, and some times between them when relations were good enough, however. And we loved it. But then we fucked it all up.

You see, after the Reinessance and the Scientific Revolution, the West quickly became advanced. However, Muslims, having the anti-west view because of the Crusades said "Fuck you. We have all we need here.", even though the West was freely offering it, even after the Muslims were greedy with their technology.

So really it's the Crusaders fault that the Muslims are where they are now. If they had never sewn the seeds of distrust amongst the Muslims, the Muslims would probably be the center of the world, as they would've taken the Western technology and made it so much better.

Only now are they actually trusting us enough to slowly take what we have to offer.

Allow this political cartoon to illustrate.

http://www.kirktoons.com/february_2006/pop_2_1_06.html

As if Muslims weren't raiding and attacking European lands before the crusades.

After Byzantine emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks, in 1095 at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, a war which would count as full penance. Crusader armies managed to defeat two substantial Turkish forces at Dorylaeum and at Antioch, finally marching to Jerusalem with only a fraction of their original forces. In 1099, they took Jerusalem by assault and massacred the population. As a result of the First Crusade, several small Crusader states were created, notably the Kingdom of Jerusalem.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#First_Crusade_1095.E2.80.931099

Sure the Europeans continued to advance all the way to Jerusalem, but that doesn't change the fact that the wars started as defensive measures against Muslim agression.

Without cheap manufactured goods, I suspect that many western economies, particularly those that rely heavily on having huge deficits, would come crumbling down.
And without Western capital these manufacturers would have no markets to sell to. They'd rot in misery. Hence, we are interdependent.

The worst effect the Crusades had was to freeze Islam into a defensive posture toward Western Europe and by that to stop any real progress in the Islamic world towards modernity.

Hulagu Khan's sacking of Baghdad was a much bigger factor than the crusades.

The muslims actually did pretty well under Saladin during the crusades.

It's all in the seasoning.

Snip snip cut cut... Aside from big cannons and tulips, what have the Ottomans given the world? ...snip snip cut cut

Please just don't insult a 600 old cosmopolit civilisation. Even if it was corrupted and buried under a huge central bureucracy it still was a very interesting part of history.

http://www.osmanlisanati.com/p6.html

The problem about middle east is English supporting ethnic hates and wars instead of supporting stability. The fault is of course the peoples for not standing up for their rights strong enough and justifully.

The Ottoman supressed ethnic and religious battles but kept the empire stable, the wars seen between different christians of europe (catholic- protestant etc. killing each other) was never seen in Ottoman Empire. Everything was done by the laws and even the standing places of chairs in churhes were written down to avoid fights between sects. After Ottoman Rule ended christians started killing each other in the churches of Jerusalem. So did muslims between themselves. Balkans were in chaos with ethnic war, north african countries not much different.

Christians and Jews mostly but other non-muslims too were 2.class citizens but mostly because they were not trusted to military service and to take extra tax from them to fill the coffers. The negative effects of extra tax was much neutralised by the fact that minorities had the chance to produce more and trade more because they never had to leave their lands to go to war. As for justice such precious resource was not left to suffer under any injustice, punishments were severe but mostly economic (taking money from the offender and giving to victim or inflicting the same pain to offender if victim chooses to do so)

After the end of Ottoman Empire British took control of the regions left to their own. Turks, the main force of Ottoman Empire founded a democratic-secular nation state with a complete Turk-muslim population. Other nations of Empire: Persians, Arabs and various African nations then entered into a long and painful stage of being divided among strong european countries. Their resources were exploited and people treated badly. This bad treatment was mainly caused by different culture of westerns and misunderstandings, of them showing no respect to local customs. English learned many lessons the hard way and even then not completely.
Then after WW2 with the decline of European powers it was no longer possible to keep armies in the area to keep control. So artificial countries like Irak were formed to keep different ethnicities and religious sects together and in conflict. Only so it was possible to protect european interests and keep region pacified.


Now as for terror. It is entirely wrong to tie it up to culture and religion. Its very clear that this is just propaganda to keep people in fear and alienation. This applies to both muslims and christians. Actually islam is no threat as christianism is no threat and even more passive in terms of violance. The reasons for regional and international terrorism are mainly : DRUGS and WEAPONS. The brainwashed militia of terrorist organisations are just a front to keep people busy and in fear while drug and weapon barons keep getting even richer.
The locally divided structure of middle east into ethnic and religious groups gives an excellent habitat for terror to grow. Meanwhile people who have been under western exploitation for hundreds of years and never been able to get rid of it are in desperation. These people are used as a meat shield for terrorist bastards, them being opressed is true from inside and outside and bombing them with terrorists is certainly no solution.
The problem of American approach to terror is making the trouble bigger, killing them all and letting god sort them out is practically impossible. America is not that big and though and such and approach just makes America another Nazi Germany, which ended up not so good if I may remind.
Another problem is hiding some secret agendas between just agendas. Fighting against terror organisations is good thing to do but at the same time using it as a screen for more sinister means is sensed by the public and hurts the just cause. By sinister agendas I mean some organisations supporting allied terror organisations against other countries that will prove a challange to American authority over ruling world. Other sinister means are controlling local drug and weapon trade in order to fund secret operations of CIA or NSA.

In this subject I see no one fully evil or good becasue we are not talking about two individuals. We are talking about many people with many views and beliefs differing. Not every christian approves killing a human and neither every muslim does. There are complex events, many organisations and many goals in this matter.

What's the difference between the Crusaders and the Jihadists?

Suicide attacks targeting civilians ..bomb belts and car bombs...women blowing themselves up at a wedding...etc.

is this a joke question ?

Suicide attacks targeting civilians ..bomb belts and car bombs...women blowing themselves up at a wedding...etc.

is this a joke question ?
Are you under the delusion that Crusaders were civil, and only attacked military targets? not at all. Crusaders spent most of their time breaking into cities and killing ever Muslim, Jew and Christian they found, then stealing their riches. I don't see how the fact that they didn't commit suicide while doing it makes it any better.

Really, what is the god damned difference between them?

They both fight (fought) for a faith

They both are (were) willing to kill themselves for their faith

They both are (were) killing innocent civilians because they were of different faiths than them

They both use (used) what could be considered terror tactics to achieve their goals

Both started fighting because the other side attacked first, but then decided that even after the other side stopped hostilities to continue attacking.

Both feel (felt) that the enemy occupies their holy land. (Hell, both the Crusaders and the Jihadists have the SAME god damned holy land)

Both are (were) completely dedicated to their faith

Both believe (believed) that their faith is absolute and that anybody who disagrees with them should die

There are (were) people from their faith who disagree with what the fighters are doing

Both are (were) fighting against an enemy much stronger than them (The Muslims were much more advanced than the Christians during the Middle Ages), yet continue to fight because of their devotion to their faith

The said continuance of fighting will sometimes result in them gaining the upper hand, but their power will quickly be usurped by the enemy, who are coming back with bigger guns (swords)

About the only difference between the two is their faith. Besides that they seem almost completely identical.

So why do we consider the Crusaders to simply be people who's faith was misguided, and who made serious mistakes, but weren't really evil men, but at the same time consider the Jihadists to be unfaithful, who made intentional serious mistakes, and who are completely evil men?



This is a reason to condemn the Crusaders, NOT to excuse the Jihadists.