What next after Mosul and Raqqa?

[A'isha]

Let's take this at face value and say this is indeed what motivates the Islamic extremists. Its stupid, but let's say you're 100% correct and this is the sole thing.

How is a reason "I'm a Muslim Frenchman and going to attack French civilians, because France kills innocent Muslims in Syria" not an inherently Islamic reason? You can find the justification for that in the Koran too.

Furthermore if you're going to claim it is indeed not, and this is a normal human reaction, please explain how people worse than, say, LePen are somehow wrong. Their reaction is milder and more justified than the reaction by Islamic extremists.

"If you attack our civilians, then we're going to attack yours" has been part of warfare since at least the development of strategic bombing.

Yes, some 130 years later the Crusades evolved into something much different than what they were initially intended to be. That doesn't change the initial aspect of the Crusades one iota.

If the Crusades were started to help militarily defend Byzantium from Muslim invasion, turning around and sacking Constantinople and dividing up Byzantine territory amongst the Crusaders seems like a pretty extreme "evolution": it's directly antithetical to the stated purpose you claimed the Crusades had!

It'd be like if America, after entering World War II ostensibly on the side of Britain, bombed and burned London to the ground and annexed the country as a territory of the US.

The first crusade would be averted, had the bigoted Islamic leaders allowed Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem. Since Christian pilgrims were allowed to make pilgramages to Jerusalem after the end of the Crusades, the later can be argued to have been a victory for Christians. It wasn't an overwhelming victory by any means, but they achieved what they initially set out to do, whereas all Muslims managed to do is stem the mission creep the Crusaders developed.

Pilgrims certainly could visit the Holy Land both before and after the Crusades (and the supposed treatment of pilgrims was never of concern for the Crusaders in anything more than the most peripheral way). The Crusades certainly didn't change that, and in fact the Crusaders were soundly defeated militarily and didn't manage to wring anything more than a 10 year truce (and after it ended, the remaining Crusader states in the Levant were smashed in short order). Jews also lived in some numbers in Jerusalem during the pre-Crusade period (because the Muslims had lifted the ban on Jews living in Jerusalem that had been imposed by the Romans and Byzantines), and were some of the most staunch defenders of the city against the attacking Crusaders. When the Crusaders took the city in 1099, they slaughtered the Jewish and Muslim inhabitants in a massacre that was shocking and unprecedented even for the times.

Really, the only lasting accomplishment of the Crusades was to fatally weaken the Byzantine empire so that the Ottoman empire could finally conquer it. Which, if the purpose of the Crusades was to help defend the Byzantine empire against Muslim invasion, good job, guys.

EDIT: In fact, one of the first things the Crusaders did, even before taking Jerusalem for the first.time, was enter into negotiations to ally with the Egyptian Fatimids during the start of the First Crusade since they both had the mutual enemy of the Seljuk Turks who ruled the Levant.

I believe the Islamic word for Muslims who believe that is "an apostate". Nice try though.

Except that believing that certain passages of the Qur'an were solely in reference to the specific events and people of Muhammad's time and aren't applicable in the present day is such a standard feature of tafsir I'm struggling to think of a Muslim scholar who didn't think that, particularly the Islamist and jihadist ones.

Can we? What do you base this on?

The way Jews (who predated Christianity by a lot more than Christianity predated Islam) were were treated.

I find it interesting that they picked the Crusades and not, say, Mongol invasions. The latter were worse by an order of magnitude. Do you have any comment on that, perhaps?

Mainly because it was Western who were the ones occupying Muslim lands in the 19th Century, and not the Mongols, making the parallels with the Crusades a lot stronger than the parallels with the Mongol invasions.

Nevertheless, Muslim texts about the Mongol invasions are regularly re-purposed by jihadists and salafists to be used against the West. Their favorite scholar, ibn Taymiyyah, for instance, wrote pretty much exclusively about the invading Mongols, and when he referred to infidels and the necessity of striking against them, it was the Mongols he was referring to, not the Western Crusaders (the Crusades had already ended, while the Mongol invasions were still wreaking havoc on Muslim lands).

 

[Vixen]

For a bunch of reasons. One would be the idea that environmental sustainability doesn't matter because the world is going to end soon. Climate change? Who cares! The end is night!

Not all Christian evangelicals believe that the world is going to end soon, but I'm sure there's a non-trivial percentage who do. They are reading Revelations and looking for signs. The evidence comes from the radio - not sure which program I was listening to, but callers were discussing who could in our times be the four horsemen, the Antichrist etc. They want it to be contemporary, they want to see it. It would be naive IMO to think no one will feel "called" in his lifetime to play an essential role in bringing about the Apocalypse.

People who know they're going to heaven because God is on their side can justify any atrocity. Unlike some people in this thread I don't think Christianity has been entirely purged of such elements.

U.S. generals can go off the rails; so can even higher leaders.

You can have a sect like Jonestown, in which a siege mentality and charismatic leader can cause much suffering and destruction.

Literalism and fanaticism aren't the sole property of Islam.

Disagree. John's Revelation is simply based on Paul's epistles to seven churches throughout what is present day Turkey and Syria. (Pergamum, Smyrna, Laodicea (quite near to the Collossians), Thyatira, Philadelphia, Ephesus and Sardis) = the reference to the 'seven lampstands'.

He predicted a fall of Babylon (= an ancient city once located 53 miles south of current day Baghdad, Iraq) . However, some believe Babylon is a dysphemism for the Romans.

In John's vision, he sees four beasts, including one beast with the face of a 'flying eagle' (=I think this just has to refer to the USA!) who lets loose via an angel a green horse who goes off to destroy Babylon (= this could be the current activity in Iraq, eh?)

It is a prophecy, not a call to arms.

Does anyone know whether Trump has a green horse?

Enquiring minds need to know.

 

[Vixen]

No, it's not like that.

What is this story even doing in the New Testament? What do people make of it in Bible study? Jesus did not have to kill that tree but he did. So what is the purpose of that story?

Surely he could have called for it to bear fruit?

Some theologists believe this is an allegory for the Jewish people, who have a long history - going back to biblical times <g>) - of turning away from their religion.

Sure enough, 60 years after Jesus' parable, the Jews, who ruled Jerusalem where invaded by the Romans and massacred in their thousands.

The poor fig tree even pops up in Revelation.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The first crusade would be averted, had the bigoted Islamic leaders allowed Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem. Since Christian pilgrims were allowed to make pilgramages to Jerusalem after the end of the Crusades, the later can be argued to have been a victory for Christians. It wasn't an overwhelming victory by any means, but they achieved what they initially set out to do, whereas all Muslims managed to do is stem the mission creep the Crusaders developed.

If the end result for war is something party A desired and party B wanted to prevent, then party B sure wasn't victorious. In this case party A - Crusaders - desired to open up Jerusalem and party B - Muslims - wanted to keep Jerusalem Christianrein. Party A got their result, party B failed. Who won the war?

WWI could have been averted if only the Serbs had let Austria-Hungary station troops on their territory! WWII could have been avoided if only Poland had ceded its German-populated areas! The Crimean War could have been averted, had the Ottomans only appeased the Russians!

 

[CapelDodger]

When the Crusaders took the city in 1099, they slaughtered the Jewish and Muslim inhabitants in a massacre that was shocking and unprecedented even for the times.

And the Christians. And the cats and dogs. It was just red mist time.

Really, the only lasting accomplishment of the Crusades was to fatally weaken the Byzantine empire so that the Ottoman empire could finally conquer it.

I wonder what lasting accomplishments the Enlightenment will have when we're talking about stuff like this on a Politics forum in the 21st frickin' century.

 

[Mycroft]

"If you attack our civilians, then we're going to attack yours" has been part of warfare since at least the development of strategic bombing.

Playing devil's advocate for a minute and maybe getting closer to what McHrozni had in mind, isn't it significant that the Muslim Frenchman in question identifies his ingroup to be closer to the Muslims of Syria because they're Muslim, and the out-group that he attacks to be Frenchmen even though he is also a Frenchman? That's not really covered by we do it to them because they do it to us because he has claim to both communities.

 

[A'isha]

Playing devil's advocate for a minute and maybe getting closer to what McHrozni had in mind, isn't it significant that the Muslim Frenchman in question identifies his ingroup to be closer to the Muslims of Syria because they're Muslim, and the out-group that he attacks to be Frenchmen even though he is also a Frenchman? That's not really covered by we do it to them because they do it to us because he has claim to both communities.

It is significant, and has been noted by people who study terrorism. It seems to be a problem with people, mostly younger second-generation people (ie, not the immigrants themselves, but their children), who feel sort of caught between two cultures, neither of which they feel they really belong to and neither of which really fully claims them. They're too "Westernized" to fully fit in with the culture of the country their parents came from, and yet still considered too "foreign" by the culture of the country they now live in. As a result, many find the claims of ISIS or other extremist groups to represent something that will fully accept them (as long as they obey, of course) and that they can finally find a sense of belonging with to be a very enticing solution to this kind of identity crisis. "Those aren't your people", the extremist groups tell them. "We're your people. And look what those people are doing to us and the others we claim to represent. Join us and help us fight back against them and what they're doing!" And sadly, all too many follow the extremists down that rabbit hole of terror and violence and "us vs. them".

For some discussion of the phenomenon, check out this or this or especially this.

 

[Mycroft]

It is significant, and has been noted by people who study terrorism. It seems to be a problem with people, mostly younger second-generation people (ie, not the immigrants themselves, but their children), who feel sort of caught between two cultures, neither of which they feel they really belong to and neither of which really fully claims them. They're too "Westernized" to fully fit in with the culture of the country their parents came from, and yet still considered too "foreign" by the culture of the country they now live in. As a result, many find the claims of ISIS or other extremist groups to represent something that will fully accept them (as long as they obey, of course) and that they can finally find a sense of belonging with to be a very enticing solution to this kind of identity crisis. "Those aren't your people", the extremist groups tell them. "We're your people. And look what those people are doing to us and the others we claim to represent. Join us and help us fight back against them and what they're doing!" And sadly, all too many follow the extremists down that rabbit hole of terror and violence and "us vs. them".

For some discussion of the phenomenon, check out this or this or especially this.

Interesting articles.

My takeaway is that as a matter of policy it's important to foster integration of immigrant populations so that second and third generations are more comfortable with a self-identity that is both Muslim and French (or whatever nationality) and in that way they would be less susceptible to extremists who would exploit their feelings of alienation.

Would you agree? Or what's your take?

 

[McHrozni]

"If you attack our civilians, then we're going to attack yours" has been part of warfare since at least the development of strategic bombing.

Actually strategic bombing didn't have to do much with revenge, but with preventing enemy civilians from operating factories and thus reducing the flow of war material to the enemy.

I struggle to see how attacking Copts in Egypt is supposed to reduce the capacity of US armed forces in Iraq and Syria. Maybe you could explain this in more detail?

If the Crusades were started to help militarily defend Byzantium from Muslim invasion, turning around and sacking Constantinople and dividing up Byzantine territory amongst the Crusaders seems like a pretty extreme "evolution": it's directly antithetical to the stated purpose you claimed the Crusades had!

Yes, good catch. The end result of the Crusades was, in no small part, antithetical to their stated purpose.

Kind of what you claim of Islam, really. Did you have a point?

When the Crusaders took the city in 1099, they slaughtered the Jewish and Muslim inhabitants in a massacre that was shocking and unprecedented even for the times.

Unprecedented? If you're trying to be funny you are doing it wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(AD_70)

Really, the only lasting accomplishment of the Crusades was to fatally weaken the Byzantine empire so that the Ottoman empire could finally conquer it.

Ottoman empire didn't exist at the time, the house of Osman was an equivalent of western dukes until well after the sack of Constantinople. Seljuk empire fell apart in the meantime, with lots of infighting. This is what allowed the Byzantine empire to last until mid-15th century, even though it was devastated in 1205.

EDIT: In fact, one of the first things the Crusaders did, even before taking Jerusalem for the first.time, was enter into negotiations to ally with the Egyptian Fatimids during the start of the First Crusade since they both had the mutual enemy of the Seljuk Turks who ruled the Levant.

Which kind of puts the alleged Crusader religious fanaticism into serious doubt.

The way Jews (who predated Christianity by a lot more than Christianity predated Islam) were were treated.

Go on, explain in more detail. How does the treatment of an earlier religion show how Christianity would treat a later one?

Mainly because it was Western who were the ones occupying Muslim lands in the 19th Century, and not the Mongols, making the parallels with the Crusades a lot stronger than the parallels with the Mongol invasions.

Most of Muslim lands weren't taken over by the West in the 19th century. Arabia was Ottoman until after World War 1. So was Israel.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Actually strategic bombing didn't have to do much with revenge, but with preventing enemy civilians from operating factories and thus reducing the flow of war material to the enemy.

No, it wasn't. Germany's bombing raids in Spain, the Netherlands, and especially London were terror attacks aimed at civilian populations, and Bomber Command's response was explicitly intended to be in kind.

I struggle to see how attacking Copts in Egypt is supposed to reduce the capacity of US armed forces in Iraq and Syria. Maybe you could explain this in more detail?

It's not. In the **********-up minds of the extremists, the Copts (as Christians) are seen as soldiers on the vanguard of a cultural invasion from the West, the same way that people like LePen and her thugs see Muslims in France.

Kind of what you claim of Islam, really. Did you have a point?

What is this, Non-Sequitur Theater?

Unprecedented? If you're trying to be funny you are doing it wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(AD_70)

You were complaining about a few hundred years difference above. This was more than a thousand years before the events in question.

Ottoman empire didn't exist at the time, the house of Osman was an equivalent of western dukes until well after the sack of Constantinople. Seljuk empire fell apart in the meantime, with lots of infighting. This is what allowed the Byzantine empire to last until mid-15th century, even though it was devastated in 1205.

It was devastated on a regular basis all through the Crusades. It wasn't just sacked once and then left alone. And, had the Crusaders not done that, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 (when there were Ottomans) probably wouldn't have happened.

The Byzantines knew it, too. Emperor Alexios almost immediately regretted the presence of the Crusaders during the First Crusade (they had a tendency to retake Byzantine lands conquered by the Seljuks and then keep them rather than return them to Byzantium), and even wrote to the caliph of Fatimid Egypt, with which he'd already had a sort of basic alliance against their mutual Seljuk enemy, saying that he wasn't associated with what the Crusaders were doing and that wasn't going to break the agreement between the Byzantines and the Fatimids.

Which kind of puts the alleged Crusader religious fanaticism into serious doubt.

Not to mention the alleged Muslim fanaticism against Christians. So maybe stop with the bogus "clash of civilizations" interpretation of the Crusades.

Go on, explain in more detail. How does the treatment of an earlier religion show how Christianity would treat a later one?

Remember what your original argument was now. How Christianity treated earlier religions gives a pretty good clue that Christianity would not have treated Islam any better had Islam predated Christianity rather than postdated it.

Most of Muslim lands weren't taken over by the West in the 19th century. Arabia was Ottoman until after World War 1. So was Israel.

A large amount of lands were directly taken, the caliphate was partitioned among the colonial powers, and even areas that weren't directly occupied had Western troops and governments playing kingmaker (Saudi Arabia exists in the form it does today thanks to British intervention on the side of the Sauds).

Americans got royally pissed off at just the Japanese bombing of a distant territory that wasn't even a state, so it's not like the notion of this sort of thing causing resentment and anger should be surprising and exotic.

 

[A'isha]

Interesting articles.

My takeaway is that as a matter of policy it's important to foster integration of immigrant populations so that second and third generations are more comfortable with a self-identity that is both Muslim and French (or whatever nationality) and in that way they would be less susceptible to extremists who would exploit their feelings of alienation.

Would you agree? Or what's your take?

No, I completely agree. And it should be focused specifically on reconciling Muslim and French (or whatever nationality) identity, because harping on complete assimilation and the complete abandonment of one just feeds into the identity crisis (this is also why many Western Muslims who leave for the Levant to fight for ISIS also regret their decision, since ISIS wants them to completely abandon the Western aspects of their identity).

 

[McHrozni]

No, it wasn't. Germany's bombing raids in Spain, the Netherlands, and especially London were terror attacks aimed at civilian populations, and Bomber Command's response was explicitly intended to be in kind.

Yeah, true, Nazis were in the same boat as the Islamic terrorists of today. Do you have a point maybe?

It's not. In the **********-up minds of the extremists, the Copts (as Christians) are seen as soldiers on the vanguard of a cultural invasion from the West, the same way that people like LePen and her thugs see Muslims in France.

No connection to strategic bombing, them. I'll just add your next quote:
What is this, Non-Sequitur Theater?

You were complaining about a few hundred years difference above. This was more than a thousand years before the events in question.

Unprecedented has a different meaning for you than for the rest of us, apparently.

It was devastated on a regular basis all through the Crusades. It wasn't just sacked once and then left alone. And, had the Crusaders not done that, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 (when there were Ottomans) probably wouldn't have happened.

Plausible, but not certain. None of this in any way changes the point about the Crusades though.

Remember what your original argument was now. How Christianity treated earlier religions gives a pretty good clue that Christianity would not have treated Islam any better had Islam predated Christianity rather than postdated it.

What do you base this on?

A large amount of lands were directly taken, the caliphate was partitioned among the colonial powers, and even areas that weren't directly occupied had Western troops and governments playing kingmaker (Saudi Arabia exists in the form it does today thanks to British intervention on the side of the Sauds).

It's interesting how this only caused super-duper resentment that has lasted for a over century now with Muslims. When the same thing was done to Germany twice, the Germans got over it.

Americans got royally pissed off at just the Japanese bombing of a distant territory that wasn't even a state, so it's not like the notion of this sort of thing causing resentment and anger should be surprising and exotic.

More non-sequitur theater I see.

McHrozni