| September 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | ||||
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
Robert Spencer has a book coming out in a few months called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. It debunks all the nonsense about the Crusades being a war of conquest. He discusses it in brief in a current article on FrontPage:
Islam originated in Arabia in the seventh century. At that time Egypt, Libya, and all of North Africa were Christian, and had been so for hundreds of years. So were Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Asia Minor. The churches that St. Paul addressed in his letters collected in the New Testament are located in Asia Minor, modern Turkey, as well as modern Greece. North of Greece, in a buffer zone between Eastern and Western Europe, were lands that would become the Christian domains of the Slavs. Antioch and Constantinople (Istanbul), in modern Turkey, and Alexandria, in modern Egypt, were three of the most important Christian centers of the first millennium.
But then Muhammad and his Muslim armies arose out of the desert, and — as most modern textbooks would put it — these lands became Muslim. But in fact the transition was cataclysmic. Muslims won these lands by conquest and, in obedience to the words of the Qur’an and the Prophet, put to the sword the infidels therein who refused to submit to the new Islamic regime. Those who remained alive lived in humiliating second-class status. Conversion to Islam became the only way to live a decent life. And lo and behold, the Christian populations of these areas steadily diminished.
The conquest was barbaric:
Here is a contemporary account of the Muslims’ arrival in Nikiou, an Egyptian town, in the 640’s:
Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiou. There was not one single soldier to resist them. They seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches — men, women and children, sparing nobody. Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found. . . .But let us now say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed when they occupied the island of Nikiou. . . .
The Crusades were a move to halt the Islamic conquest of Europe:
The circumstances of the first Crusade were these: Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being molested by Muslims and prevented from reaching the holy places. Some were killed. This was finally the impetus that moved Western Christianity to try to take back just one small portion of the Christian lands that had fallen to the Muslim sword over the last centuries. “The Crusade,” noted historian Bernard Lewis, “was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war — to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage.”
Whatever undeniable sins Christians committed during their course, the Crusades were essentially a defensive action: a belated and insufficient attempt by Western Christians to turn back the tide of Islam that had engulfed the Eastern Church. “When accusing the West of imperialism,” says the historian of jihad Paul Fregosi, “Muslims are obsessed with the Christian Crusades but have forgotten their own, much grander Jihad.” The lands in dispute during each Crusade were the ancient lands of Christendom, where Christians had flourished for centuries before Muhammad’s armies called them idolaters and enslaved and killed them. If Westerners had no right to invade these putative Muslim lands, then Muslims had no right to take them in the first place.
And let me tell you something—it’s not over. We’re playing out what may be the endgame right now. And they could still win. The goal of radical Islam is what it has been for centuries—conversion of all peoples to a repressive form of Islam.
They can’t really win by force of arms. If they nuke a U.S. city, we’ll nuke Mecca, and then it’s game over. But we cannot afford to let them do that to a U.S. city. We must prevent that.
The only way they can win is by doing what is working so well for them in Europe—immigrating in, in vast numbers, and then refusing to assimilate. This has the effect of Islamizing the entire surrounding culture. Here’s an example from the Netherlands. It’s happening in the U.S. right now in schools, mosques, and companies.
To save our freedom and our way of life in this country, we must be aware of the Muslim tradition of non-assimilation, and determine acceptable ways to address it.
#2It’s the fundamentalist Christians who are the main cheerleaders for the US destruction of Iraq.
To what do you refer by the phrase, “US destruction of Iraq”?
In Israel/Palestine, it’s the orthodox Jews who are trying to annihilate the Palestinians
It is inaccurate to state the Jews are “trying to annihilate the Palestinians.”
It’s… the zealot Palestinians who are trying to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth.
That, however, is entirely accurate. You seek to oppose all religions equally, but your argument is an apology for terrorists.
To what do you refer by the phrase, “US destruction of Iraq”?
READ the newspaper! We’re dropping bombs all over the place. We’re shooting missile here and there. The people have no electricity in places. Their water and sanitation system is screwed up. Their schools and hospitals are in disrepair. WE—the US—are responsible for this destruction.
It is inaccurate to state the Jews are “trying to annihilate the Palestinians.”
READ the newspaper! Missiles rein down on everyday Palestinians. Israeli troops gun down women, children and babies. They send in bulldozers to raze homes, hospitals and schools. This is called methodical annihilation!
That, however, is entirely accurate. You seek to oppose all religions equally, but your argument is an apology for terrorists.
“Terrorist” is an odd word. If we terrorize innocent Iraqis by blowing up their cities, we’re merely trying to spread democracy and freedom. If Iraqi patriots try to free their country from a foreign invader (the US), ooh they are TERRORISTS.
A Terrorist is merely what one calls the other side.
Indiscriminately targeting civilian populations to further a political aim is terrorism. The Nazis were guilty of it. The US was/is guilty of it. Iraqi extremists are guilty of it. Israeli Nationals are guilty of it. Palestinian zealots are guilty of it.
#4We’re dropping bombs all over the place. We’re shooting missile here and there.
That is not correct.
Missiles rein down on everyday Palestinians. Israeli troops gun down women, children and babies. They send in bulldozers to raze homes, hospitals and schools.
That also is not correct.
If we terrorize innocent Iraqis by blowing up their cities, we’re merely trying to spread democracy and freedom.
It is not correct that we are ‘terrorizing innocent Iraqis’. The whole world saw that Iraqis risked death for the opportunity to vote, an opportunity we brought to them.
We’re dropping bombs all over the place. We’re shooting missile here and there.
Your Response - That is not correct.
Just because you (and who exactly ARE you?) say this is not correct doesn’t mean that it’s not correct.
For example, from ABC News in January:
“U.S. troops mistakenly killed two Iraqi policemen and two bystanders near a checkpoint just hours after an American warplane exacted a heavy civilian toll when it bombed the wrong house, Iraqi officials said Sunday.
The back-to-back incidents Saturday fueled anti-American anger over the deaths of innocents during a raging insurgency just three weeks before Iraq’s first election since U.S.-led forces toppled dictator Saddam Hussein.
Residents said 14 people, including children, were killed in a strike in the northern village of Aaytha, and showed 14 freshly dug graves. The military, making a rare admission of error in its fight against guerrillas, said five people died when a 500-pound bomb flattened the house.”
If you’d like, I can provide many more examples.
Missiles rein down on everyday Palestinians. Israeli troops gun down women, children and babies. They send in bulldozers to raze homes, hospitals and schools.
Your Response - That also is not correct.
According to Human Rights Watch, “Caterpillar Inc., the U.S.-based heavy-equipment company, should immediately suspend sales of its powerful D9 bulldozer to the Israeli army, Human Rights Watch said today. As Human Rights Watch documented in a recent report, the Israeli military uses the D9 as its primary weapon to raze Palestinian homes, destroy agriculture and shred roads in violation of the laws of war.”
If we terrorize innocent Iraqis by blowing up their cities, we’re merely trying to spread democracy and freedom.
Your Response - It is not correct that we are ‘terrorizing innocent Iraqis’. The whole world saw that Iraqis risked death for the opportunity to vote, an opportunity we brought to them.
Less than 35% of eligible Iraqis voted in the recent election. Two out of every three stayed home because it was too dangerous to venture out. Some opportunity!
Here’s some more documentation re the destruction of Iraq:
#1 From The Chronicle of Higher Education:
“When more than 200,000 people died in a tsunami caused by an Asian earthquake in December, the immediate reaction in the United States was an outpouring of grief and philanthropy, prompted by extensive coverage in the news media.
Two months earlier, the reaction in the United States to news of another large-scale human tragedy was much quieter. In late October, a study was published in The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal, concluding that about 100,000 civilians had been killed in Iraq since it was invaded by a United States-led coalition in March 2003. On the eve of a contentious presidential election—fought in part over U.S. policy on Iraq—many American newspapers and television news programs ignored the study or buried reports about it far from the top headlines.”
#2 From The Nation
“But enough of my whining. My son is alive and in one piece, unlike the 1,102 dead and 7,782 severely wounded American soldiers; which equals 8,884 blood-soaked uniforms, and doesn’t even count the estimated 20,000 troops--not publicly reported by the Defense Department--medevacked out of Iraq for “non-combat related injuries.” Every death, every injury, burns like a knife in my gut, for these are all America’s sons and daughters. And I know I’m not immune to that knock on my door either.
And what of the Iraqi people? How many casualties have they suffered? How many tens of thousands of dead and wounded? How many Iraqi mothers have wept, weep now, for their lost children? I fear we will never know, for though the Pentagon has begun--almost gleefully--counting Iraqi insurgent deaths, there is little chance of getting an accurate verification of civilian casualties. You know, “collateral damage.”
#3 From The Associated Press:
”At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation.
The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll--if it is ever tallied--is sure to be significantly higher.”
#4 From The Guardian:
”Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous “shock and awe” bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division’s “Thunder Run”, an armored thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.
It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned. US and British military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the “precision” munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind of modern warfare practiced by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in history.
#5 From The Washington Post:
”When the 1,000th U.S. soldier was killed in Iraq earlier this month, more than a few commentators in the international online media took note of another death toll: Iraqi civilians.
“While so much is made of the 1,000 US military fatalities,” said a columnist for Gulf News in the United Arab Emirates, “an eerie silence surrounds the tally of Iraqi casualties since the invasion.”
“Silence” is perhaps too strong a word. Many news organizations have run stories about civilian deaths in Iraq. But overseas reporters and commentators emphasize the issue more than their American counterparts and play up civilian casualties in ways the U.S. media rarely pursue. After recent U.S. bombing raids on Fallujah, al-Jazeera.net published graphic photos of wounded children that are unlikely to appear in a U.S. news outlet.”
#7The Lancet number of 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties has been debunked.
Why does your concern for the welfare of Iraqi civilians not apply to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Hussein?
Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam’s needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam’s reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam’s 8,000-odd days in power.
You oppose our efforts in Iraq, which are saving thousands of Iraqi lives that would have been lost had Hussein remained in power, and which have freed the Iraqi people from lives of terror and oppression. How do you square that with your stated concerns for the well-being of Iraqi civilians?
You oppose our efforts in Iraq, which are saving thousands of Iraqi lives that would have been lost had Hussein remained in power, and which have freed the Iraqi people from lives of terror and oppression. How do you square that with your stated concerns for the well-being of Iraqi civilians?
I’m concerned about all needless loss of life. This is something war ALWAYS creates.
When Hussein was killing off his people prior to 1991, what government was one of Hussein’s biggest supporters? The United States of America! Most of the statistics cited by conservatives re mass killings by Hussein HAPPENED during the 1980s when we were feeding Iraq with CIA info plus sending them gobs of money and military hardware.
So why is it our government is now, all of a sudden, up in arms about acts they tacitly approved of WHEN THEY WERE HAPPENING?
Second, this idea that we’re saving thousands of lives is rhetoric. The US has REPLACED Hussein as the entity doling out oppression and terror. From the perspective of the ordinary Iraqi, we’ve merely replaced one ogre with another.
#9Your argument appears to be self-contradicting. You oppose Hussein and any business we did with Iraq while Hussein was in power. But you also oppose our removing him from power.
Second, this idea that we’re saving thousands of lives is rhetoric.
In addition to being rhetoric, it is also a fact —one that demonstrates the error of your opposition to the war on the grounds of harm done to Iraqi civilians.
Your argument appears to be self-contradicting. You oppose Hussein and any business we did with Iraq while Hussein was in power. But you also oppose our removing him from power.
I could say the same for you. You defend the US gov’t for turning a blind eye to massive oppression when it was economically expedient, yet you defend the decision to invade when it works out to our economic best interests.
In essence, it shows that neither you nor US powerbrokers could care one wit about Iraqi lives. The main criteria is how it effects the US bottom line.
In addition to being rhetoric, it is also a fact —one that demonstrates the error of your opposition to the war on the grounds of harm done to Iraqi civilians.
Your link to underscore your point ONLY underscores my point. The Global Business Network (GBN) is, of course, going to view reality as it relates to economics, not quality of life. As long as the Iraq invasion means big money for US corporations, folks like the GBN will see it as great and wonderful.
IF we were truly liberating Iraq (i.e., Iraqis were welcoming us with open arms) AND US financial interests weren’t reaping an economic bonanza, the GBN would term the invasion a failure. They would be beating the drum to get us out of there.
#11You defend the US gov’t for turning a blind eye to massive oppression when it was economically expedient
I have said nothing of the kind.
Sorry. It was a poor choice of words. I should have written implied instead of said.
It doesn’t change my point though. You’re saying that the US invasion of Iraq is JUSTIFIED because of Hussein’s use of terror and oppression against his own people. Yet, when Hussein was killing his own people in the 70s and 80s, he was a friend and benefactor of the US.
We would have HAD a justification in 1979 or 1987, but we lost that justification when the we went along with what was happening. Besides, according to the Bush Administration THAT was NOT the reason they used to justify war at the START of the war.
No, at THAT time, the justification was that Hussein possessed WMD. Once that was proven to be untrue (and many in the intelligence community TOLD Bush it was not true from the start), Bush used the “oppression and terrorism” argument as a fall back position.
#13I should have written implied instead of said.
I have implied nothing of the kind.
You’re saying that the US invasion of Iraq is JUSTIFIED because of Hussein’s use of terror and oppression against his own people. Yet, when Hussein was killing his own people in the 70s and 80s, he was a friend and benefactor of the US.
I disagree that Hussein was a friend to the U.S. at that time. You may feel that the U.S. government regarded Hussein as a friend, but that does not contradict the fact that one justification for the Iraq war was to end Hussein’s use of terror and oppression against his own people.
You state that you have a concern for the well-being of the people of Iraq. But when presented with the fact that the people of Iraq are far better off now than they were under Hussein, you seek to change the subject to the motivation of the U.S. in freeing them.
Your concern for the well-being of those people appears to be slight. You would have them still being oppressed, because you don’t like our motivation for freeing them.
I disagree that Hussein was a friend to the U.S. at that time. You may feel that the U.S. government regarded Hussein as a friend, but that does not contradict the fact that one justification for the Iraq war was to end Hussein’s use of terror and oppression against his own people.
I fail to see why you don’t view this as a contradiction. If I’m beating up Bill, Mary and Joe, and you stand there watching me do it (not trying to stop me in any way), most people would think it rather odd if, you announced 10 years after the fact, that you wanted to stop me from beating up these 3 people.
I would think most rational people would say to you, “Vik, why didn’t you try to stop the beatings while they were occurring? At the time, you seemed wholely unconcerned.”
You state that you have a concern for the well-being of the people of Iraq. But when presented with the fact that the people of Iraq are far better off now than they were under Hussein, you seek to change the subject to the motivation of the U.S. in freeing them.
I guess you’re not reading my comments closely. I strongly disagree with the position that the Iraqi people are better off.
While it is certainly true that Hussein is no longer killing them, they continue to be killed at alarming rates nonetheless. The US has merely replaced Hussein as the face of oppression and terror.
At least when Hussein was the oppressor, the Iraqis had electricity, functioning water and sewer systems, hospitals that took care of them when they were sick, a HIGHER literacy rate than the US and jobs so they could work. We’re killing them now and they have none of these things. Therefore, it’s hard to say they’re better off.
#15I fail to see why you don’t view this as a contradiction. If I’m beating up Bill, Mary and Joe, and you stand there watching me do it (not trying to stop me in any way), most people would think it rather odd if, you announced 10 years after the fact, that you wanted to stop me from beating up these 3 people.
I would think most rational people would say to you, “Vik, why didn’t you try to stop the beatings while they were occurring? At the time, you seemed wholely unconcerned.”
Okay, according to your analogy, you’ve been giving the same three people a beating for 10 years. They’re still getting a beating. Finally I, who have been watching for 10 years, step in and say, I’m putting an end to this. And you propose that people would say, “Stop! Don’t save those people! You didn’t save them before, and we care about them so much that we don’t want you to do it now either!”
Your own analogy shows the error of the position.
[More in next comment due to 5,000-character limit.]
#16I strongly disagree with the position that the Iraqi people are better off.
You have no facts to support that position.
At least when Hussein was the oppressor, the Iraqis had electricity, functioning water and sewer systems, hospitals that took care of them when they were sick, a HIGHER literacy rate than the US and jobs so they could work. We’re killing them now and they have none of these things. Therefore, it’s hard to say they’re better off.
Interesting. They have no electricity—yet they have cell phones:
Many Iraqis can also afford a mobile phone, a modern convenience banned under Saddam Hussein. Egyptian-owned Orascom Telecom, which provides mobile-phone service to Baghdad and central Iraq, had 82,000 subscribers at the end of 2003, the year the company began operating in Iraq. By November 2004, it had signed up 480,000 subscribers and is now planning to reach 1 million subscribers by the end of this year by spreading its services to southern and northern Iraq, according to the company’s website.”
In electricity news, the Ministry of Electricity has announced that the level of >5,000 MW has been reached and the Ministry plans to provide Iraqis with 18 hours of electricity a day by adding further 1,500 MW over the near future.>
In another step towards >connecting Iraq to the regional power infrastructure, a 124-mile powerline will link the al-Risheh power grid in Jordan and the Ukashat area in western Iraq. Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Libya have already linked their electricity grids, with Lebanon and Turkey expected to follow soon, and with Iraq also becoming the beneficiary of energy imports from Jordan and Egypt. Within 6 months, >Turkey‘s Black Sea Wholesale Electricity Trade (KARTET) Company will be increasing its exports of energy to Iraq from 200 to 1,000 MW. Turkey will also be helping with the rehabilitation of >power lines. And >Iran will soon be exporting 100 MW of electricity to Iraq.>
The Ministry of Electricity has announced plans to allow >foreign companies to operate in Iraq’s electricity market. The plan envisages foreign companies building an owning power stations, from which the authorities will be buying electricity. To expand the private sector involvement, the Ministry has also recently signed a contract with a >private company for the construction, with the help of Japanese companies and Arab investors, a power station with a capacity of 150 MW.
[More in next comment due to 5,000-character limit.]
#17Health infrastructure, much neglected over the past few decades continues getting upgraded. As part of its plan to construct 150 new health centers across Iraq, the authorities have recently opened 4 new clinics in the province of Missan. In the province of Diyala, a new 400-bed hospital is under construction and 12 clinics will be built in the province’s villages. USAID’s Community Action Program team has constructed a health clinic at the university of Karbalah. Under the same program, an intensive care unit has been added to a local hospital in At? Tamim governorate (link in PDF). USAID is also providing funding to combat dysentery in northern Iraq. Baghdad’s second largest hospital has been recently renovated and resupplied thanks to USAID’s assistance (link in PDF).
Similar info on water and sewer systems in Iraq is here.
Your arguments make my case when the facts are checked.
Okay, according to your analogy, you’ve been giving the same three people a beating for 10 years. They’re still getting a beating. Finally I, who have been watching for 10 years, step in and say, I’m putting an end to this. And you propose that people would say, “Stop! Don’t save those people! You didn’t save them before, and we care about them so much that we don’t want you to do it now either!”
No, that’s NOT what I’m saying. The incidents cited by the administration and hawks are NOT about recent acts of oppression. The most prevelent refrain I hear concerns the gassing of the Kurds in 1987.
So, using my example, it’s a case where I beat up these 3 people and you watched me do it without trying to stop me. Over a decade passes and then you announce you’re ready to stop me now, BUT I’m not doing it anymore.
In other words, you NOW want to punish me for a past act that, at the time it happened, you didn’t seem upset about at all. At the point in which you could have stepped in to save the 3 FROM being beaten, you did nothing.
In electricity news, the Ministry of Electricity has announced that the level of >5,000 MW has been reached and the Ministry plans to provide Iraqis with 18 hours of electricity a day by adding further 1,500 MW over the near future.>
Before we started attacking Iraq, they had electricity 24/7. Now, in some areas, they’ve managed to increase the service back to 18 hours per day. That’s a 25% loss and yet you feel this is an improvement.
I certainly wouldn’t want you to manage any of my funds. You would decrease my portfolio by 25%, yet tell me that my portfolio was growing.
Yes, the Iraqi’s plight has improved since a year or two ago, but this “improvement” pales in comparison to what they had BEFORE we decided to lay waste to their country.
#21No, that’s NOT what I’m saying. The incidents cited by the administration and hawks are NOT about recent acts of oppression. The most prevelent refrain I hear concerns the gassing of the Kurds in 1987.
So, using my example, it’s a case where I beat up these 3 people and you watched me do it without trying to stop me. Over a decade passes and then you announce you’re ready to stop me now, BUT I’m not doing it anymore.
Hussein did not stop oppressing the Iraqi people 10 years ago.
#23Human rights in Saddam’s Iraq:
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was notorious for massive levels of torture and mass murder.
Secret police, torture, murders, targeted assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (i.e. the destruction of the food source of rival groups) were but a few of the documented atrocities Saddam Hussein used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown and the reports of human rights violations are beyond count they are so numerous. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture. Human rights abuses are reported also from members of Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.
...In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein’s government for its “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law”. The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its “summary and arbitrary executions… the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances”.
Oh please!
The formation of almost ANY religion creates the circumstances outlined above. When Judaism was first formed, all the people of the so-called “Promised Land” were of different religions and belief systems. The Jews moved in and slaughtered anyone who wouldn’t assimilate. (The OT is a chronicle of the Jews efforts to wipe out several different civilizations.)
Muslims tend to be more willing to allow different faiths within their midst. This is well-documented.
The problem isn’t Islam, Judaism or Christianity per se. No, the problem is the orthodox or fundamentalist wing of ANY religion. The orthodox always believe that THEY alone are keeping the Almighty’s covenant and anyone who might disagree should feel the wrath of the sword.
Look at the world today. It’s the fundamentalist Christians who are the main cheerleaders for the US destruction of Iraq. It’s the fundamentalist Muslims who are killing their own countrymen (as well as our soldiers) in response. In Israel/Palestine, it’s the orthodox Jews who are trying to annihilate the Palestinians and the zealot Palestinians who are trying to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth.
As for the Crusades, it followed this same pattern. It was the orthodox Christians who decided to cleanse the world of Muslims.
Take out the orthodox or fundamentalist strain from ANY religion and you’ll have a more peaceful world. (Of course, it’s impossible to remove orthodoxy from religion—a subject I deal with on my blog, The Rambling Taoist.)