Skip to comments.Jihad vs. Crusade
Posted on 09/26/2001 9:11:34 PM PDT by VinnyTexEdited on 04/23/2004 12:03:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
President Bush's use of the term "crusade" in calling for a powerful joint effort against terrorism was unfortunate, but excusable. In Western usage, this word has long since lost its original meaning of "a war for the cross," and many are probably unaware that this is the derivation of the name. At present, "crusade" almost always means simply a vigorous campaign for a good cause. This cause may be political or military, though this is rare; more commonly, it is social, moral or environmental. In modern Western usage it is rarely if ever religious.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Like the President said, 'wanted, dead or alive'. I prefer dead myself and the sooner the better!
Can he claim to know the "Laws of Jihad" better than those Afghan so-called holy men? We've all read what they preach.
Afghanistan is as sick a society as Japan was before WWII.
After killing every terrorist and the camel he rode in on, we should reconstitute it just as thoroughly or more so than our parents and grandparents reconstituted Japan. Dig out MacArthur's notes, and do what he did.
I can hear the blafs bleating already, "Nation Building!" they'll cry, and worse. Afganistan is a nation that needs building from the bottom up, the top down, and side to side every which-a-way..
"Why is it our job?" they'll whine. Because we can do it and they cannot.
"Who gives you the right?" they'll simper. Self protection: if we allow that social puss to continue to fester we will get again what we got before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.