To start things off, the Crusades was a war between the Muslims and Christians for Jerusalem. Both parties told themselves and their men that they were fighting for God. But what they really were fighting for was LAND. Also both parties believed that killing was what God wanted. Former President Bush said ''I believe God wants me to run for president.'' Now comparing the Crusades to Iraq's Invasion, President Bush and the leaders of the Muslim and Christian armies both had the mentality of kind of being a ''profit'' (someone who is sent on earth from God or a messenger from God.)
My argument is that history is repeating itself. The Invasion on Iraq is a split image of the Crusades. Pointless. The leaders from then and now both had this idea of providence. In the article it said, ''Providence can acquire various meanings depending on the circumstances.'' which is absolutely true but it doesn't change Bush's meaning when he talks about God wanting his presidency. One thing that really stood out to me was the irony in both the crusades and invasion: As a country we do not want other countries invading on us or blowing our buildings up. But when we don't get our way, we do it to them hurting innocent people. Now, in the crusades the Muslims and Christians believed in the same God but had different names. Which meant that both parties believed in the 10 Commandments. One of the commandments are ''Thou shall not kill'' but each party went to the crusades to ''fight for God'' and KILL people. Isn't it ironic that the good people think they're doing ends up being a complete contradiction? Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343870/why-did-we-invade-iraq-victor-davis-hanson
Achieve3000.com
No comments:
Post a Comment