아직 끝낸 것은 아니니까 단락의 흐름들이 자연스럽지 않아도 (특히 마지막에) 그냥 이해해주시고.. Overall 어떤지 평가 및 지적 플리즈.. “If we don't end war, war will end us.” - H. G. Wells “In war, truth is the first casualty” – Aeschylus Explaining the backgrounds, definitions and historical references of what is a war is unnecessary in this essay since the concept of what is a war is very clear for everyone in everywhere. However, it is important to know that there are several kinds of warfare according to the points of interest. War is an exercise of force for reasons such as national interest, ideology and religion. These reasons are somehow linked to each other but ultimately they all result in what we call “selfish, unmerciful and bloody egocentrism.”         Some people have argued if wars for self-defense could be justified. Agreed, a war can be initiated if an unprovoked violence breaks out against any faction. Nevertheless, no any other single act of violence can justified. Then another question rises: “Are not both Christians and Muslims struggling for self-defense?” Indeed, they call their wars as acts of defense. The crusades were for defense and the Jihad was also for defense. All wars were for defense. Indeed they stand for what they believe and they are eager to protect their religious values or customs even to death. However, they do not realize that all they have done is contradictory to the original teachings.         Nevertheless, before any discussion on the morals and ethics of a religious war and its characteristics, a brief explanation is required for the history of the crusades and jihad. The crusades was an international military campaign sponsored by the Papacy of Rome to “reconquer” (if that is the proper term) the holy lands of Jerusalem which were lost to the Arabs. However, this campaign’s true motives are strongly in dispute. According to a very interesting documentary of History Channel, in that time, European warlords were establishing there zones of influence making the medieval-feudal Europe in a more centralized system of government, the Pope felt then threatened by the growing powers of the local kings and tried to dissuade their attention towards more wars and bloodshed to weaken their capabilities.         In our perspectives, the term “reconquer” is also a verb misuse. In the first place, Jerusalem never belonged to the Papacy, nor to any other European warlords and the people there, never asked for help. Then, no military related actions of the Christians in that place can be justified. They say that it was to protect their religious brethren and reestablish control on the Holy land; however, they sacked and looted Constantinople which was a Christian city and even dared to establish their own kingdom there (although it lasted for a relatively short period of time). Moreover, many of the people, the captured cities of Christians were made subjects of a greater tyrant than before. As a reflection, it is possible to wonder where have gone all the Christian preaches and teachings.         In addition, Guy de Lusignan, ruler of Jerusalem, and Reynald de Chantillon was a ruthless and blood-hungry voracious beast who committed massive crimes against civilians of his own city (remember Jerusalem was populated with diverse ethnic and religious groups). He harassed the Muslim pilgrims and even attacked them to loot any objects of value. Moreover, they even threatened to attack the holy cities of Medina and Mecca which in consequence, became a great impact for the Muslims in a very negative way. In contrast, Saladin the righteous, defender of the Muslim soil, has shown mercy for any people no matter of the religion. He did not kill any Christian civilians and even managed to pay the ransom for “his” captured Christians.(Wikipedia, 2006) However, that is only a very particular case of a great Muslim whose reputation is almost unmatched.   On the other hand, Muslim Jihads after Muhammad, cannot be justified either. Allah never mentioned about conquering the infidels by force without their consent. Nonetheless, the Muslim caliphates or sultanates struggled hard to gain more and more land. Religion had nothing to do with this military expansion. It was merely a vicious ambition of a regular warlord and king of everywhere else in those times. Relating it with religious matter is only disguising the nature of war with pretty words and ideals, and once more, nothing to do with the very teachings that both religions (Christianity or Islam) hold.   The Qu’ran and Hadith cleary mention: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.”- Quran 2:190 "Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud). “Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal). However, the terrorists target not-specific civilian population provoking fear, unrest, and hatred. They claim they are following Allah but all they do is perverting the Islam and contradicting its very teachings. Recently there was a terrorist attack in a mosque killing 10 people and wounding many (global security, 2006). This is a clear violation against the Hadith which clearly states to not kill any people in places of worship. Their actions are composed of completely unethical, unmoral, unreligious and inhuman violence which in result produces an unending loop of vendettas.          In regard of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, it should not be treated as a mere religious conflict but a political and ethnical one. It is a clear fact that prior to the WWII, the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine was Palestinian Arabs. Thanks to the Balfour Declaration, the treaty of Jews and British, the end of WWII, the Zionist campaign, large groups of Jews immigrated to Palestine. Yet, despite of the large population of Palestinians, they did not have a centralized government and it was easy for Jews (with western back up) to establish a government system in that zone. However, nationalism is never an easy piece to handle. Several nations have struggled and are struggling hard to gain independence and to establish their own governments as the U.S.A. in the 18th century, Latin American nations during the 19th century, Basques, Kurds, Tibetans, etc. The Palestinians are one of them, and every nation should have the right to exercise its very determination and values as Theodore Roosevelt said. So, this problem should not be analyzed as mere religious conflict but a very political one which needs a historical, political, societal explanation prior to mess with religion. After having solved all their political and historical struggles, a religious one shall be in place.     In response to the question of why are the religious wars the bloodiest of all, the answer is simple. Religion guarantees a concept of heaven, an unphysical world after death where unlimited happiness and joy is granted. These fanatics have been taught that their actions shall grant them direct passport to heaven to end any suffering on Earth. People who have nothing to lose, and people who have little to lose are easily deceived by this “idea” regardless of its corruption. Then, these people become eager to give their lives to pursue the ultimate goal which is the eternal joy with Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, etc. Each faction holds the idea that theirs is the best and that the others are bad. As every member of the faction believes in a free heaven passport from their deeds, they struggle until no other is left for action. No religious wars truly represent what they hold as value or virtue. All of them are for political interests and lack of tolerance. Verily, it is possible to state that they all culminate in an endless cycle of bloodshed until one has annihilated the other. However, resistance from both sides is strong and it seems more likely that the war is to consume them first than a victory from either sides.   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------