"War and Peace"?

Why not just "Peace"? Why must peace always be accompanied by war? Is there a reason war exists at all?

Yes. If one were to look at mankind through the same lens we look at other species through, one could see that man is an abnormally aggressive species. Humans fight over essentially anything, from mates to food and territory. No other species claims territory as its own. It is essentially in our genetics to fight one another. From the earliest societies, man was at war with one another. It began with conflicts over food and resources. Eventually some group decided that all the food behind some line was theirs, and land disputes began.
Compare these early men to modern humans. What has changed? Not a whole lot. Most wars are still fought by groups of people claiming that the resources behind some line are theirs. Why are humans always at war with each other? Because that's the way we are.

Trickle-Down Economics Trickles Apart

I stumbled upon this video awhile back so I guess I should share it on here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

This video makes an easy chart to help demonstrate the distribution of wealth in the United States. Showing how the rich in the country slowly get richer and the poor progressively move more south economically. It is actually rather scary to see the social divide the economic statuses create in a country, nevertheless, our own.

Maybe we should rethink the effectiveness of Reagan's "trickle down" system.

This afternoon I watched an interview with Jack Kerouac, the famed author of On the Road and one of the founders of the Beat Generation. In this interview, Kerouac paraphrased Leo Tolstoy, saying that the sands of time were like those in an hourglass and one day (though they pass slowly), war will end. Kerouac believed this would be soon; as this interview was from 1968 he was soon to be proved horribly wrong.
I did a little research and found that, in fact, Tolstoy had never really said that; Kerouac was close in his reference, but more or less missed his mark. Regardless, activists, poets, writers, and scholars such as Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau certainly have applied Tolstoy's ideals to their own work, which, while making no direct reference to an hourglass, were of a similar nature. Gandhi, in particular, worked with this idea of patience (as the sands take a great deal of time to fall) and used it in his campaign to free India of British rule. Without raising a single fist to fight, Gandhi removed the British from India and freed his nation, all without the use of warfare.
In the end, what many violent confrontations boil down to is a lack of pre-meditated, clear thought that, if applied, could provide simpler and far less harmful solutions than acting on impulse. In other words, patience. Not to say that all warfare is unjustified; no, many times in the past that path had to be taken. But those who created the situations - who forced their fellow men and women into warfare - simply weren't examining the peaceable options.
If people with ideals such as Gandhi and of course the countless other activists for peace around the world can exist and sway others to put stock in their views, there is some semblance of hope for humanity. A few can affect a great many, and that's really all it takes for such a drastic change to occur.

Syria

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/18/intel-chief-al-qaeda-cell-in-syria-poses-threat/

Right now in Syria we are waiting for the green light with the White House to train and arm the Syrian rebels against Isis. Isis just released another hostage video and even though Syria is our rebels too we don't want Isis to over take them. The more threats and claims being received the more serious this is becoming for us. I think we should team up with the al-Nusra Front. I don't think we should rush right into battle but i think we need to be prepared in case the attack comes here. At this point I don't think we can stay neutral anymore. Innocent people are becoming beheaded and if we were in this kind of trouble we would want someone to help us. This group is tech savvy and the media is just now catching on to the group.

Angelina Alfano

An Honorable Comparison

     Reading King Henry VI's inspirational speech to his men reminded me of the movie Braveheart.  Just like King Henry, the hero of Braveheart,William Wallace, leads an army that is greatly outnumbered to battle. In Wallace's case, he is staging a rebellion against England in order to free his homeland, Scotland, from its control.  In Henry's speech, he instills a positive attitude in his men by talking about the great reward that fighting and winning would bring them for the rest of their lives.  Similarly, Wallace and his men are driven to fight and win because they are very passionate about their homeland, despite the odds.

     The immediate results of the battles fought by King Henry and Wallace differed greatly from each other, but the message was the same.  King Henry's inspiration and talk about honor was enough to guide his men to success.  Despite William Wallace's determination, he was defeated by the English as they captured him and sentenced him to death.  However, Wallace died with a sense of honor that was not unlike that of King Henry.  Instead of admitting he had done wrong, which would have allowed him a quick death, Wallace yells out, "Freedom!" and dies a slow and painful, yet prideful, death.  This honorable action struck a new flame in the hearts of the Scottish rebels which helped them to eventually defeat the English.  Therefore, the outcomes of both battles proves that pride and honor can drive people to accomplish things that they would not have accomplished otherwise.  

Should Obama return his Nobel Peace Prize?

   2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama has started bombing another Middle Eastern country-Syria- for the 7th time in recent years (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Iraq).Since Obama took this perhaps unethical approach in an attempt to eliminate terrorist group ISIS, there has been some debate over whether he should revoke his Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize in general is given to someone who has done the most work towards creating nonviolent international relations and eliminating war throughout the world... and in the opinions of many, killing of civilians and supplying copious amounts of weapons doesn't exactly fit the description.

    However, you could argue that maybe Obama has initiated policies like drone attacks and bombings in order to achieve peace through eliminating terrorism. Unfortunately, if what we know from experience about the middle east and terrorist cells is true, then bombing Syria will only result in more backlash against ISIS's persecutors, thus creating a war-like environment.

    So is Obama still worthy of maintaining his title of Peace Prize recipient alongside humanitarians like Mother Teresa, Elie Wiesel, and Nelson Mandela? It is my personal opinion that the large number of civilian deaths carried out during Obama's presidency should cause his title to be revoked.

War will always be part of human life

There is truly no way around war.  It will always be an event that occurs.  Mainly, because there will always be jealousy, opposing opinions and power hungry officials in office.  And although it has only been a direct cause a few times, religion will always be a prime contributor to international conflict.  ISIS, for example, hates America primarily for being a cultural that accepts many religions, not just one. ISIS is slaughtering people that oppose their ideas and those who are not of Sunni-Islamic faith.  Hitler, as another example, was extremely power hungry.  The European powers kept attempting to appease him, yet he always wanted MORE, which was a factor that lead to WWII.  Personally, I am not against war, nor am I pro-war.  In a sense, i am indifferent about it, for there is nothing we can do about.  Anti-war protests don't end wars, and neither do pro-war rallies start wars.  But I believe in a way that the old "eye for an eye" saying holds true.  It may not solve the problem, but it gives a sense of understanding to the person or country that started it.  You bombed our land an killed civilians? Fine, we'll do the same to you so you can understand how it feels.  War is just a part of human nature that we have to accept and be able to live with.

Opinions of war

Based on the events in the past 14 years with the U.S' involvement with Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria, I've come to realize that I don't like war. I feel war is just a way to kill thousands even millions of men and women to kill thousands and millions just to do what? Prove who is superior? What is even being fought over? I guess in government, they want this. I'm sure there are different ways to handle situations.

A war was fought for 8 years and 9 months to FIND A MAN! The Afghan War is coming up to 13 years to take down a political movement that is kind of like a government. I mean, come on guys, we tried to take down communism and there is still countries under communist rule. We got lucky with the Nazis.

It seems that only ancient military troops were able to take down a government.(granted, there weren't really governments yet)



This is 100% my opinion, I don't like war and if someone doesn't agree with me, nothing can change my views on war.

The other night, I realized that I didn’t entirely know as much about ISIS as I wanted to, so I read some recent articles on their involvement in the Syrian conflict. These led me to a documentary from Vice News, which established their history, leadership, plan of action, purpose, and progress thus far. 

At one point, a man who preached propaganda from his van for the Islamic State was interviewed. He had originally been from Belgium. He spoke of his faith in ISIS and its leadership and his oath sworn to Abu Bakr Al-Bagdhadi, the caliph. 

His son was then brought forward, very shy and easily no older than five. The man asked his son if he wanted to return to Belgium. His son said he did not. Then he asked his son if he liked the Islamic State. His son replied that he did. He then inquired of his son as to why they killed “infidels,” meaning mainly Europeans and Americans in general. His son replied, “They kill Muslims.”

Now, putting the root causes of the conflict aside, think about it: Europeans and Americans have killed Muslims. Perhaps not unprovoked, but we have. This little boy was raised knowing only that, and he, at such a young age, already wants to kill us. 

I was angry at this boy, but I couldn’t figure out why. What he was saying was perfectly true. I couldn’t even think of any flaws in his argument. Yes, ISIS has threatened the US and Europe and committed atrocious acts of terrorism against us, but haven’t the Europeans been invading their lands for centuries? Haven’t we tried to insert our methods of government into ways of life that have existed practically since the dawn of civilization? And as they have killed some of our people, have we not killed some of theirs?

This boy wanted to kill me. He made that expressly clear. And I found myself thinking that I might want to kill him, too. But the only reason I could find to do so was because he wanted to kill me in the first place.

My point is that it’s pretty apparent that both sides of this conflict thoroughly believe they are right. Naturally, that can’t be true. So one or both of us has to be wrong. But neither will admit it. 

What will we do if it’s us?

The F.S.A., or the Free Syrian Army, is internationally known as both a radical rebellion organization and a self-justifying terrorist organization. This organization is known for countless of kidnappings, murders, threats, suicide bombings, and various other acts of terrorism against both the corrupt Syrian government and the innocent civilians of it's people. These so called, "Armed Operations",  have caused an extensive amount of chaos and death throughout the areas of which they are established. Why are they of any more interest over other similar groups and organizations: because United States President Obama, along with other positions, wish to, and have begun to, train, aid, and arm them in their battle against their government and the other radicals controlling it.

That the United States would aid a terrorist organization ,responsible for the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, is against all morals the country once held dear. It is not the right nor the place for the United States to involve itself with the foreign conflicts between or within other countries they are not associated with. Furthermore, the arming and training of terrorists puts many more lives at risk, including American lives. With troops on Syrian soil, it is very likely a historically untrustworthy and radical organization, such as the F.S.A., would fire upon US troops to fulfill their radical agenda. Considering the ideologies of sovereignty, foreign isolation, neutrality, and even the slightest of morality, the entire situation is appalling. Under this plan, the United States will be assisting the slaughtering and terrorizing the lives and well being of innocents and soldiers of both neutral Syrians/Iranians, and potentially US and European involved persons.

PORTRAY OF AN ENEMY

PORTRAY OF AN ENEMY

enemy [en-uh-mee] noun, person, nation, etc., that are hostile to one another.
If you type the word 'enemy' on google, the definitions you will find will be similar to one another, but if you ask a man about his enemy you will be able to hear thousands of different descriptions, thousand of different stories, thousands of different perceptions.
 In the Hellenistic Greece - 2200 years ago-, under commission of Attalus I of Pergamon, an anonymous sculptor represented his enemy as a wounded man that refuses to bend in front of death: TheDying Gaul. Although the sculpture is a reminder of the Celts' defeat, it demonstrates that the Greeks were able to see nobility and heroism even in their own enemies. The white marble statue, that originally was made of bronze, depicts a man lying on the battlefield ground with remarkable realism and pathos. His chest is bleeding, wounded by a sward and although his face expression and his position suggest great pain, with a second attentive glance you can see his struggle. He knows that death and defeat are near but he doesn't let pain win over him, he fights until the end as a warrior whom he is and knows that he's dying with honor.
 The Dying Gaul is one of the greatest examples of the use of pathos, it's the victor showing empathy to the victim in a period of our history when it was completely normal to kill a man for a matter of honor or revenge.
 The Greeks had been able to represent his enemy with the best qualities and the best attitude in front of death an Hellenistic man could have had, can we now, 2200 years later, think of our enemy with the same respect?  I bet most of the people would say yes, but then why, -in a time when we have been taught to forgive, to treat our enemy as our friends- why would we decide to bomb other nations, other men? Why would we like to see more people falling, more children crying, more buildings crumbling? Why would we let other people live in smoke and ashes and fire and fear?
Why would man kill another man only because he's labeled as enemy?

The Dying Gaul is an ancient Roman sculpture that is thought to have been created some time between 230 and 220 BCE by Attalus I of Pergamon. The original sculpture was made of bronze, but a marble copy is what that remains today. The dying Gaul was sculpted in celebration of a victory, and it is a sculpture of a gladiator who was killed from the opposing side. I found interesting that the artist would depict the gladiator in a way that people would feel sympathy for him, considering the fact that the gladiator was not on their side during the battle. He manages to depict wounded gladiator with extremely remarkable realism and pathos. In the gladiator's right side, there is a bleeding sword puncture. His facial expression clearly shows that he is in excruciating pain, yet he still struggles to hold himself up with every bit of effort that he has left; he wants to die an honorable death. The agony that this gladiator must have been in is almost unimaginable, but somehow the artist is able to make us “feel” the pain that he is suffering through. It is amazing how the artist was able to portray such emotion through this sculpture.

I see before me the gladiator lie:

He leans upon his hand; - his manly brow

Consents to death, but conquers agony,

And his drooped head sinks gradually low -

And through his side the last drops, ebbing slow

From the red gash, fall heavy, one by one,

Like the first of a thunder-shower; and now

The arena swims around him - he is gone,

Ere ceased the inhuman shout which hailed the wretch who won.

~Lord Byron

In this poem about The Dying Gaul, not only does the author provide you with a description of how brave the gladiator was, but of the gash on the gladiator's side. He describes the gash as being red, which is interesting because the sculpture is entirely white. I feel that this description really proves that the artist did an amazing job with portraying emotion through the sculpture. I decided to make a sketch of the sculpture, but instead of keeping it entirely black or white, I made the gladiator's wound red. I did this because I found it amazing that the realism and pathos in the sculpture allowed for the author of the poem to see the gladiator this way.

Obama's Plan

               Considering the recent events that our beloved president has announced that we are going to airstrike Syria. Now I don't know about anyone else, but with what I personally think, I don't agree with the actions that Obama is taking into play. When Obama says that any terrorist that threaten us will be hunted down and killed, I agree but disagree at the same time. I agree that we should punish someone who threatens us and tries to go through with the threat. I disagree in the sense that if a terrorist all the way in Syria is threatening us but doesn't follow through with it or try it than why can't we leave them alone?
               For some strange reason I rather just be at peace or ignore the people we don't like. If you disagree with me well I'm sorry but I think war is stupid unless the other country attacks us first then and only then do I think we should get involved.
               As I know we have discussed in class that if we try to destroy ISIS group than people who were neutral in Syria could get mad and we could have more people against us in a long run. I also don't feel like this plan was well thought through Obama's mind because I honestly feel like he just pulled the plan out of his butt, saying that we will kill anyone involved in ISIS to get rid of the ISIS group altogether. But people who rebel against us because we killed so many people, it will just create more of a problem.

Carissa Navarra

With Syria in the news as of the events from 2011, I thought to bring more clarity to my understanding of the conflict, I would find a way to formulate opinions based on a historical context to find a deeper understanding. This casual video explains the prior conflict quite efficiently and is a great video to watch if you want more information than just this horrifically brief summary of my research of the history of Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRFz7629cuw

Syria, from its origins in 10,000 BCE had been a thriving civilization with its developments of agriculture and revolutionary domestication of animals such as cattle breeding. Isn't it shocking to know every hamburger you've ever eaten has been traced back to a place of such controversy in our age? If you have ever played the board game Risk, you know Syria is a sucker’s bet to defend as for centuries, and over time, some of the world’s greatest conquerors like Alexander the Great and Pompey took over Syria for its ideal location with water borders for trade and commerce. Syria was also used a land trade route that connected the Mediterranean world with the Middle East and parts of Asia, The first hints of today’s conflicts occurred in 640 AD when the Rashidun army took Syria for the Islamic empire. When the Rashiduns collapsed due to power abuse, more Islamic groups fought and conquered. Soon enough after advancements in sea navigation, Syria’s use as a land trade route began to fade into obscurity until the era of the World Wars when the French took over the Syrian territories. Syria gained independence in 1941. It went on to fight in the Arab-Israeli war against the newly formed Israel, but when the Syrians lost, a huge military coup occurred. It went from outside forces overthrowing Syria to a multitude of inside forces from coup after coup which each overthrowing power having new ideas on how to strictly maintain power until the Baath party of the early 1960s. The current president Bashar Al-Assad was thought to bring change to Syria, a region long filled with aging dictators. He was well educated, and many believed he would be capable of transforming his father's dictatorship into a modern state. He has failed in this notion as he is a great oppressor to his people. In March 2011, civil war took place in Syria. He has responded the protest and violence with the use of his force.

What I have noticed about Syria over time in my research is that although world altering events such as the Crusades, for example, were occurring, Syria maintained the same purpose and even until today some of the issues of the past are still relevant. Islamic groups, for example, for good or bad could always find their way into the land to conquer it for its unique properties and vulnerabilities. Its location in particular makes it easy to topple with few natural borders, a major sea border, and a neighbor of feuding Iraq which easily spreads its influence to the region. ISIS for example has found its way into Syria due to the civil war of internal conflict. This group has taken advantage of the weaknesses of Syria and picked a perfect time to attack. I honestly believe that the Syrians do not know anything better to solve their problems then force as their past president, Hafez al-Assad was quoted saying, "We shall never call for, nor accept peace. We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land. We have resolved to drench this land with our blood, to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good." With the history of fighting in this area it just seems common for these events to be occurring one after another in addition to the civil war. When the US became involved it became a bigger issue to the average American person, which shows that these things happen all the time, yet they slip past our minds unless they threaten or benefit ourselves. Syrians have been fighting for almost their entire existence against internal and external forces, but this terrorist threat from ISIS should be taken very seriously as should the other conflicts because they put millions of innocent lives in danger.

Perhaps in the future I could continue to discuss the history of Syria more because it is rich and fascinating and connect that with the notions of present day. For now, we have new developments each day to watch and see how this situation will be handled and reacted to by the world.

Reflection on the Dying Gaul

            In the first or second century AD, an unknown artist rendered an image of a physically, yet not mentally, conquered Gaul warrior. The sculpture, originally cast in bronze, literally depicts a man who has been wounded and is dying. However, the positioning of the body, being propped up on one arm, as if letting himself down to the ground on his own terms, shows the audience of the piece that the artist meant not to show the conquered enemy in his dying moment, but rather to respect a man as he struggles to control his pain and suffering nobly. If we look at the statue as not a statue but a human being we see a man holding down an immense amount of pain and taking his last moments into his own hands.

            On the right side of the statue, there is a gash in the man’s skin. On the human body there runs an artery in this area. Blood moving through these arteries has an approximate speed of three feet per second, so imagine the reality of this sculpture before you. One can imagine him on a field after battle, so weak that he no longer can keep pressure on the blood shooting out of his body, slowly letting himself down into the grass to die on his own terms.

            The Gaul’s face is contorted, showing the viewer that he is indeed suffering greatly, which is not readily understood from a simple glance at the piece. The realism employed by the artist on the Gaul’s face uses pathos to cause the viewer to actually experience what the Gaul is experiencing himself, whether through the use of conscious imagination or the unconscious firing of mirror neurons, I do not know. However, it is remarkable that such an early human being could evoke such empathy in even the modern viewer. The Dying Gaul truly shows that human emotion is timeless and universal, existing commonly throughout all races of man. The Dying Gaul is a testament to the power of human will.

THE ISIS THREAT
As we all know, the terrorist group ISIS or ISIL, or IS, or whatever they want to call themselves has brought many problems to the United States and in turn, the world. But recently, their tactics have changed. More beheadings of innocent lives and mass executions take place in the middle east. The Unite dStates refuses to put boots on the ground but President Obama has stated that military advisers have been sent to the governments of countries combating ISIS to train their military andy aid them with weapons and such. Some say these moves are too much involvement. Some say that its too little. Obviously, everyone is going to have their opinion.

Only a few days ago, the Australian government has foiled an ISIS terrorist plot on their soil. The group planned to select a random individual off the street and behead them on tape to scare the world. Luckily, the plot was exposed and the Australian government quickly assed the issue.This shocked the world as Australia is in most way, a neutral country.

Who attacks Australia, right?

For the fist time in all of history, Australia has implemented their terror attack threat level. In turn, the rest of the world is also moire vigilant due to that its now obvious that anyone can be affected by this terrorist group. Perhaps President Obama should rethink his plans to deal with ISIS.

During the Trojan War, Athena and Poseidon were in favor of the Greeks. As we read in class, they assisted Achilles in killing Hector during a one on one battle. In the sculpture above, made circa 40-30 BC, we see none other than the work of Athena and Poseidon again. During the famous Trojan horse attack, Laocoön, a priest of Apollo in the city of Troy, warned Trojans not to accept the horse. Athena and Poseidon, afraid he would foil the whole plan, sent two sea serpents to kill Laocoön and his 2 sons. One person did heed this warning though. Aeneas fled troy, which led to the eventual founding of Rome.

Where Is The Love?

                            Who would have guess that the 11 year old hit single by the Black Eyed Peas,"Where is the Love", held so much significant meaning behind it? Besides having a catchy beat, the song describes many different issues in our society that we are dealing with as a country. Over a century has passed since the song has been released, and it is still so relevant to what is going on in our lives today. The recent Isis slayings of the United States journalists, and many other victims from other countries as well, have raised an uproar across the nation. People are angry that Obama has been reluctant to act upon the down right evil slaughtering of our own citizens;but realistically, there is a lot at stake with the actions he is going to be making in the near future. As all of our attention is focused on what is being done to decimate Isis, we are all missing the big picture; the one that this song's lyrics blatantly point out.
                              We, as a nation, are so concerned with what is happening in the Middle East that we aren't paying as close attention as we should to what's going on in our own backyards.(Not Literally) :]   A specific verse that jumped out at me was one that is such an obvious problem that is constantly overlooked in the United States. The verse goes something like...
"Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism,
but we still got terrorists here livin'
 in the USA, the big CIA
The Bloods and the Crips and the KKK." BINGO. This is perfect. I can understand why our government is so concerned with the possible threat of a nuclear battle with a terrorist group, or any attack on the United States for that matter.. but what about whats already IN the United States. Fixing what we are as a society, with the underlying racial tensions, and the stereotypical "man who wears a turban is a terrorist" type attitude. Sharing information about the events that are going on in our own country can help us grow together. When we grow together, we will grow to love one another. It's obvious that peace is an impossible thing to achieve, but if we start weeding out, and more importantly causing awareness about some of the horrible things that happen in our own country; such as gangs, terrorist support groups, murder, etc. Before taking on the bad in other countries, we should focus on the issues within our own; and then we might be on a better path to some sort of peacefulness not only in the nation, but in our own communities as well.


Where Is The Love?  By The Black Eyed Peas  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc 

The Winged Symbol

                Many of us are familiar with the company Nike, however very few of the world knows of a piece of mythology that shares the same name and shape (in general ).  The Winged Victory of Samothrace is an remarkable piece of art. She represents many things however at first glance one is stricken with awe. The form of the piece is remarkable; the movement the Nike expresses despite being a static figure is very convincing.  The sculptor had taken a great amount of time making the folds in the fabric soft and yet, at the very same time so sharp as to slap the observer in the face with emotion and movement. This piece is so moving because it displays the skill that sculptors had at the time of The Nike’s creation (around 200 BC). Skill that even in today is hard to achieve with our technology and yet the Greeks were able to craft such a piece many centuries ago is a fact to marvel at. 

George Washington's View on War

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."
       --George Washington

Preparing troops for battle with Syria doesn't entail war rather than possibly maintaining peace.

ISIS can essentially never be stopped

ISIS will never be stopped.  No matter how many airstrikes we send and no matter how many Syrians we train.  I do believe that military intervention is necessary and will impede their efforts, ISIS will never be 100% gone.  The ones who are involved in this group are indeed Sunni extremists with a passion and nothing to lose.  Their texts state that if they die for their cause, they will be rewarded greatly in the next life.  "The Qur'an does also mention that those who fight in the way of Allah (jihad) and get killed will be given a "great reward",and there are also hasan (good) hadith which refer to 72 virgins as one of the "seven blessings from Allah" to the martyr. This has lead to the 72 virgins concept being widely used as a way to entice other Muslims into carrying out "martyrdom operations" for Islam."  We are dealing with a group of religious extremists that are willing to kill themselves for a cause,for an example, the roots of the 9/11 attack.  Especially if religion is involved, which it is 99% of the time, their cause and reasons will never never die out.  ISIS can be compared to other terror groups, like the Taliban, in how they just "pop up" around the middle east.  You kill one kingpin, another pops up.  You kill one "clan", another crawls out from nowhere.  Military intervention will keep them at bay, but ISIS, i believe, will always exist and will never completely dissolve.

A Historic Look at Middle Eastern Conflict - 1096-1099 - The First Crusade

The First Catholic Crusade in 1096 A.D. was not called intentionally. The Seljuk Turks in the modern-day Iraq-Iran area have been waging war with the Byzantine Empire, not Catholic but Eastern Orthodoxy, for upwards of 25 years by this point. The Byzantine Emperor Constantine I sent a call for the western nations to aid him in repelling the Muslim belligerents, and Pope Urban II responded. He decided it would be a good time to also reclaim the holy land in Jerusalem. So the western Catholic nations of France, England, and the Holy Roman Empire sent troops to Jerusalem and sieged and captured the city. They set up the crusader states of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the county of Edessa, the county of Tripoli, and the principality of Antioch. Most of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is in what is now Israel.

So, as one can see, conflict in the Middle East is nothing new. The roots of the conflict lie deep in Christianity and Islam and how the two tie together in the Holy Land. There would be 6 more major crusades and innumerable minor ones before the era's end, all in the name of recapturing Jerusalem. Today, the conflict is hardly recognizable from where it began. The ideals are not the same, as the Islamic State is not necessarily anti-Christian as they are anti-west. Their goals are not the same, as they are not interested in Jerusalem (yet). However it can be traced all the way back to here, Pope Urban II and the First Crusade.

The Isis just made a huge offensive move

Islamic State fighters backed by tanks have captured 21 Kurdish villages over the past 24 hours in northern Syria near the Turkish border, prompting civilians to flee their homes amid fears of retribution by the extremists sweeping through the area, activists said. Since Wednesday, Islamic State militants appear to have gained the upper hand in Syria's northern Kurdish region of Kobani, also known as Ayn Arab, overrunning 21 Kurdish villages, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. It said there were casualties on both sides, but that Kurdish civilians were fleeing their villages for fear that Islamic State group fighters "will commit massacres against civilians." The conflict appears far from over