I wrote this right after Ireland's post at 29 Dec 02 - 01:51 PM, as a reply to it and the Mudcat went down before I posted it. So I'll post it now anyway:

I'd suggest that the reason why Bush was criticised for using the word "Crusade" in this context was that in doing so he was implying that the line of conflict was between Christians on one side and Muslims on the other.

I'm not an Arabic speaker, but my understanding is that Jihad essentially means "holy struggle". In which case in a sense a Crusade is just a special Christian version of this concept. In both cases the term has been used to cover many kind of non-violent activity as well. But also some horrible things, both in the Middle Ages and more recently - for example the code name for Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union was "Operation Barbarossa", referring to a Crusading Emperor.

Only a very very stupid person could have used the term in the context of trying to build a coalition which has to include Muslims - most of whom were appalled by what happened on September 11th, and see it as an act of blasphemy for those responsible to have associated it with the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

It is clear that "these guys" whom Ireland casually indicates that it is all right to torture (though I am sure he doesn't actually mean that) include innocent people. Equally clearly, the guys who are doing the torture are themselves terrorists, engaged in a terrorist activity, which degrades everybody who consents to it or approves of it.

Real true believing terrorist don't tend to crack under torture - the people who crack are the fringe people pulled in, and the totally innocent, who have no accurate information, but say whatever they think might stop the torturers. It's a lousy way of getting accurate information. It's a great way of getting false information and false confessions.