Is the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (in essance, even the whole 'war against terrorism' a religious w

My opponent states, "It is true that I am supporting that the religious war of today is interrelated with the religious wars of past. This is evident in the fact that the Muslim/Christian factions conflict is not new, and has, in fact, not ceased for over a thousand years. This is the 'war against terrorism' that Propaganda has labelled it. But is it really a war against terrorism, or an unconventional religious conflict fought between attempted dominants? " I feel that this point has already been addressed. If it was as my opponent suggests a religious conflict then the western Christian forces, would now be actively engaged in converting the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan. We would not see Islamic soldiers amongst the Coalition. We would not see attempts to re-create local Islamic forces, we would not see the USA and Saudi Arabia still locked together as close friends. "You have agreed that the Muslim factions are holding a 'Holy War', and, as such, by retaliating, the United States, NATO and 'Christian' faction, comprised of Infidels, has penetrated into a labyrinth of religious sentiments and angers that have sparked an all out Religious War. " However my opponents resolution suggests that this war is regarded as a religious conflict by both sides. All he has done is shown that it is regarded as a religious war by a minority of one of the demagraphics involved. "Next I will address your statement in Post 1, where you state that the majority of Islamic peoples do not fight against the Christian West. This is true, but then perhaps that is because many of the people whom aren't soldiering are women or children, aged, helpless, injured, businessmen or have families to feed and other responsibilities. " To clarify I meant amongst Islamic combatants. It would appear that the combined manpower of such Islamic groups as Al-Q, the Taliban, Hamas etc, is ultimately outnumbered by the Turkish Army, the 'New Iraqi Army, the Northern Alliance, the Pakistani Army and other pro-Western Islamic groups. "The Qua'ran (The Islamic religious core. I do believe that obeying the Qua'ran is one of the five pillars to get to heaven, is it not? ) clearly states in several places that the Infidels must be eradicated and that those who die 'honourably' in Jihad will go directly to Heaven. This is why there have been terrorist suicide bombings and events, taking out dozens of innocents along with them. It is this that makes the war religious. " Such statements are highly debatable and subjective, the koran also lays down rules for the tolerance of religious minorities and the observance of peace treaties with neighbouring pagans. Either way it is moot, as I recognise the existence of Muslims who for right or wrong are religious motivated to take up arms against others. This is simply a reiteration of what has already been established. My opponent has still failed to show how this view is dominant in, or representative of Islam. He has also failed to show how the Christian west regards itself as being in a religious war. He must do so to prove his resolution. "Yet, even though they have the numbers, does it not strike you as peculiar that they aren't able to stand against the Taliban (their former rulers and brothers) without Western support? I would venture to say that they don't truly want to, unless they can benefit in some way (for example, if Karzai turns out to be a better leader than the Taliban regime). " The Northern Alliance were already in conflict with the Taliban, the fact that they are still so with with western support is evidence against my opponents resolution. "I think that we have seen that the sentiments of many Islamic people, even here in the West, is not pro-West. " My opponents statement is vague, without support. Is many the majority? Even if it is then does this support my opponents contention? Only to the extent that my opponent can show evidence of some Islamic antagonism against the west which as has already been shown is not sufficient to support his resolution. "the Sikh peoples won't give up their Kirpans, even the children in school. " Totally different religion actually! "I believe that in society of today, such Christian references as, 'Christmas', have been turned to 'X-mas' or 'Happy Holidays' in order to be politically correct. Also, those whom are don't wish to offend those of other cultures; however, I don't see the Islam peoples trying not to offend those of the West, en masse (it is true that those whom have been born here may take the effort). " The abbreviation of Christmas to Xmas has been ongoing since my childhood (before the relatively recent rash of political corrrectness to which my opponent refers) and appears to be motivated by laziness and the decline of Christianity amongst an increasingly atheistic population. Most allegations of the poltically correct censorship of Christmas come from dubious sources and are inaccurate or only half true, when they have occured they are almost always traced back to a well meaning if confused white/native non-Muslim attempting to pre-empt offence when none was forthcoming. Either way I do not feel that this supports my opponents resolution. "The Byzantine Empire was a Christian Roman sector that controlled the Mediterranean. It was established as a second state (With Constantinople as its capital) due to a weakening of the entire empire. At the time of the rise of Islam, Byzantine was, yes, built on Hellenic foundations, but was also an entirely Christian State. " "Thus, I have negated my opponent's claims that the war was secular and Hellenistic in nature, as Byzantine was a Christian state at the time of the Arab wars. " However, the ancient Greek city states were not, Alexanders Empire was not, the Roman Empire for a large chunk of its history was not. The Christianity of the latter Byzantine state does not deny the model. Were the eastern Roman Empire to have remained pagan, it would still likely find itself at war with Islam. Were Islam never to have been born and Mohammed to unify the Arabs under Christianity then it would still likely have warred with a Christian or Pagan Byzantium. My opponent would model the conflict(s) on religion, however he need to show why modelling this on racial or cultural identity is not equally valid. Had the resolution been, "Al-Qaeda is religiously motivated" or similar he I feel would have won the debate, as it is the wording of the resolution requires that he must show some sort of consensus amongst not only the Islamic world but also the Christian one that a religious war exists, or to show by the behaviour of BOTH groups that such is the case. He has I feel for reasons I have already stated failed to show this.