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

My opponent states that, "Firstly, it is clear to us all that the most ancient of enemies were the Jews and the Moslems. Correct? Tensions were always high and battles fought. Then, the Jews are able to claim a sector of the Holy Land in their own Jewish State, due to Western Intervention. What exactly a Jewish state is, nobody can agree upon, but all can agree upon the fact that the modern country of Israel (established by the British in the '40's as a politically 'Jewish' state) is and has been at the height of tension for decades. It has fought with Egypt (a 'Moslem State' that hates it) and various other Moslem countries. So this is the oldest religious feud of them all. Then, many of the people of Israel changed their ideals and practices with the New Covenant of Christ (no longer was sacrifice necessary, Gentiles could become Christians etc.) arose Christianity (with the birth of Jesus). So a new enemy was formed to with which the Moslems would bicker." My opponent is arguing that the current wars are born out of/a continuation of the crusades and similar religious conflicts over the 'holy land' and as a result are also similarly religious wars. My rebuttal is that as history is an ongoing, organic process of cause and effect. Obviously a chain of causation can be drawn between the crusades and the wars under discussion, in much the same way that given enough knowledge a link of causation can be drawn between the crusades and the colour of a London double Decker bus. I could argue that the same events could be modelled not on the concept of Islam vs. Christianity but the equally valid concept of Greece vs. eastern races. Allow me to explain, prior to the rise of Islam, the 'holy land' was under the sway of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, which could be considered to be very much a Greek Empire. The rest of Europe owed it's cultural legacy, first to Rome and second to Greece. Rome for it's part considered itself a branch from Greece. European civilisation and her subsequent 'spin off' states therefore owe their origins to Greece and can be thought of as a continuation of the Greek civilisation. The eastern races can be considered those who are 'native' to the middle east such as the Arabs, as well as the Asiatic migrations/invasions of Parthians, Persians, Turks, Mongols who have all waged war on this extended concept of Hellenistic civilisation. The origin of the conflict can therefore be traced back to the attempts of the Persian Empire to conquer the Greek city states. Which was a secular conflict. The model is tenuous, but each (major) step in the casual link can be shown, it fits with historical fact and is therefore as demonstrably valid as my opponents claim that the modern wars arise out of the crusades. It is however as invalid to claim that Bush was following the agenda of Alexander the Great than it is to claim that Saddam regarded himself as Saladin. The origin does not define the end product. Thus my opponents resolution is negated. I will accept that my opponent has shown that some Muslims do regard themselves as involved in a religious war against Christianity, however many Muslims, indeed arguably more Muslims are on what is ostensibly/apparently the 'Christian' side of the conflict. Only the lunatic fringe of 'Christendom' would regard itself as involved in such a religious war. Even George Bush, with his many links to the Christian right amongst whom many would espouse such a view has stated that "Islam is a religion of peace". He, the instigator of this war as much or indeed perhaps more so than Osama bin laden does not regard this as a religious war, but a war concerning security and liberty. Thus in conclusion my opponent has failed to demonstrate how the Christian west, which consists of a majority of atheists can be thought of as fighting a religious war, and has made a case that only a minority of Muslims regard this as a religious war. It is therefore clear that this can not be defined as solely or even primarily a religious war. I also believe I have shown that connecting these conflicts in terms of 'value' to the crusades of old is invalid. I shall endeavour to follow the exhortation of my opponent and 'stay classy'. Thank you.