Who are the *real* crusaders?

Often, people like Osama bin Laden criticise Westerners as "crusaders."
What do they mean by the term? They mean a culture/nation/group that, using religion as justification, engages in conquest, invasion, and occupation.

Now, in the Middle Ages, Christian nations were indeed "Crusaders" - they assaulted the Holy Land using religion as justification etc.

Yet if we look at it in broader context, what single group has actually conquered more lands using religion as justification?

Christians? No, Christian lands were already occupied by the same groups, and there was no forcible invasion-and-conversion.
Jews? No
Muslims? Bingo. For several centuries, using religion as an EXPLICIT justification, muslim hordes embarked on a conquest of the Middle East, Asia Minor, and North Africa. The entire Muslim world today is the product of CONQUEST - "Crusading".

As one of the more recent religions it is of course going to be an invader... It does appear to have been particualarly... assertive.

I agree

Westerners justify conquest by appealing to the state (although I think it's a bit simplistic to say that, historically at least, religion played no role*), while Muslims use religion as a justification.

My initial thoughts are that may simply have something to do with the extent to which the two groups identify with their state on the one hand and their religion on the other... so muslims may be muslims first and, for example, Arabic second. While, e.g., English identify more strongly with being English than being Christian. I mean, most of European warfare has been against other christians, so it makes sense that their justification for war/conquest etc.would be nationalistic and not religious...

I just think this idea may have something going for it because it explains the difference between Muslim vs. Christian justification w/out resorting to ISLAM IS THE DEVIL type hysteria

So, just to recap ('cos I don't think I've been particularly clear in this post ) the idea is that Western and Muslim nations are equally expansionist but they simply use difference justifications due to the differential extent to which they identify with state and religion.

*The phrase "In hoc signo vince" seems to explicity associate religion and war, no?

That, and the fact that by the time Christianity became "big", the same cultural group already dominated Europe... there was no real need to conquer, they had everything they needed.

The whole Arab vs. Muslim thing is very interesting, I read a book called "The Arabs" that examines that exact issue at some length. Arab culture being, for example, quite expressive etc. whereas "Muslim culture" being less so; a dichotomy and constant tension, even.

pfft....every nation that Islam 'invaded' was been improved as a result of its Islamisation......and I'm not discussing the state of Islamic nations now. I'm discussing the immediate effects on those lands at the time of their 'invasion'. Those people would have been grateful to have the muslims teach them the various technological advances that they had picked up from previous conquests.....

That was the great thing about the rise of Islam and it's military conquests.....unlike other 'crusaders' the muslims did not just destroy and decimate every village and population they came across. They actually attempted to assimilate natives into Islam, that way the 'invaded' people get to carry on with their lives, except with the benefits of the advanced lifestyle that Islam offered them, and conversely, the muslims got to accumulate knowledge, and technology, which in turn helped them succeed on their next crusade.

Christian crusaders on the other hand......slightly less constructive approach.

where did you get that story from?

book about Salah-el-Din I read a few years back now.