You're right, I'm making some assumptions, they're just the opposite of the assumptions you're making

I never said I wasn't making assumptions, I never presented my assumptions as facts. While you used your assumptions to "explain" something.

. You're assuming that there will be millions of Christians who answer the call, and that they'll be war veterans/soldiers/reservists, and that those who do respond will be numerous enough and capable enough to organize everyone else. I disagree, but it's all hypothetical, so hard to argue either way.

I never used my assumption to explain anything like you, I just stated it as a possibility.

Even if absolutely no one goes on a crusade, it would at least be a symbolic gesture.

There's a huge difference between war tourism and actually engaging in fighting. You like to watch war movies, right? Does that mean you'd like to have bullets, grenades, and mortars lobbed your direction?

Yeah I'm sure fighting in Libya, Kurdistan and Donbass is like watching a movie m8.

The question was whether such a crusade would fit within the tenets of Christianity, the answer to which is an unequivocal "no."

I'm just saying how the world works. You can't keep turning the other cheek forever, people who do that get walked all over on and eventually killed.

Christianity was used as a flag to rally troops, which goes against Christian principles.

Basically everything that most christians do nowadays is a violation of "christian principles" so I don't see how this is any different.

Additionally, the issue in question was whether or not a crusade would violate both Christian and legal boundaries, the answer to which, is "yes."

but dues vult