Nobby style
Full Member
I can't speak for Mihajlovic but since I raised the topic I'll answer.
I was, in fact, trying to make the opposite point, while at the same time seeing if you could hold a consistent stance.
My point was that any narrative of a clash of civilizations, of 'Islam vs. The West' or whatever shouldn't be accepted or go unchallenged even though one particular group (European Christians 1,000 years ago, many Muslims today) believe there to be a string of reasons proving it to be true.
There are many factors which undermine or complicate the Crusader notion of an Islamic war on Christianity. Similarly, the idea that the West is today at war against Islam doesn't hold up. To take three examples:
1. Many Middle Eastern and North African Christians were quite happy to exchange Byzantine rule for that of the Muslims, as they found the latter generally more tolerant of their diverse beliefs.
Likewise today, many Muslims find a much greater degree of religious freedom in the West then they do in predominantly Muslim countries.
2. During the Crusades and after, many Muslim states were willing, time and again, to ally with Christians against their Muslim rivals.
Likewise today you get many Western or Christian states sometimes ready to support Muslims against others (e.g. Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims vs. Serbs, or Pakistan vs. India and by extension the Soviets).
3. The Crusaders' 'defense' of the Holy Land involved the slaughter of Jews and other minority Christian sects they deemed deviant.
Likewise, jihadists' 'defense' of Islam today involves the targeting mostly of other Muslims.
The idea that Islam and the West are locked in some kind of inevitable perpetual conflict is among the most dangerous notion floating about these days. It shouldn't be accepted with a shrug of the shoulder and a "what do you expect?" attitude, rather those on both 'sides' who subscribe to it need to be challenged constantly.
I don´t think anybody is locked into any perpetual conflict notion between Islam and the West and the whole crusaders gobbledygook. I think it boils down to massive resentment in the middle east towards the west, and in particular against the US, and "Islam" has become a rallying point in these third world nations, much the way "communism" was 40 to 50 years ago. It´s a sign of protest against the West and its social/economic meddling and all the military and political/economical baggage that inevitably accompanies it. This is not rocket science. It´s classical blowback. No one should be surprised. And no one should condone it in the form of what happened in Paris or 9/11 etc. It must be contained, and especially the funding of it must be identified and dealt with.
And the "West" must seriously do their part in dealing with its own self interest in the mid east that unfortunately is manifesting itself in such an aggressive military manner, and who seem they think they own the meaning of "terrorism," while justifying in their own minds the use of brutal force against a foreign people. What happened in Paris is a minuscule fraction of the devastation of what happened in the invasion of Iraq. I think it´s fair to say previous western meddling in Iran is a root cause of the fundamentalist Islamic manifestation of what was once one of the most westernised, progressive Islamic nations. Again, this is not rocket science.
Last edited: