Thread: A State of Mind

Mr al-Maliki suggested to Mr Larijani yesterday that the persistent attacks in Iraq were also a threat to Iran. “Terrorist operations targeting Iraq will affect all countries in the world that are supposed to be supporting the US in its war against terrorism,” he said.

This paragraph underscores a very good point about the mindset of the Middle East. The 'US in it's war against terrorism' quote is especially important. The Middle East believes that this is a new crusade, started by European decendants and is in no fundamental way different from the ones in the 12th century. Personally I believe that stopping global terrorism is important enough to persue (although not in the way we are persuing it). How do you convince the people of the nation you invade? This is a sticky situation and one I think better handled by specialists. The U.S. regular army is not meant for this kind of work.










(source = America prepares to talk with Iran after 28 years of silence-News-World-US & Americas-TimesOnline )

Ummm... the persistent attacks on Iraq are most likely sponsored by Iran...

Very true and thanks for bringing that up. However I was talking about how Middle Easterners think when it comes to global politics. For them this is another Crusade and we all should read up about what happened back then. If these people see us like they saw Europeans in the 12th century then we are truly in for a long fight.

Some do. Many don't. Additionally, the 1st and 2nd Crusades were counter attacks, not invasions. So it depends on one's historical interpretation.

And the average Muslim's interpretation is......

...the same as the average Western Christians. One of apathy and misunderstanding of the conflict, with little vestiture one way or the other.

This is where we our positions slide away from each other. The Muslim view in my opinion is one of the terror and hardship inflicted upon them by Christian armies invading their homeland. While I agree with you about the historical facts (1st and 2nd crusades were in response to Muslim incursions) I don't think the average Muslim is going to hear that side of the story.

Muslims aren't nationalistic. They're familial. So other than the most devoutly jihadist crew, they just don't care unless their clan is threatened. I'd posited an interesting theory on the Isaac/Ishmael, Jacob/Esau paradox on another board awhile back. Perhaps I'll do so again here when I have more time.

I would be interested in reading it.

Originally Posted by sid2112

This is where we our positions slide away from each other. The Muslim view in my opinion is one of the terror and hardship inflicted upon them by Christian armies invading their homeland. While I agree with you about the historical facts (1st and 2nd crusades were in response to Muslim incursions) I don't think the average Muslim is going to hear that side of the story.

i think you are right, you often here terms like "the American crusaders" in the speeches. Saladin's Eagle was the Iraq symbol, (also used by Syria, and used by the Palestinians i think). The Crusades still have a resonance over there that i think is more poignant than in Europe or the US - probably becuase it was fought on their soil and there are still standing relics around... it might not be an overt feeling, rather a theme that underpins self-definition....