Relevant to consider? Sure.

>>It is in fact relevant to consider the original source of conflict between Moslem and Christian.<<

But you appear to have determined that the conflict was "started" by one specific side.

The two religions have been in conflict from the outset, which leaves - superficially, at least - two obvious possibilities:

The earlier-established religion resents the formation of the second, and the power that it quickly gains from conversion and conquest.

The later-established religion resents the earlier, on the basis that it occupies territory that holds particular significance.

Many wars have been fought because they are an inevitable outcome of a clash of lifestyles or ideas, not because one or the other was the first-mover.

>>Moslem propagandists usually represent the Crusades,out of context, as a sudden outburst of Christian religious fanaticism. There's more to it than that<<

You might have phrased that a little less confrontationally, but in essence you are correct. It is however equally true that Christian propagandists represent the Crusades, out of context, as a war between the righteous and the godless. And there's more to it than that, as well, is there not.

>>However, Moslems present themselves as the perpetual victims of Western aggression,which is of course self-serving nonsense<<

This begs the question, of course, as to how the West presents itself in the face of Islamic aggression.

Any suggestions?

Pericles,

Bigmal says :"In your rush to score points you obviously have NOT noticed that the quotes you are repeating in capitals, belong to some person who posted a comment."

Pericles says in reply: "I call it providing context"

Bigmal responds: You would have to be terminally stupid to think that the auther of this particular subject Item Mr Kahn, for example, was responsible for the context of all the subsequent comment posters, including your own.

With that sort of logic you would have to be a disgrace to your own pseudonym.

Dear david f,

Well yes,of course it's better to divert the attention of a destructive military class away from their homelands. However that's hardly the prime cause of the Crusades which were initially inspired by (1) a call for help from the Byzantine Emperor whose lands had been invaded by the Moslem Seljuk Turks and (2) the treatment of Christian pilgrims in the ME by Moslem rulers. The moral deficiencies of the Crusaders are not relevant to the context.

Pericles,

You seem to be arguing from some kind of PC first principles without having any knowledge of the early stages of Islamic aggression against the Christians,Zoroastrians and Hindus.

The conflict was indeed started by one specific side,the Moslems. The Byzantines had no concept of 'Holy War'(which was originally an Islamic doctrine) and after fighting an exhausting war with the Persians were unable to defend much of their territory from attacks by Mohammed's followers.

I think you mean 'raises the question',I hope I haven't been 'begging the question'.

As to victim status,I have never suggested the West is blameless, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are criminal acts in my opinion. We should have expected retaliation for intervention in the ME,why the Americans were amazed at 9/11 is beyond me. In the final analysis it's a matter of relative power,the West sets the agenda now, it was the Moslems 1000 years ago.

You might find the following informative-

(1) 'Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests'-Walter Kaegi
(2) 'Byzantium'-John Julius Norwich
(3) 'The Dream and the Tomb-a History of the Crusades' -Robert Payne
(4) 'Holy Warriors-Islam and the Decline of Classical Civilization'-John J O'Neill

No, I meant what I said, mac.

>>I think you mean 'raises the question',I hope I haven't been 'begging the question'.<<

You deliberately presented an argument, whose conclusion - that it was self-serving nonsense - was implicit in the evidence presented in the premise. I was simply providing you with the opportunity to show how this premise "that they are perpetual victims" was unique, and somehow different when presented by "the West".

Your response shows that it is not.

>>As to victim status,I have never suggested the West is blameless, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are criminal acts in my opinion<<

So we can now assume that you would agree with the statement "the US present themselves as the perpetual victims of Islamic aggression,which is of course self-serving nonsense"

I'll go along with that.

Nice try, bigmal.

>>Bigmal responds: You would have to be terminally stupid to think that the auther of this particular subject Item Mr Kahn, for example, was responsible for the context of all the subsequent comment posters, including your own<<

It is the posts themselves that provide the context to which I referred. This site, I sincerely hope, would have moderated M. Bouchard's post into oblivion. Along with all those shouty capital letters.

You could argue, of course, that the poster was exercising his right to freedom of speech. But he clearly felt that he was posting somewhere that was warmly sympathetic to his views. That's the "context" I referred to.

It is of course entirely possible that Mr Warner himself might see fit to squirm with embarrassment to see what nature of folk it is that crawl out of the cesspool and applaud his bloggery.

On the other hand, he might not.

THREE CHEERS FOR ANGELA MERKEL

Germany's Chancellor seems to be the only Western leader willing to make a stand on free speech.

See:

From Pariah to Guest of Honor in Five Short Years

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,716665,00.html

Quotes:

Chancellor Merkel was on hand on Wednesday night to honor Muhammad caricaturist Kurt Westergaard for his contributions to free speech rights. Yet just a few short years ago, he was a pariah in the West for having offended Islam. What happened?

…Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist, was honored with the M100 Media Prize, given out annually by a group representing the editors in chief of Europe's leading newspapers and magazines. It is an elite collection of heavyweights.

[…]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered the keynote address, and Joachim Gauck, a respected German pastor who was a human-rights activist in East Germany, paid tribute to Westergaard in a speech.

[…]

….Merkel declared: "Freedom of religion does not mean that Shariah stands above the German constitution.* ... No cultural difference can justify the disregard for fundamental rights."

[…]

Millions of Muslims across the world took to the streets in protest. Danish flags were burned, and Danish diplomatic residences were set on fire and vandalized. …While Islamists in London demonstrated against the affront to the Prophet ("Kill those who insult Islam"), Britain's foreign minister at the time, Jack Straw, told reporters: "I believe that the republication or these cartoons has been …wrong" Indeed, not a single British newspaper dared to republish even a single one of the 12 caricatures.

The Observer said that Islam would have to be treated with sensitivity in the future. The Daily Telegraph also pledged respect of Islam. And the Times, a flagship of European press freedoms, said its reserve was not born out of appeasement, but out of a desire to wield free speech rights responsibly.

At first, Merkel said nothing. But at the Munich Security Conference in 2006, she said "I can understand that religious feelings were hurt. But it is unacceptable to find therein a legitimation of violent reactions.*"

*Hear hear

Thanks for the link stevenlmeyer.

It is a pity that it has taken so long for someone (internationally important) to stand up and state the obvious, very loudly.

Another thought occurred to me, as I followed a link from the article in Der Spiegel Online, to an earlier item on Thilo Sarrazin.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715876,00.html

The article is in six substantial sections, looking at the topic (he wrote a book about Muslims in Germany) from a number of angles.

My thought was... wouldn't it be great, if we in Australia were treated, even occasionally, to journalism of this quality?

Read it, and weep.