Quote:
|
Originally Posted by octothorp
Just a bit of context on the point already made by Lanny and Daradon. I think the current approach to extremist Islamic struggle really begins with the military decline of the Ottoman Empire around 1600. Prior to that, there had always been elite muslim battlefield armies that could hold their own against western Christian powers and frequently defeat them (of course, the Ottoman Empire was not strictly Muslim and was extremely tolerant of Jewish and Christian minorities, but it was the main representation of muslim interests.) By some accounts, the Ottomans began to be outpaced on the battlefield by the Europeans because of a fundamentalist conservatism that was limiting the inventiveness that had earlier characterized the empire.
|
Interesting.
It's funny though. The tactics used by many people in Europe to keep the Turks and Ottomans from being able to penetrate further into Europe in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centruries were guerilla warfare and terrorism... the same tactics we say should not be allowed by others today. If not for those tactics, we would probably all be praying to Allah right now.
Vlad the Impaler was probably the most famous guerilla leader and terrorist, but there were others like him. They would raid Turkish settlements, assassinate leaders, kill and torture sympathizers.
So now with 600 years of hindsight, is it safe to say that the ends justified the means? That any tactics can be justified if they are ends to a mean?