is to me an impossibility in a physical, tangible sense. A clash of leaders and their followers, influenced by tangible and intangible factors, is quite tangible and possible (e.g., the Battle of Tours).

There, Charles (not Martel, the Hammer, until a century later) and Al Ghafiqi probably had little knowledge (much less understanding) of the other's civilization - and, if they had been so knowledgeable and understanding, their clash would most likely still have occured.

Those who aspirate "clashes of civilizations" (e.g., the Red Threat, the Yellow Peril) seem to me to be devotees of some form of Zoroastrianism's ultimate conflict between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.[*]

I do not discount the motivation of ideology (particularly among leadership), or the manipulations of causes (slogans) directed to the masses in political efforts. I don't see "clashes of civilizations" as a useful concept.

As to this:

from M-A
We have here to accept that I am French and you are American. Two cultures, close but different.
No doubt. You guys eat snails.

Cheers

Mike

--------------------------
[*] I leave such questions to speculative theology.