This is the idea that a Christian West is attempting a new Crusade against Muslims by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting Israel, backing anti-Islamist dictators like Hosni Mubarak and so on. This grossly simplistic narrative is applied to complex events, ignoring modern secularism, the divisions between Catholicism and myriad Protestant churches and the pro-peace mutterings of modern Popes. It is ludicrous, but the narrative gained strength in 2001 when US President George W Bush made the following comment:
This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.
Today I woke to a thread on a Pakistani Orkut community entitled: "Why do the Crusaders still attacking Libya?" Throughout the thread some Pakistanis mock the idea of attacks on Libya being a "crusade", but others repeat it, one saying:
In these crusade wars, jews and hindus are allies of christians.... did you ever hear of Bush's speech about crusades?
So it seems that the Libya intervention is already being interpreted in terms of the Crusader Narrative by some observers. Since this narrative promotes a violent Islamist resistance to the perceived crusade, it seems deeply counter-productive to give it strength.