We’ll fight radical Islam for 100 years, says ex-army head Peter Leahy

[MightyPies1]

Please tell us more about "the left" DardySingh360 as you seem to have such a balanced and nuanced view on what this group of people are like, noting they all act and think exactly the same way.

Yeah I think he lumps the left into the same basket as those try-hard wannabe Socialist Alternative students who would fit the profile DS conveys, and it's important to note that I hate those guys as much as KKK members, well almost as much and I consider myself left of centre at the least.

 

[MightyPies1]

It is a common trait among Greens and Labor voters in this country to defend Islam or at least remain silent about its atrocities against gay people and women, these same people may also support gay marriage and feminist ideals. Despite the apparent conflict of interest they are not vocal against Islam as say they are against Christianity.

I think most of us here on this board are mature enough to respect and support gay and women's rights, yet in the Islam related threads I rarely see any self confessed Green or Labor supporters vocally opposing it rather than the tokenistic "I dislike all religion" and then go on to write paragraphs defending Islam and/or bashing Jews/Christians/Whites.

haha your wrong, I've known a leftie, as far left and an academic, and his prejudice was against Muslim men for their oppression of women, he strongly disliked seeing Muslim women wearing the hijab or whatever it's called.

So stop generalizing, that is what the majority on the left don't do.

 

[JoondalupJ]

That is nice thought, but IMO misguided. One of the problems that most apologist have is that they have not read the Koran or really understand Islam.

The Koran and Islam are not like Bible and Christianity. Where the Bible is a generally viewed as a collection of stories, parables, advice and dreams written by many authors over hundreds of years. The Koran is a single book of commands written by one man in his lifetime, there are no parables, symbolisms or vagaries. There is no picking and choosing the parts you like and ignoring the parts you don't, like most Christian do with the Bible. It is explicit and followers must not alter or modify the message or they will burn in hell. Jesus never preached about war or violence or decept. The Koran does.

The other main difference is that Christianity is a religion, Islam is a totalitarian religious ideology that include legal, political and financial instructions. It emcompases a total way of life. The translation of Islam is submission. And that is exactly what it is.

So don't assume that just because Christianity went through a reformation, that Islam will as well.

In regards to poverty; there is very little poverty in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, these countries are awash in petrodollars, yet this is where the "extremism" is coming from. It is their wealth that is furthering the spread of "radical" Islam.

And finally, Brunei, a wealthy Islamic country next to Malaysia that is also awash in petrodollars, has only this year imposed full Sharia law.

So for all the apologist out there, do your own research, don't assume anything.

Well looks like we're f****D But one thing to ease the minds of the islamics is this. There is no hell and there is no heaven, so relax you poor angry for no reason doodles, tell them old mullahs they're idiots if they think your going to blow yourself up or join a pack of murdering half wits living in the 7th century. This religion is more than a religion but it has no logic, its has no virgins it has no paradise , just blood and fear. s**t good name for a movie. Plus its got no respect for women , life , decency, if that isn't true, prove it any of you, who think your Aussie.Start screaming your hatred of gutless cowardice and beheading by misled pawns in a bigger game. What has Australia done to deserve a pack brainless fanatics being allowed by their own kind to go off fighting for some vicious violent religious belief. and WHOSE KILLING WHO, good name for a song, Sunni or Shi-ite, I mean why are you killing anyone at all.
Gaddaffi dead , Saddam dead, Assad nearly finished. Get rid of your despots all over your unfortunate part of the planet. But why kill innocents , and messangers. Maybe the poster before was right. CAR PARK THE WHOLE SORRY PLACE. That's real terrorism. The joke on you there is this has no need to be happening. Before some nut case muslim takes over the world we'll have blown the joint to oblivion, then we can all grab a virgin , cause we'll all be dead.
ha ha ha , is it funny , it'll happen unless these people come to their senses or finish themselves off.
Time they were finished once and for all. Anyone out there got an answer as to why we would put up with s**t that we don't believe or isn't even real. Religion I'm talking about. Man made religion , not nature. This done to death, this subject , I'm sick of bloody people at the moment. Any Musso got an answer.

 

[mottrain]

haha your wrong, I've known a leftie, as far left and an academic, and his prejudice was against Muslim men for their oppression of women, he strongly disliked seeing Muslim women wearing the hijab or whatever it's called.

So stop generalizing, that is what the majority on the left don't do.

Real rubbish. The left legitimately like to stereotype and generalise whenever were given the chance. You support the repeal of 18c you're a bigot. You disagree with the Greens policy on asylum seekers - you're inhumane. On and on I can go.

 

[TooFar]

I have read the Koran and lived in islamic countries (albeit short periods) and more moderate places like Indonesia and the colourful area of mindanao

The differences you highlight aren't really differences rather just one of timing. Go back 60 years and Christianity was still a way of life and going back 400 years and christianity was all pervasive.

The only thing that saved us from christianity was middle class and education. Middle class and education will have the same effect on islam.

You didn't really address any of the points I raised, just brushed them off.

It's interesting that people only hear or read what they already believe and dismiss a contrary position. It does take a long time to change your way of thinking, but it can be done.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

When it comes to the attitude of the Left towards Islam the following statement comes to mind. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

 

[smokingjacket]

When it comes to the attitude of the Left towards Islam the following statement comes to mind. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

This is correct for a certain section of the left still fighting a war against US imperialism. They view terrorism as a natural reaction to US and Western incursion and globalisation. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden's original goals were the destruction of the global liberalisation movement of traditionally highly conservative regions such as Saudi Arabia. As Arabs they were passionate about their culture, with Islam with it's all encompassing structure a huge part of this. Globalisation is pretty much synonomous with Westernisation in these parts of the world. Ironically or not, apart from multinational corporations few movements have benefited more from globalisation than Al-Qaeda/Wahabbism/Salafism. Equally the folly of the old anti-imperialist left siding with a highly intolerant movement with stated imperialist designs in the restoration of the Caliphates, to defeat another more powerful but liberal imperial power has started to filter through. Also relative US power has diminished throwing new targets for neo-imperialism in the mix.

if we get rid of poverty we get rid a radicalism.

so rather than bombing them we should help build their economies.

The only thing that saved us from christianity was middle class and education. Middle class and education will have the same effect on islam.

This is a very worthy goal however unfortunately it is not supported by the evidence. Most of the homegrown Islamic terrorists in the US, UK as well as advanced Emirati states were of a very highly educated background. Many engineers, doctors and so on. Usually these people are radicalized by a spark. It might be an influential local radical imam, feeling of a lost identity inside the West or as simple as female rejection and shame.

For many years Christianity held the world back and the Arab countries were further ahead

This or the 'Islamic Science' line is the go to cliche of people trying to show an equality across cultures in history. However apart from the absurdity of it, (what relevance does the relative wealth and scientific output of 8th century Baghdad have to do with any modern society?) it's also largely ahistorical at best or at worst just wrong in the worst possible way. A very brief history will tell you that late Roman Empire was split between a Latin West and a Greek East. The Latin West, based in Rome with Roman Catholicism as it core, collapsed, plunging that part of Europe in to a anarchic stateless mess. Rather than hold science back, Roman knowledge was actually saved by religious orders as they were the only group interested in learning at the time. The Eastern Roman Empire with an Orthodox Christianity ruled varying amounts of the original Eastern half if its territory for some time, at one point even reconquering most of the old Western Empire, before eventually falling to the Ottomans in the 15th century. During that time Constantinople, Nicea, Antioch and even Athens at one point were some of the most developed cities in the world. Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy was treasured and Constantinople even had a secular university for the education of elite bureaucrats of the state. Simultaneously the Islamic Caliphates expansion brought them in to to contact with a great many advanced civilisations. Most of which was previously the Roman Empire, but also fabulously wealthy Central Asian trading cities as well as the highly advanced Vedic and Buddhist Civilisations of the subcontinent. Whilst Arab scholars would later build on some of the concepts in very important ways, it must be first noted that the information came at the cost of the invaded. Particularly also as the basis of all the leisure/learning time was stolen loot and infidel taxes. The Islamic Caliphates brought together Indian maths and science, the great philosophical and scientific texts of Coptic and Greek Egypt and Italy, later the Levant before eventually conquering Constantinople itself. The flight of the Greek intellectuals from the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire to Italian city states at the time is credited with starting the Renaissance in that area. So in short no. Christianity did not "hold the world" back, the collapse of a massive power held Western Europe back. The Eastern Christian Empire was probably the most advanced civilisation outside of China at the time. Further by the time the Enlightenment was in full swing most of the Islamic empires were a corrupt broken mess, devoid of any form of scientific interest. However the question is the wrong one. Both faiths have overtime aided or hindered scientific progress in their own way but science shouldn't be viewed through the prism of religion, at least not if we're trying to make a point in the modern. The great education institutions of Rome and Constantinople were secular. In Baghdad and Cairo for a brief period there were multifaith and secular learning institutions in which great discoveries were made.

Free, unhindered thought is what drives science. We are moving in the opposite direction of our own choice and this is my greatest concern. The old varied left of Secular Republicans, Liberals and Socialists have fought brutal battles for hundreds of years with Conservatives to reduce Christianity to a mockable, ignorable, personal choice. All the freedoms we have at the moment regarding free speech, civil liberties and human rights, a movement has fought for it at some stage and in twenty years we're throwing it all away with out a whimper in the name of not offending a highly conservative branch of a religion. A moderate Muslim isn't likely to march to demand the beheading a cartoonist but those who do should be the natural enemies of the left. Much of the problem is that much of the modern left has abandoned the field and the only people talking about it are on the right. Some are quite sane and some are outright fascists. When you find Tim Blair making more sense than Andrew Leigh, a PhD educated Labor Minister, on ISIS you know that something has to change.

 

[pokerspiv]

The sad thing is that Andrew Leigh used to be eminently sensible before he sold out all his principles so he could be parachuted into a safe Labor seat. Now he just parrots the Labor line on everything

 

[Richard Pryor]

The left legitimately like to stereotype and generalise whenever were given the chance.

...

Genuinely amusing statement.

 

[mottrain]

...

Genuinely amusing statement.

Its not amusing it is actually quite sad really.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Its not amusing it is actually quite sad really.

"Every lefty says every righty is the same"

In any case, the extreme leftists and extreme rightists are essentially the same people on different sides of the coin. They exist for the fight, not the aftermath.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

Its not amusing it is actually quite sad really.

If I had the time, I'd add up all the times that has happened on the SRP board and post the list. Would take all day methinks.

 

[mottrain]

If I had the time, I'd add up all the times that has happened on the SRP board and post the list. Would take all day methinks.

If I had the time to make a list of everytime a lefty stereotyped the right with Murdoch or NL then I'd be here till next millenium.

 

[Mofra]

Arguing against stereotypes by speaking entirely in stereotypes.

Seems legit.

 

[JoondalupJ]

This is correct for a certain section of the left still fighting a war against US imperialism. They view terrorism as a natural reaction to US and Western incursion and globalisation. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden's original goals were the destruction of the global liberalisation movement of traditionally highly conservative regions such as Saudi Arabia. As Arabs they were passionate about their culture, with Islam with it's all encompassing structure a huge part of this. Globalisation is pretty much synonomous with Westernisation in these parts of the world. Ironically or not, apart from multinational corporations few movements have benefited more from globalisation than Al-Qaeda/Wahabbism/Salafism. Equally the folly of the old anti-imperialist left siding with a highly intolerant movement with stated imperialist designs in the restoration of the Caliphates, to defeat another more powerful but liberal imperial power has started to filter through. Also relative US power has diminished throwing new targets for neo-imperialism in the mix.





This is a very worthy goal however unfortunately it is not supported by the evidence. Most of the homegrown Islamic terrorists in the US, UK as well as advanced Emirati states were of a very highly educated background. Many engineers, doctors and so on. Usually these people are radicalized by a spark. It might be an influential local radical imam, feeling of a lost identity inside the West or as simple as female rejection and shame.

Well where did you pop out from? Extremely informative comment smokingjacket. It seemed like about the only real sensible studied look into all the bias and here say and lack of knowledge on this football site, of the problem the world faces with a small minority of people who wish to cut heads off to prove some point.

I agree moderate Islam does not march out with violence in their hearts , to what end? they ask?

But my question is what does the moderate world (everyone,every religion, every secular organisation) do with fanatic extreme Islam. I can only think or hope anyway that this is politics by people with agendas that have nothing to do with Allah. But people who are prepared to manipulate others who for some reason feel lesser than the people they hate.
And can be manipulated , or they are just criminals , therefore the world has to hunt and crush them?

I really don't see an educated Muslim doctor being involved in the horrors, and these strange beliefs as legitimate. Unless that middle class well educated professional Muslim is a bit crazy?

I'm baffled at the hatred, there have been down trodden people in History that rise up against what they witness or experience as oppression. As the world has evolved and developed nations still struggle with economys' and some people are still in bad life situations, but they keep moving forward.

It seems to me Islam has some deep dark horrible instinct in it , which I'd see, as a terror, of the human race getting out of control and that this religion in the beginning became the religion of "be good, love god, and your neighbour obey every rule to the umpteenth degree you may get paradise and heaven for eternity , if you don't come along for the ride we will punish you in every horrific barbaric way we possibly can think of " To keep that ancient cruel world in some kind of order.

Why now in 2014 are the Islamic fanatics going backwards? There is no gain, America has all the more reason and really no choice, after recent events to begin a campaign for however long it takes to cut the head off this entity and part of Islamic extremism. (Hell there's a way with words????)

This defence of our way of life can't stop now, or the Army expert may be right, we will fight these minority of criminals for 100 years, lead by smart...well out of the firing line, religious leaders who appear always at a safe distance. Funny that.

I really like your comments , I cannot put the words down correctly a lot of times because I do get very very angry with what I see as illogical pointless politics that leads to destruction one way or the other.

What are these modern day Muslim fanatics actually after, surely they don't believe all religions' super natural nonsense.

Much like Israel believes they own Palestine because it was given to them by god.

I'd like your opinion on that, every day people on BF argue who and what tribes lived here or there 2 , 3 , 4 thousand years ago , it means nothing, it was Palestine then, through military power in the 20th century it was Israel , that is not right.

I'm a blue collar Australian I see things reasonably simply and I cannot fathom out the mind of someone who can commit a horror after being brainwashed by a religious leader who I believe has another agenda totally.

I also don't believe realistically that these Islamic terrorist leaders think they will create a Caliphate all over the world, they have political ambitions a little closer to home .

Plus they would be destroyed along with everyone of the billions of non Muslims they'd have to kill. It has no end, to gain!

The only answer is to protect ourselves at home and around the world , and exactly how we do this is another baffling question , because once the bias and blind mistrust of certain religions or groups happens in any country , then the mob mentality begins.

If that happened here , you would not want to be a Muslim, the same as a Christian in parts of Arabia.

And bible belt USA ? ? ? oh dear! Right winged Europe , China??? and Vlad Putin wonder what he'd be doing.

Any way thanks for your post , take it easy.





This or the 'Islamic Science' line is the go to cliche of people trying to show an equality across cultures in history. However apart from the absurdity of it, (what relevance does the relative wealth and scientific output of 8th century Baghdad have to do with any modern society?) it's also largely ahistorical at best or at worst just wrong in the worst possible way. A very brief history will tell you that late Roman Empire was split between a Latin West and a Greek East. The Latin West, based in Rome with Roman Catholicism as it core, collapsed, plunging that part of Europe in to a anarchic stateless mess. Rather than hold science back, Roman knowledge was actually saved by religious orders as they were the only group interested in learning at the time. The Eastern Roman Empire with an Orthodox Christianity ruled varying amounts of the original Eastern half if its territory for some time, at one point even reconquering most of the old Western Empire, before eventually falling to the Ottomans in the 15th century. During that time Constantinople, Nicea, Antioch and even Athens at one point were some of the most developed cities in the world. Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy was treasured and Constantinople even had a secular university for the education of elite bureaucrats of the state. Simultaneously the Islamic Caliphates expansion brought them in to to contact with a great many advanced civilisations. Most of which was previously the Roman Empire, but also fabulously wealthy Central Asian trading cities as well as the highly advanced Vedic and Buddhist Civilisations of the subcontinent. Whilst Arab scholars would later build on some of the concepts in very important ways, it must be first noted that the information came at the cost of the invaded. Particularly also as the basis of all the leisure/learning time was stolen loot and infidel taxes. The Islamic Caliphates brought together Indian maths and science, the great philosophical and scientific texts of Coptic and Greek Egypt and Italy, later the Levant before eventually conquering Constantinople itself. The flight of the Greek intellectuals from the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire to Italian city states at the time is credited with starting the Renaissance in that area. So in short no. Christianity did not "hold the world" back, the collapse of a massive power held Western Europe back. The Eastern Christian Empire was probably the most advanced civilisation outside of China at the time. Further by the time the Enlightenment was in full swing most of the Islamic empires were a corrupt broken mess, devoid of any form of scientific interest. However the question is the wrong one. Both faiths have overtime aided or hindered scientific progress in their own way but science shouldn't be viewed through the prism of religion, at least not if we're trying to make a point in the modern. The great education institutions of Rome and Constantinople were secular. In Baghdad and Cairo for a brief period there were multifaith and secular learning institutions in which great discoveries were made.

Free, unhindered thought is what drives science. We are moving in the opposite direction of our own choice and this is my greatest concern. The old varied left of Secular Republicans, Liberals and Socialists have fought brutal battles for hundreds of years with Conservatives to reduce Christianity to a mockable, ignorable, personal choice. All the freedoms we have at the moment regarding free speech, civil liberties and human rights, a movement has fought for it at some stage and in twenty years we're throwing it all away with out a whimper in the name of not offending a highly conservative branch of a religion. A moderate Muslim isn't likely to march to demand the beheading a cartoonist but those who do should be the natural enemies of the left. Much of the problem is that much of the modern left has abandoned the field and the only people talking about it are on the right. Some are quite sane and some are outright fascists. When you find Tim Blair making more sense than Andrew Leigh, a PhD educated Labor Minister, on ISIS you know that something has to change.

This is correct for a certain section of the left still fighting a war against US imperialism. They view terrorism as a natural reaction to US and Western incursion and globalisation. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden's original goals were the destruction of the global liberalisation movement of traditionally highly conservative regions such as Saudi Arabia. As Arabs they were passionate about their culture, with Islam with it's all encompassing structure a huge part of this. Globalisation is pretty much synonomous with Westernisation in these parts of the world. Ironically or not, apart from multinational corporations few movements have benefited more from globalisation than Al-Qaeda/Wahabbism/Salafism. Equally the folly of the old anti-imperialist left siding with a highly intolerant movement with stated imperialist designs in the restoration of the Caliphates, to defeat another more powerful but liberal imperial power has started to filter through. Also relative US power has diminished throwing new targets for neo-imperialism in the mix.





This is a very worthy goal however unfortunately it is not supported by the evidence. Most of the homegrown Islamic terrorists in the US, UK as well as advanced Emirati states were of a very highly educated background. Many engineers, doctors and so on. Usually these people are radicalized by a spark. It might be an influential local radical imam, feeling of a lost identity inside the West or as simple as female rejection and shame.




This or the 'Islamic Science' line is the go to cliche of people trying to show an equality across cultures in history. However apart from the absurdity of it, (what relevance does the relative wealth and scientific output of 8th century Baghdad have to do with any modern society?) it's also largely ahistorical at best or at worst just wrong in the worst possible way. A very brief history will tell you that late Roman Empire was split between a Latin West and a Greek East. The Latin West, based in Rome with Roman Catholicism as it core, collapsed, plunging that part of Europe in to a anarchic stateless mess. Rather than hold science back, Roman knowledge was actually saved by religious orders as they were the only group interested in learning at the time. The Eastern Roman Empire with an Orthodox Christianity ruled varying amounts of the original Eastern half if its territory for some time, at one point even reconquering most of the old Western Empire, before eventually falling to the Ottomans in the 15th century. During that time Constantinople, Nicea, Antioch and even Athens at one point were some of the most developed cities in the world. Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy was treasured and Constantinople even had a secular university for the education of elite bureaucrats of the state. Simultaneously the Islamic Caliphates expansion brought them in to to contact with a great many advanced civilisations. Most of which was previously the Roman Empire, but also fabulously wealthy Central Asian trading cities as well as the highly advanced Vedic and Buddhist Civilisations of the subcontinent. Whilst Arab scholars would later build on some of the concepts in very important ways, it must be first noted that the information came at the cost of the invaded. Particularly also as the basis of all the leisure/learning time was stolen loot and infidel taxes. The Islamic Caliphates brought together Indian maths and science, the great philosophical and scientific texts of Coptic and Greek Egypt and Italy, later the Levant before eventually conquering Constantinople itself. The flight of the Greek intellectuals from the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire to Italian city states at the time is credited with starting the Renaissance in that area. So in short no. Christianity did not "hold the world" back, the collapse of a massive power held Western Europe back. The Eastern Christian Empire was probably the most advanced civilisation outside of China at the time. Further by the time the Enlightenment was in full swing most of the Islamic empires were a corrupt broken mess, devoid of any form of scientific interest. However the question is the wrong one. Both faiths have overtime aided or hindered scientific progress in their own way but science shouldn't be viewed through the prism of religion, at least not if we're trying to make a point in the modern. The great education institutions of Rome and Constantinople were secular. In Baghdad and Cairo for a brief period there were multifaith and secular learning institutions in which great discoveries were made.

Free, unhindered thought is what drives science. We are moving in the opposite direction of our own choice and this is my greatest concern. The old varied left of Secular Republicans, Liberals and Socialists have fought brutal battles for hundreds of years with Conservatives to reduce Christianity to a mockable, ignorable, personal choice. All the freedoms we have at the moment regarding free speech, civil liberties and human rights, a movement has fought for it at some stage and in twenty years we're throwing it all away with out a whimper in the name of not offending a highly conservative branch of a religion. A moderate Muslim isn't likely to march to demand the beheading a cartoonist but those who do should be the natural enemies of the left. Much of the problem is that much of the modern left has abandoned the field and the only people talking about it are on the right. Some are quite sane and some are outright fascists. When you find Tim Blair making more sense than Andrew Leigh, a PhD educated Labor Minister, on ISIS you know that something has to change.

This is correct for a certain section of the left still fighting a war against US imperialism. They view terrorism as a natural reaction to US and Western incursion and globalisation. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden's original goals were the destruction of the global liberalisation movement of traditionally highly conservative regions such as Saudi Arabia. As Arabs they were passionate about their culture, with Islam with it's all encompassing structure a huge part of this. Globalisation is pretty much synonomous with Westernisation in these parts of the world. Ironically or not, apart from multinational corporations few movements have benefited more from globalisation than Al-Qaeda/Wahabbism/Salafism. Equally the folly of the old anti-imperialist left siding with a highly intolerant movement with stated imperialist designs in the restoration of the Caliphates, to defeat another more powerful but liberal imperial power has started to filter through. Also relative US power has diminished throwing new targets for neo-imperialism in the mix.





This is a very worthy goal however unfortunately it is not supported by the evidence. Most of the homegrown Islamic terrorists in the US, UK as well as advanced Emirati states were of a very highly educated background. Many engineers, doctors and so on. Usually these people are radicalized by a spark. It might be an influential local radical imam, feeling of a lost identity inside the West or as simple as female rejection and shame.




This or the 'Islamic Science' line is the go to cliche of people trying to show an equality across cultures in history. However apart from the absurdity of it, (what relevance does the relative wealth and scientific output of 8th century Baghdad have to do with any modern society?) it's also largely ahistorical at best or at worst just wrong in the worst possible way. A very brief history will tell you that late Roman Empire was split between a Latin West and a Greek East. The Latin West, based in Rome with Roman Catholicism as it core, collapsed, plunging that part of Europe in to a anarchic stateless mess. Rather than hold science back, Roman knowledge was actually saved by religious orders as they were the only group interested in learning at the time. The Eastern Roman Empire with an Orthodox Christianity ruled varying amounts of the original Eastern half if its territory for some time, at one point even reconquering most of the old Western Empire, before eventually falling to the Ottomans in the 15th century. During that time Constantinople, Nicea, Antioch and even Athens at one point were some of the most developed cities in the world. Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy was treasured and Constantinople even had a secular university for the education of elite bureaucrats of the state. Simultaneously the Islamic Caliphates expansion brought them in to to contact with a great many advanced civilisations. Most of which was previously the Roman Empire, but also fabulously wealthy Central Asian trading cities as well as the highly advanced Vedic and Buddhist Civilisations of the subcontinent. Whilst Arab scholars would later build on some of the concepts in very important ways, it must be first noted that the information came at the cost of the invaded. Particularly also as the basis of all the leisure/learning time was stolen loot and infidel taxes. The Islamic Caliphates brought together Indian maths and science, the great philosophical and scientific texts of Coptic and Greek Egypt and Italy, later the Levant before eventually conquering Constantinople itself. The flight of the Greek intellectuals from the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire to Italian city states at the time is credited with starting the Renaissance in that area. So in short no. Christianity did not "hold the world" back, the collapse of a massive power held Western Europe back. The Eastern Christian Empire was probably the most advanced civilisation outside of China at the time. Further by the time the Enlightenment was in full swing most of the Islamic empires were a corrupt broken mess, devoid of any form of scientific interest. However the question is the wrong one. Both faiths have overtime aided or hindered scientific progress in their own way but science shouldn't be viewed through the prism of religion, at least not if we're trying to make a point in the modern. The great education institutions of Rome and Constantinople were secular. In Baghdad and Cairo for a brief period there were multifaith and secular learning institutions in which great discoveries were made.

Free, unhindered thought is what drives science. We are moving in the opposite direction of our own choice and this is my greatest concern. The old varied left of Secular Republicans, Liberals and Socialists have fought brutal battles for hundreds of years with Conservatives to reduce Christianity to a mockable, ignorable, personal choice. All the freedoms we have at the moment regarding free speech, civil liberties and human rights, a movement has fought for it at some stage and in twenty years we're throwing it all away with out a whimper in the name of not offending a highly conservative branch of a religion. A moderate Muslim isn't likely to march to demand the beheading a cartoonist but those who do should be the natural enemies of the left. Much of the problem is that much of the modern left has abandoned the field and the only people talking about it are on the right. Some are quite sane and some are outright fascists. When you find Tim Blair making more sense than Andrew Leigh, a PhD educated Labor Minister, on ISIS you know that something has to change.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Has anyone tried to define 'the left'?

And secondly what do any of the left have to do with conservative militarists wanting war against religious theocrats?

 

[JoondalupJ]

Has anyone tried to define 'the left'?

And secondly what do any of the left have to do with conservative militarists wanting war against religious theocrats?

I think more than just conservative militarists, want war or something done about religious theocrats.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

Arguing against stereotypes by speaking entirely in stereotypes.

Seems legit.

What stereotypes are you referring to?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I think more than just conservative militarists, want war or something done about religious theocrats.

How do you fight war against these people?

 

[pokerspiv]

How do you fight war against these people?

I'd settle for just keeping them out of Australia.

 

[Xsess]

Has anyone tried to define 'the left'?

The "left" is a virus that exists only in successful democratic societies. A righteous ideology that thives in well intentioned but ignorant people - academics, the rich/famous and those too young to know better. Because they are motivated by "ideology" over "reality" these fools have a pentient for ignoring history, human nature and facts, meaning their methods amost always have unintended consequences - often disasterous (such as the 1500 deaths at sea resulting from Rudd humaine asylums seeker policy)

They hate people who dont share their views: Left-wingers are the most tolerant people on earth – until they encounter someone who disagrees with them. Disagreement offends their sense of righteousness, and turns champions of free speech and free love into 17th-century Puritans.

They love bad people and are hypocrits: Thats why you will often see lefties in a Che Guevara t-shirt – a racist sociopath who helped to establish a regime that butchered all its opponents and threw into jail anyone who was “a bit camp”. But Left-wing sympathy for patently bad people is typical. A more recent lefty lovechild is poor old Hamas who are being victimised by the nasty jews

They are powerful. Because they are the natural freinds of freeloaders, criminals and other dregs of society they have a powerful political base. Back in ancient Rome a wise man once said democracies are destined to fail, as soon as the bulk of the population realises it can vote itself gifts from the treasury - see opposition to the latest budget. As poverty builds on poverty the political power thus grows making teh situation worse. Eventually the largest power base isn't the smartest and most productive members of society - but instead the stupidest and laziest.

 

[Power Raid]

You didn't really address any of the points I raised, just brushed them off.

It's interesting that people only hear or read what they already believe and dismiss a contrary position. It does take a long time to change your way of thinking, but it can be done.

I am setting up a business in an area in southern Philippines dominated by islamic paramilitary extremists. Despite fighting they are open to the idea of jobs, education, schools etc.

So despite the open conflict, the choice is simple; which is sitting in a trench and dying or providing for their family and watching sport on the weekend. Which would you choose?

I feel we try and look for differences in people but in reality we should be looking for the common ground. These extremists are no different to the roots of unions in Australia and just like unions you simply have to understand what they want and why they are supported.

 

[Richard Pryor]

They love bad people and are hypocrits: Thats why you will often see lefties in a Che Guevara t-shirt – a racist sociopath who helped to establish a regime that butchered all its opponents and threw into jail anyone who was “a bit camp”. But Left-wing sympathy for patently bad people is typical. A more recent lefty lovechild is poor old Hamas who are being victimised by the nasty jews

Using the arsehole communists in Che shirts as an example of the left is like using Stormfront as an example of the right.

The 'loony' left movement is out there, but they're about as populace and taken as seriously as the neo-nazi movement. They're a joke group of radicals who no-one takes seriously, and suggesting they represent a large portion of society is asinine.

 

[DardySingh360]

Using the arsehole communists in Che shirts as an example of the left is like using Stormfront as an example of the right.

It's not like we haven't seen that on here before

 

[Schache It Off]

They love bad people and are hypocrits: Thats why you will often see lefties in a Che Guevara t-shirt – a racist sociopath who helped to establish a regime that butchered all its opponents and threw into jail anyone who was “a bit camp”. But Left-wing sympathy for patently bad people is typical. A more recent lefty lovechild is poor old Hamas who are being victimised by the nasty jews