Poirot,

And his point was ? Are you going to respond or get all huffy and flounce off ? To flounce back when it seems safe.

'Women defending Islam' - I think he might have been referring to the grotesque image of supposed Western feminists defending a reactionary religion - feminists defending a religion, for Christ sake - as if [because, after all, it's sort of anti-American] it must, ipso facto, be Good.

Having been raised on the Left, but observing its twists and turns over sixty years, I have been wondering if some of its adherents - not all, just some - are actually quite psychotic, that their 'radicalism' has been little more than anti-something, anti-British in my childhood, anti-American ever since - but a cover for their psychosis, nevertheless. Ergo, American, bad; not American, good. I have a close relation who doesn't believe there is such an entity as al-Qa'ida, that it's all an American plot ('and what's three thousand, after all?') - which proves, once more, of course, how evil America is. Strange how Arjay - on the Right - would agree with him.

The Left has now had almost 100 years of Russian experience, 70 years of Chinese experience, a total of hundreds of years of East German, Czech, Vietnamese, Korean, Cuban, Bulgarian experience. Any of it worth dying for ? I don't think so. Socialism has been a crock, a fraud, a step towards fascism - an EXCUSE for fascism.

Now, back to topic. Sorry, you diverted me too sell, Poirot.

Cheers :)

Joe

Loudmouth, spot-on !

David F.,

Thanks for that up-date - but the Mongols did convert to Islam ? Weren't the Mongols Muslim by the time they conquered China (in a peaceful way, of course) and then (peacefully) launched attacks against Japan to the north-east, and Vietnam to the south-east ?

Yes, you are right about Poland - the Mongols may not have been Muslim by the time they attacked Europe. Of course, further west and south, the Arabs - as Muslims - invaded Spain and south-west France, and harassed southern Europe for centuries - as Muslims: it wasn't simply a coincidence that they were Arab AND Muslim, any more than the Arabs were mostly right-handed and 'therefore' the invasion was a right-handed invasion.

In this sense, the two world wars of the twentieth century were not manifestly Christian wars, any more than they were 'right-handed' wars.

Although, as a left-hander, I wouldn't put anything past those b@stards.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Nobody has the truth. Some Christians think all Muslims and Jews are dirty dogs. Some Muslims think all Christians and Jews are dirty dogs. Some Jews think all Christians and Muslims are dirty dogs. Some on the left think all on the right are dirty dogs and vice versa.

Neither Christians, Jews, Muslims, left or right are monolithic entities. They all differ among themselves. They all have a history of atrocities and generosity. They all contain dirty dogs, thoroughly decent human beings and probably the great majority who are at neither extreme.

Although I think the bible is a collection of fairy tales which should be read with scepticism it contains some wisdom. One of the wisdom bits is the following:

Matthew 7:3 - And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Some people on one side tend to see all those on the other side as dirty dogs. It's that simple.

David f?Loudmouth

"Some people on one side tend to see all those on the other side as dirty dogs. It's that simple."

The issue is not individuals but ideologies, however there are limits to adopting a charitable view of those who adhere to ideologies that are inimical to liberal democracy. It's worth considering the question as to why majority Islamic societies are backward and oppressive, if the majority of Moslems are "moderate".

I'm not sure whether Moslems or the West committed the most mass murders, it's not really central to the issue, the problem is the whitewashing of Islamic history and the portrayal of Moslems as always the victims. It's essential that both sides of the historical record are presented.

mac wrote: It's essential that both sides of the historical record are presented.

History has many sides, and usually is determined by those who write it.

As far as I am concerned Napoleon was no better than Genghis Khan. In my opinion the main reason he is regarded more highly than Genghis Khan is that French are better at writing history than Mongols.

I used to work with a fellow called Al. He was a Hungarian immigrant and told me his first name was actually Attila. Attila the Hun is highly regarded in history in Hungary. However, in English speaking countries it is much better to call oneself Al.

However, history is not only determined by those who write it but by those who read it and the prejudices with which they read it. My reading of history leads me to regard the Christian record as far worse than the Muslim record. I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian. That does make me objective but does mean I identify with neither.