In his own way Mark Latham's patent hatred of all things Islam is just as disingenuous and divisive as Hitler, with his well recorded attitude to Jews.[It wasn't just a tecticle that was missing?]

Some of whom served/gave their lives in the german trenches during WW1.

Lathem seems to be one of those (hasbeen) "politicians" who use propagandized misinformation to divide and rule as the only tactic after shouting down disagreement, and has a, I believe natural ally in Hanson.

Given that is so, it seems he has at least studied and taken on board some Germanic history?

At the time in our history we need to come together and be as vigilant as never before, we just don't need this risible rubbish!

The thing to hate is extremism, even when it comes from drop kicks like pot stirring Latham or Hansen. (Would you like some fries with that?)

What comes next, a bit of book burning or attacking places of business, just because the owner has a typical muslim name? Smashing fun eh?

It's surprising what a little bit of carefully targeted hate can achieve or accomplish? Always providing the target audience has a combined IQ, just a little north of complete moronic?
Rhrosty.

If, as the author suggests, Mark Latham is in need of a history lesson regarding Gallipoli, then he definitely requires a better teacher than this Helen Pringle.

Indian Army commitment during the battle is estimated by Prof Stanley, military historian, UNSW as being of the order of 15,000, which is very likely to be about right.

Notwithstanding the numbers involved, Pringle here, infers that the greater number of Indian Army troops were Islamic. This is very difficult to understand seeing as how the predominant religion of India is Hindu. Islamists make up a minority demographic of religious culture in India.

Refer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India
"According to the 2011 census, 79.8% of the population of India practices Hinduism and 14.2% adheres to Islam, while the remaining 7.37% adheres to other religions..."

Of course that's as at 2011. Modern times, after world travel has increased and many Islamists have chosen to disperse from their homelands.

The same Wikipedia reference provides data for 1951, but not earlier.

In 1951 - Hinduism 84.1%, Islam 9.8%.

Using that data, even though the 1915 proportion of Islamists in India was probably less, it certainly doesn't provide any reason to assume that the majority of Indian Army troops were Islamic as inferred in the article. In fact the data suggests that 90% - 95% of Indian Army troops were Hindu and Sikhs.

Helen Pringle is either very poorly informed (likely if she reads leftist journals such as the Guardian) or in serious need of a history lesson herself.

Big fail Helen!

Do better research next time.

> Pringle here, infers that the greater number of Indian Army troops were Islamic.

> that the majority of Indian Army troops were Islamic as inferred in the article.

I neither said nor inferred (I think you mean implied, btw) that the 'greater number' or the 'majority' were 'Islamic' – or that they were Muslim.

As for calculating the number of 'Islamists' (why not say Muslims?) in the Indian army by reference to the percentage of 'Islamists' in post-Partition India, that's just silly, on so many levels.

thank you for the comment, Helen
ps yes I do read the Guardian, along with many other newspapers.

Sorry darling but voxUnius is quite correct but still missing one vital ingredient. The British in those days had segregated units EG, regiments were 100% Hindu, Sikh or muslim & they would NEVER have sent a muslim regiment to fight other muslims.

"loyalty of Australian Muslims."

Hands up all those who are aware of such a fanciful notion of Muslims being loyal to Australia!

"this is just not radical Islamic ideology, it is also people with too much time on their hands, too many opportunities to sit around in groups, bitching about western culture, bitching about the American President, bitching about the Australian Prime Minister, and getting up to no good'."

Right on the mark, Mark! And all on welfare that is sapping ther hosts' s economy

Gallipoli as implemented was a cockup. However, the idea behind Gallipoli was sound. It was to clear a way to send support to the Russian armies who were fighting the Central Powers. If Gallipoli had been successful the Russian armies might have been able to beat off the German attack. Their success would have probably meant no Russian Revolution, no Lenin, no Stalin, no Soviet Union. Czarist Russia could have developed into a constitutional monarchy like the UK.

Frontline commander on the Turkish side at Gallipoli was Kemal Atatürk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

"His military campaigns led to victory in the Turkish War of Independence. Atatürk then embarked upon a program of political, economic, and cultural reforms, seeking to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern and secular nation-state. Under his leadership, thousands of new schools were built, primary education was made free and compulsory, and women were given equal civil and political rights, while the burden of taxation on peasants was reduced. His government also carried out an extensive policy of Turkification. The principles of Atatürk's reforms, upon which modern Turkey was established, are referred to as Kemalism."

Islam was not an issue on either side.