I can't comment on Lathams interpetaion of history although not long back the regressives backed him for PM over Howard (which shows their judgement). What I do know is that Pringle is totally ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of Islamic ideology. Not surprising though. Her ideology is far more dangerous than Lathams knowledge or lack of in regards to history.

Voxunis

Estimates of the proportion of India’s population that is Muslim taken after independence are unlikely to be a good measure of the proportions from before independence, as a large number of Muslims wound up in Pakistan and Bangladesh not modern-day India.

There were apparently thousands of Punjabi mule drivers at Gallipoli:

http://www.sbs.com.au/radio/article/2015/04/25/remembering-contribution-indian-troops-gallipoli

As Islam is the predominant religion in the Punjab, it’s likely that many of these were Muslim.

David makes the most important point - religion was not the issue in WW1 for either side. If Latham thinks it was, he's ignorant.

It's perfectly true that Islam nor any other religion was connected with WW1. Few Westerners even uttered the word 'Islam' those days. But I have read, within the last month, (sorry can't remember where) that some Turks were asking for their victory at Gallipoli to be recognised as a victory for Allah. Bit late, I would have thought, especially as Muslims are not permitted come up with any new ideas after Mohammed had his say.

ttbn
the German Army in both world wars routinely used the motto "Gott mit uns", and in WWI both sides often attributed their victories to divine approval. That doesn't mean they were fighting a religious war.

http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/religion/gott-mit-uns/

> 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.
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Monday, 30 November 2015 10:17:09 AM

First, I am not your darling.

Second, I suggest you read some military history, and in particular the book by Peter Stanley cited in my piece before you make inaccurate statements about segregated units. The general question you raise is discussed by Stanley at various points. As an example, Stanley notes that around 50% of the mountain artillery brigade, and around 75% of the supply and transport units were Muslim, ie the rest being non-Muslim Punjabis. But presumably you know better than a conscientious historian working in the archives? There is further discussion in the book of the concern of some officers about Muslims being sent to fight other (Turkish) Muslims, but why don't you spend the money, buy the book, read it and then speak/write on the basis of something other than ignorance? I would be happy to engage further once you have done that. I am sure that the Muslim soldiers who died at Gallipoli would also be interested in your view about their non-existence.

thanks again, Helen

For a person who claims that Mark Latham does not know his historical facts, Helen Pringle, you might be interested to know that Latham is correct.

The primary purpose of Gallipoli was to drive the Turks out of the war. It was also to destroy the Ottoman Empire which had already invaded Europe twice, and also to drive the Muslim Turks out of Constantinople. Both the Russian and Greek governments made enthusiastic representations to the allies to take over the administration of Asia Minor once the Muslim Turks had been driven out.

Your claim that Muslims troops may have fought at Gallipoli on the empire's side is hardly an endorsement of multiculturalism. Professional soldiers go where they are told to go, and fight who they are told to fight. Muslim soldiers fought alongside Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, but they were unreliable fighters, and some of them shot Aussie soldiers in the back.

What interests me, is that woman of your intelligence is trying to be an apologist for Islam? If you consider yourself a social progressive, then the Muslims hate you even worse than they hate me. The targets of the Paris attacks were your own leftist demographic. And here you are, still trying to claim that Muslims and their religion are not a problem.

Islam is a religion which wants world domination. It's own holy scriptures authorise the use of extreme violence and terrorism to get it. That is the problem. If you haven't figured that out yet, then you must live in a bubble. Islam is the complete antithesis of everything that you believe in. But you are so enamoured of the already failed concept of multiculturalism that you avert your eyes from what you most definitely do not want to see.

I have seen this psychosis previously. Since 1918, educated and supposedly intelligent, tertiary educated people claimed that the Soviet Union was the workers paradise. They ignored the ethnic cleansing through deportations, the 30 million who starved to death, the Berlin Wall, and the ever failing harvests. The human minds capacity for self delusion is just amazing.