We need to bear in mind that there is not a complete silence, Not_Now.Soon.

<<…I'd wager that a contributor to this silence among the left has to do with suporting anything that has become an issue they support.>>

Remember that one of the most vocal people against the doctrine of Islam (i.e. Sam Harris) is himself a lefty. Sorry, a LEFTIST. (I always forget to include that emotive -ist at the end there. It sounds so much more dogmatic when put like that, doesn't it?)

<<So if the politics of the left culture harmonize with Islam and tolerance towards it, then this silence shouldn't be a surprise. For me though it is surprising.>>

Yes, it is surprising for you precisely because it does NOT harmonise with it.

<<Russell Grenning, thank you for the spotlight on this matter.>>

Yeah, on OLO at least. Out there in the real world, and contrary to the right-wing ignoramuses on OLO, this has become a major issue that the left has understood for a while now needs sorting out very quickly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3H9--2nS0

The right side of politics has always had the benefit of being simplistic. They do, after all, crave certainty and have an intolerance for ambiguity:

http://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/3790960
http://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

So there is little to nothing for them to sort out. Me personally? I find ambiguity a challenge and thrive on it. The world is, after all, very ambiguous; no matter how much our preferred politics compels us to dampen that with comforting certainties.

Daffy Duck. Just a quick update on your comment re-the Philipines.

The US was requested to assist the Philipine resistance movement to help in ejecting the Spanish colonial rule at the time. Having done this, the then new Philipine government requested the US government retain a militare presence to ensure their independance.

Following much congressional debate regarding the expense of the exercise, during that debate, the most vociferous objection surrounded the debate was NOT the expence involved, but the fact that the USA was NOT a colonialist government, having recently faught a war to gain independance from a colonialist state (England). (Read the cogressional debate).

Additionally, the US faught a civil war which was (in part) a war against the ‘golden circle’ movement that wanted to incorporate (by force) Cuba, Mexico and other caribean countries. Please note, the USA has NEVER been a colonialist country.

AJP says:

*…Nice to see that diver dan’s post was completely removed. To suggest (in response to ttbn’s obvious qualification) that homosexuals be killed for just being who they are is utterly horrifying and evil…*

obviously the removal of a post with a simple question makes you happy AJP.
My question to ttbn on his “suck” to gays, was with a design purpose of promoting thought and debate.

Confronting? Not to my mind. One third of the world population is Muslim. The expectation of them among themselves is to support anti-homosexual behaviour. Murdering homosexuals is admittedly extreme, and the extremity of that action would not be universally accepted among them. But interestingly, many Christians believe in the same extreme measures.

The war created against the norms of society by homosexuals, was won on the strength of the war lost by religions of all colours, against secularism.

It's not a happy end, and a counter attack will be inevitable. ISIS is the shining example. But more will follow I have no doubt.

Prompete, perhaps you should do a search on the topic American slaughter in the Philippines.

Daffy. Could you supply a link please? Always happy to be set strait on historic evidence. Thanks, Pete.

Isn't it general knowlege that the Left stays silent on everything resembling inconvenient truth ?