Thank's for the read and the effort FD. It started off interesting but the bashing of Islam was not very well eased into. It was a sudden onslaught and then it continued. I enjoyed the first part though. One thing, the Romans did invade and build on the other side of the Rhine. There are two people responsible for it not continuing, Arminius(Herman the German) and Varus. Rome abandoned Germany after Arminius destroyed Varus and his 3 legions in the Teutoburg Forest. The emperor, sorely in need of his army and there is a famous quote of a distraught emperor butting his head against the wall yelling "Quintili Vare, legiones redde!“ ('Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!')


Quote:


edit: 3 legions I think was 10% of their army for the entire empire at that time.

Setanta wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 11:23pm:



QUESTION;
If a person is not a moslem [i.e. if a person has a worldview which is not constrained by the oppressive and violent thoughts of Mohammed and Allah],       ...then what is not 'to bash', when the subject of ISLAM is raised ?

Any sensible and reasoning person, imo, would want to criticise what ISLAM promotes and what ISLAM represents.

Human poverty, oppression, violence, and murder.





.






Quote:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/pakistani-cleric-we-want-islamic-law-for-all-p...




.




Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4






n.b.
It was not Yadda who first brought up the subject of ISLAM, in this thread.

Setanta got it..... just because the Christians (LMAO) are no longer vicious and violent and no longer do things like tell the Maltese people to accept the cross or the sword, etc... and the Mussos still do the same things.... such as stoning witches instead of burning them....

... doesn't mean that many Mussos , who may well live in the Dark Ages, won't be still calling any Western intervention in any way 'Crusaderism'... as they do. 

Karnal wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 2:38pm:




No evidence or argument that FD would supply, would satisfy you.



Karnal,

Your contention, so often expressed here on OzPol, is that there is no evidence [which can satisfy your intellect] [in an argument!].

Your contention, so often is that, to the contrary, instances and anecdotes presented here [which demonstrate the validity of an argument/opinion], are merely that, i.e. they are opinion, and not evidence.

Your point being, and your 'point' being underlined [in every response],           ....is that nothing can be 'proved',           ....and that every argument presented, is essentially just that, merely an unprovable argument/opinion.



Karnal,

With such intransigence as yours, reason [i.e. reasonableness] is lost.

And men of war emerge, will emerge.

And in the end, where reason is ignored/discarded, then men with swords [always, inevitably] emerge, to destroy those [everyone] who disagrees with THEIR argument/opinion.

That is my opinion.





Google;
Every Man Should Have A Rifle - Henry Lawson


Why ?

Because in the end, every generation learns an inevitable truth;

Google;
political power grows out of the barrel of a gun


.....that among men, 'might is right'





Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian


Thucydides got it right imo.

No way, can an altruistic thought or intent, in any [few] individuals overcome the force of 'human nature' [selfish intent] in a majority.

'Wolves' will always seek to predate upon others weaker than themselves, particularly the sheep.

It is just our nature.

If we look at our own circumstances, in the last 50-60 years and we can judge that we have experienced a remarkable period of [mostly] prolonged peace and prosperity.

But look further back in human history and we could judge, that the period of relative peaceful relations among [at least 1st world] nations has been a 'deviation' from the norm.

Quote:


That it is better than the alternatives.

Quote:


I have said similar things myself. Our society's strength is not in the machinations of elections, but our values - freedom and democracy. Democracy provides a simple mechanism for undoing itself, so it can only survive where the vast majority actively support it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Acemoglu's theories reinforce this - freedom and democracy are deeply ingrained social institutions. They are a way of life, not a set of laws and rules for electing people.

Quote:


Not really sure what you are asking here.

Quote:


I have no problem with people voting out of self interest. While there are more noble goals, be wary of anyone who asks you to forgo self interest for their version of the greater good. It is often ignorantly misguided or deliberately misguiding. Voting in self interest is a whole lot better than having someone else decide on your behalf what is best for you. People have a sense that the only way to protect your own freedom and wealth is to protect everyone's freedom and wealth. You cannot deny some other group a basic human right without also denying it to yourself.

Quote:


Go ahead and make the argument.

---

Setanta:

Quote:


Thanks for the feedback. I have considered putting that part at the end, but I like the chronological order. I hope that the frank discussion of Islam sets my article apart from others who might tiptoe around the issue. Is any of it incorrect in your opinion?

Quote:


Thanks. I have changed the wording of one of the sentences slightly. In terms of the broader thesis on cultural elgacies, the brevity of their venture over the Rhine (AD 4-9? most of it under a rebellion, and few military incursions after this to take revenge) meant that they did not "Romanise" the region.

Quote:


The point of this article is that this is not correct. The freedom and democracy that we see in the world today (as well as its children, wealth, science, industrialisation etc) is almost exclusively a result of the influence of western Europe on the world. This happened under the religious dominance of Judaism and Christianity. These religions did not invent the barbarity you describe (your Roman example being a good demonstration of this). They did however bring it to an end, in what was from a historical perspective a fairly short period. It did not have to go this way. The Europeans could have sat on top of slave empires for a very long time, like every empire that came before them. Had they done so, the world would probably look a lot like the middle east does today (without the skyscrapers of course).

Communism is almost as bad as Islam. It's only saving grace was that it was historically short lived.

Why do you think the church was able to move into those areas and be influenced by the enlightenment? Could this too be a reflection of Christianity? Or are you going to play Muhammed's trick and tell us all what the real Christianity is?

Europe was able to abandon those "Christian ideas" and replace them with a pagan system of government because there is no such thing as a Christian system of government.

Plenty of the influential players in the ending of slavery were Christians doing so in the name of Christianity. Plenty of the great scientists were Christians who sought to know God through his work. These developments should have happened throughout western civilisation. They would have, had Islam not smothered the majority of it. It is not a mere coincidence that that they happened on the Christian fringe of western civilisation. It is not a historical accident that areas dominated by Islam remain backwards to this day and that Muslims fight against enlightenment principles.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 2:08pm:


The separation of church and state was a cunning ruse to let Henry VIII get a divorce. The church was created by the Roman Empire. Its emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicea, which not only compiled the books of the Bible, but wrote down the Christian creed still in use today.

Democracy, liberal or otherwise, owes nothing to Christianity. As the prophet Yeheshua said, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto Gud that which is Gud's.