Not old enough to remember the 70s very strongly but I do have recollections of filth and huge areas of Glasgow
I am old enough to remember the 70s and it was a grim time. When I visited Glasgow I was appalled at the state of the place - it was the biggest slum I have ever seen.
I hope it has improved because I have never gone back.
It is a very pleasant place now and has been since the 1990s when most of the debris fields and wastelands started to be rebuilt.
What the Labour Party and the Union did to Glasgow should never be forgotten, it is a cultural atrocity which does not fall short of the actions of ISIS.
@Dair@Beverley_C This website has many photos of Glasgow from the 70s.
So was it Corbyn's romantic past with Abbott that caused him to ignore her blatant racism when appointing her to the shadow cabinet? Or was it just another issue where Corbyn has double standards depending on who is committing the sin?
What I find most surprising about all this is that they did a road trip around the GDR in the 1970s and still maintained their socialist views. You would have to be truly blinded by ideology to see the tip that the GDR was, compare it to the FRG, and conclude socialism was the better system.
You forget.
They came from Britain in the 1970s.
GDR would have been cleaner and greener without undeveloped bomb sites and buildings crumbling all around you**.
No doubt the GDR was a grim place compared to many in the world. But compared to 1970s Britain it was Utopia.
You sure? I'm pretty confident that Bomber command and 8th Air force spent a great deal of time and effort rearranging the street layouts of what became GDR.
Yes but by the 1970s the GDR had rebuilt with brand spanking new (and at the time in good order) blocks of flats. The UK was left with huge swathes of our major cities in rubble. Youtube some videos from the 70s in any British city of your choice.
IIRC that was more "slum clearance" (and silly urban motorways) than bomb damage. Still not pretty though.
See, of all places, Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads.
New building in East Germany (or other parts of the Eastern bloc like Riga) in the 1960's and 1970's was very similar to the New Brutalism that was popular in the UK at the time. It was just as horrible to live in as well.
But, overall, the UK was far more prosperous than East Germany in the 1970s, although official statistics indicated that East German GDP was similar.
It turned out that Communist country's GDP calculations were not very accurate.
There's an implicit assumption in Keiran's piece that there exists a group of sensible senior people at the heart of the Labour Party, who agree on what needs to be done, and who will be able to fix the result, in collaboration with sensible union leaders, in order to bring about a sensible choice of next leader.
Is there such a group? Would they all agree on who should be next leader, would they have the support of the whole PLP, and would they all put aside any personal ambitions of their own? No, I don't think so either. It's even more unlikely if they need union support, at least for as long as Len McCluskey is the key player.
But, even if such a group exists or will exist, how would they actually fix the result? It would require near-unanimity amongst the PLP, which in current circumstances looks unattainable and in any case couldn't be guaranteed in advance. It would only require one ambitious or dissident MP to get 35 nominations and the whole thing is blown open. We'd have a rerun of the full contest - what fun that would be - probably with the same selectorate. That looks a jolly high-risk strategy especially as the next GE will be looming closer.
On balance, I don't see the Michael Howard route being open to Labour this time. The civil wars are still raging.
I'm not sure I quite agree with that.
35 MPs is a relatively high bar. We know that Corbyn couldn't have reached it without help. Would that help be forthcoming a second time in the event of a Corbyn departure? On the one hand, MPs themselves are likely to be under pressure from constituencies selecting and reselecting candidates, which may play to the left's advantage; on the other, if Corbyn has done so disastrously that a coup is viable, MPs may well reason that there's no great risk in the selection process if whoever gets it is going to lose anyway.
You're right that there would need to be a magic circle coronation but that's not wholly alien to Labour's culture. Brown succeeded Blair unopposed (more through brute strength than consensus admittedly). And it's not simply that there would need to be more than 35 MPs actively opposed to Johnson, Harman, Benn or whoever taking over: those dissidents would need to rally round some alternative candidate to force an election, which is a harder task.
Now, I agree 100% that it'd still be a high-risk option with the possibility that it could make matters even worse if Corbyn is forced out in favour of, say, Dianne Abbott. After all, the main reason that Major wasn't deposed is that his critics could neither agree on a successor and were more fearful of the wrong outcome from their point of view than they were hopeful of the right one. But for all that, it could be done. The odds quoted on Johnson, Harman and Benn remain value but Corbyn should probably still be favourite to lead Labour into the election.
Traveling through the Berlin corridor on the military train in the mid 80's to west Berlin showed exactly what a toilet east Germany was. It had to be seen to be believed
Drove the Berlin corridor a few times during the eighties, the motorway route was well away from built-up areas so you really didn’t see a great deal until you reached the French sector - The only memory I have is of being stuck behind packed coaches and Trabants, belching out diesel smoke for hours on end which was pretty vile.
These are dangerous young men. God knows how many Islamists Germany and Sweden have already taken in.
I've yet to be able to confirm the BBC footage with it edited out, although many people are talking about it.
Why are they dangerous? Allahu Akhbar from my understanding literally translated to Praise Be To God. If a Christian had walked in saying Thank God or Praise The Lord would they be dangerous?
If they were throwing rocks at Muslims at the time it might be
These are dangerous young men. God knows how many Islamists Germany and Sweden have already taken in.
I've yet to be able to confirm the BBC footage with it edited out, although many people are talking about it.
Why are they dangerous? Allahu Akhbar from my understanding literally translated to Praise Be To God. If a Christian had walked in saying Thank God or Praise The Lord would they be dangerous?
"Allah Akhbar" shouted as a cry is well established as an Islamist slogan, from the Iranian revolutionaries to Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State. You don't get democratic Arab liberals shouting it.
There is a reason the BBC apparently edited it out of its footage.
Actually moderate Muslims shout it too.
I know all Muslims use it as an expression, but I've never known moderate Muslims use it as a rallying cry during protests.
Well that's just ignorance then. It's exactly the same as Thank God or Praise The Lord.
Just because some shout it while committing horrific crimes does not mean the phrase is by itself horrific.
The literal translation is "God is Great" and it part of an old Islamic war cry against invading infidels. Allahu Akhbar is a phrase very closely linked to the idea of a holy war or jihad against non-Muslims.
It can be argued they tried to do more than New Labour, although it was always going to be a very difficult task.
Examples:
*) The massively successful regeneration of Docklands, for which hundred-foot high statues of Heseltine (preferably wielding the Mace) should be erected.
*) The five garden festivals designed to regenerate specific areas.
*) The creation of new industries, including attracting Nissan, Toyota and Honda into the UK.
The site of the Glasgow Garden Festival (1988) lay predominantly dormant for over a decade. Only in 2001 was anything actually built on the site (the Glasgow Science Centre and new HQ for BBC Scotland), this took up around 30% of the site. over the next few years a Premier Inn, new HQ for STV and a few office blocks were built but it was still less than 60% of the total site capacity (and almost half of that was open plan car parking in a location less than 3 miles from the city centre).
Today the last few units are finally being utilised. But that has taken 27 years. That is hardly a success.
The Infrastructure required was never built, indeed until the Squinty Bridge was built, providing decent access to the city centre, the site was absolute awful for prospective businesses. Fortunately the bridge has changed that but so damn late.
BTW, if you include the wider dock area, including the dry docks on the Govan side of the basin, arguably half the developable land is still derelict.
Jeremy Corbyn faced a threat of Labour defections today after days of turmoil over his leadership.
In a dramatic interview, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron revealed he has been called since last Saturday’s election result by Labour figures distraught about their new boss.
Mr Farron told the Evening Standard: “I’ve had various unsolicited texts, some of them over the weekend, where I felt like I was being an agony aunt rather than anything else.
......The revelations over possible defections, which emerged less than a week after Mr Corbyn became party leader, came as many Labour MPs were in despair over its future.
One said: “It’s a question of whether it’s going to be a disaster or a bloodbath.”
I think that they are very intelligent young women: That said; imagine Charlotte Proundman's face upon Lisa Nandy's neck. Not that each are attractive in their own right, but....
Ofcourse we could 'desensitive' the craven male-instinct by treating males and females as commodities and not 'tick-boxes' (and vice-versa). Until then it is all about riding the horse throughout the course....
Jeremy Corbyn is the wrong person at the wrong time to lead labour. The economic and personal security in this time of great danger to the Country requires an opposition leader who actively supports our defence, not someone who wants to scrap trident, leave NATO, has a history of supporting Hamas, the IRA and even Argentina. David Cameron will win hands down on keeping us safe. The migration crisis will grip Europe and the UK for years to come and David Cameron's solution will be seen as far sighted and Merkel's largely seen as incompetent and a complete disaster. This crisis will see the clamour to regain control of our borders increase with the inevitable demand to 'leave' Europe. Re the economy he is talking yesterdays arguments which labour lost in May and by the time of the next election, George Osborne will have concluded austerity and will no doubt will be promoting more social democratic policies to lock the conservatives in the centre ground.
Its a great disappointment to me that Burnham did not win. A plain vanilla useless Labour Party leader who could be guaranteed to stay until the election with the electorate quietly confident in their opinion of him as being a dipstick. Sadly now even Labour realise that. Corbyn is of course a twerp and labour are deeply divided and the electorate will recognise that all the 4 candidates were useless. This has got to be good for the tories, however any new leader after all this is bound to be seen sadly as an improvement. Still we must hope Corbyn and McDonnell stay together at least to give the responses to the 2016 budget.
These are dangerous young men. God knows how many Islamists Germany and Sweden have already taken in.
I've yet to be able to confirm the BBC footage with it edited out, although many people are talking about it.
Why are they dangerous? Allahu Akhbar from my understanding literally translated to Praise Be To God. If a Christian had walked in saying Thank God or Praise The Lord would they be dangerous?
"Allah Akhbar" shouted as a cry is well established as an Islamist slogan, from the Iranian revolutionaries to Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State. You don't get democratic Arab liberals shouting it.
There is a reason the BBC apparently edited it out of its footage.
Actually moderate Muslims shout it too.
I know all Muslims use it as an expression, but I've never known moderate Muslims use it as a rallying cry during protests.
Well that's just ignorance then. It's exactly the same as Thank God or Praise The Lord.
Just because some shout it while committing horrific crimes does not mean the phrase is by itself horrific.
The literal translation is "God is Great" and it part of an old Islamic war cry against invading infidels. Allahu Akhbar is a phrase very closely linked to the idea of a holy war or jihad against non-Muslims.
It's particularly closely linked with that idea in the minds of westerners who haven't heard it used in other contexts, though. If those chaps out there had a spin doctor, she'd desperately be telling them to chant something else! It's not an inherently extreme phrase but it gives the impression of being so precisely because it can be used in an extremist context and this is where most westerners have heard of it.
These are dangerous young men. God knows how many Islamists Germany and Sweden have already taken in.
I've yet to be able to confirm the BBC footage with it edited out, although many people are talking about it.
Why are they dangerous? Allahu Akhbar from my understanding literally translated to Praise Be To God. If a Christian had walked in saying Thank God or Praise The Lord would they be dangerous?
"Allah Akhbar" shouted as a cry is well established as an Islamist slogan, from the Iranian revolutionaries to Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State. You don't get democratic Arab liberals shouting it.
There is a reason the BBC apparently edited it out of its footage.
Actually moderate Muslims shout it too.
I know all Muslims use it as an expression, but I've never known moderate Muslims use it as a rallying cry during protests.
Well that's just ignorance then. It's exactly the same as Thank God or Praise The Lord.
Just because some shout it while committing horrific crimes does not mean the phrase is by itself horrific.
The literal translation is "God is Great" and it part of an old Islamic war cry against invading infidels. Allahu Akhbar is a phrase very closely linked to the idea of a holy war or jihad against non-Muslims.
Not so much "against invading infidels" as "expanding Islam through conquest as taught by Mohammed".
Islam is, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
It can be argued they tried to do more than New Labour, although it was always going to be a very difficult task.
Examples:
*) The massively successful regeneration of Docklands, for which hundred-foot high statues of Heseltine (preferably wielding the Mace) should be erected.
*) The five garden festivals designed to regenerate specific areas.
*) The creation of new industries, including attracting Nissan, Toyota and Honda into the UK.
The site of the Glasgow Garden Festival (1988) lay predominantly dormant for over a decade. Only in 2001 was anything actually built on the site (the Glasgow Science Centre and new HQ for BBC Scotland), this took up around 30% of the site. over the next few years a Premier Inn, new HQ for STV and a few office blocks were built but it was still less than 60% of the total site capacity (and almost half of that was open plan car parking in a location less than 3 miles from the city centre).
Today the last few units are finally being utilised. But that has taken 27 years. That is hardly a success.
The Infrastructure required was never built, indeed until the Squinty Bridge was built, providing decent access to the city centre, the site was absolute awful for prospective businesses. Fortunately the bridge has changed that but so damn late.
BTW, if you include the wider dock area, including the dry docks on the Govan side of the basin, arguably half the developable land is still derelict.
The car factories in the NE were unquestionably a success, and did provide employment for men ‘released" from the mines and shipyards. And fairly quickly, too.
Not so sure about Docklands, although possibly I’m underestimating the ability of the sons (and daughters) of dockers and printers to “transfer" to the new “industries” there.
Jeremy Corbyn faced a threat of Labour defections today after days of turmoil over his leadership.
In a dramatic interview, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron revealed he has been called since last Saturday’s election result by Labour figures distraught about their new boss.
Mr Farron told the Evening Standard: “I’ve had various unsolicited texts, some of them over the weekend, where I felt like I was being an agony aunt rather than anything else.
......The revelations over possible defections, which emerged less than a week after Mr Corbyn became party leader, came as many Labour MPs were in despair over its future.
One said: “It’s a question of whether it’s going to be a disaster or a bloodbath.”
SDP 2.0 ? "Mr Farron is said to be on good terms with several Labour moderates including arch moderniser Lord Mandelson." Doesn't back up some on PB who paint Farron as a 'leftie'.
It has many entirely quotidian uses including as a call to prayer. It is also a warcry. Most people using it, most of the time, are doing so in a non-extreme context. Anyone denying that should read the article above. Or better yet, get some everyday boring moderate normal non-terrorist muslim friends.
Not so much "against invading infidels" as "expanding Islam through conquest as taught by Mohammed".
Islam is, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Go back 500 years..... Christianity was, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Islam is just catching up with its predecessor
It’s noticeable that it seems to have taken 500 years to get to similar places! Schism etc, although I’m aware of the existence of the Eastern Churches.Don’t think though there was ever the same hositity between them and Rome as between Geneva (etc) and Rome!
In the early 80s I went on a study tour of the Soviet Union with the University. It would be fair to say most of the participants were committed communists who genuinely believed they had seen the future. Most had been to East Germany and were convinced that it was greatly superior to Western Germany which was inevitably going to collapse along with the rest of the west.
As someone who had seen the Berlin wall in the 1970s as well as the fences built across the beautiful Harz mountains like an ugly scar facing in the way with mines, barbed wire and armed sentries on patrol to prevent their people from leaving I thought this was completely absurd and some lively debates ensued but what it showed was that even seeing it for yourself is not enough to change opinions if your mind is closed. That is at least one of Corbyn's problems.
I had an option to go to Russia in 1988 when I was 15. For various reasons I couldn't go, but wish I had. It would have been fascinating to see Moscow (or the bits they let us see) at that pivotal moment before the fall.
I went there in the summer of 1988 and it was indeed fascinating. The food was uniformly ghastly, though. The only thing to eat - if you wanted to avoid spending the entire holiday in the lavatory - was the bread and drink was plentiful. As well as the usual places, we visited a number of small towns outside Moscow that were opening up their monasteries and churches - it was the 1000th anniversary of Christianity coming to Russia - and which would not normally be open to tourists. And we spent time in Kiev, which was a surprisingly gracious city. That holiday has a special place in my heart because it was where I met and got together with the man who became hy husband.
It has many entirely quotidian uses including as a call to prayer. It is also a warcry. Most people using it, most of the time, are doing so in a non-extreme context. Anyone denying that should read the article above. Or better yet, get some everyday boring moderate normal non-terrorist muslim friends.
Though considering how Islamism has turned the Middle East and North Africa into a cesspit of butchery and misogyny, one would have thought that self evidently Allah is not great! The migrants need some insight.
In the early 80s I went on a study tour of the Soviet Union with the University. It would be fair to say most of the participants were committed communists who genuinely believed they had seen the future. Most had been to East Germany and were convinced that it was greatly superior to Western Germany which was inevitably going to collapse along with the rest of the west.
As someone who had seen the Berlin wall in the 1970s as well as the fences built across the beautiful Harz mountains like an ugly scar facing in the way with mines, barbed wire and armed sentries on patrol to prevent their people from leaving I thought this was completely absurd and some lively debates ensued but what it showed was that even seeing it for yourself is not enough to change opinions if your mind is closed. That is at least one of Corbyn's problems.
I had an option to go to Russia in 1988 when I was 15. For various reasons I couldn't go, but wish I had. It would have been fascinating to see Moscow (or the bits they let us see) at that pivotal moment before the fall.
I went there in the summer of 1988 and it was indeed fascinating. The food was uniformly ghastly, though. The only thing to eat - if you wanted to avoid spending the entire holiday in the lavatory - was the bread and drink was plentiful. As well as the usual places, we visited a number of small towns outside Moscow that were opening up their monasteries and churches - it was the 1000th anniversary of Christianity coming to Russia - and which would not normally be open to tourists. And we spent time in Kiev, which was a surprisingly gracious city. That holiday has a special place in my heart because it was where I met and got together with the man who became hy husband.
On our Bulgarian trip we were once served a dinner which inclded 5 sprouts. All badly cooked.
It’s also the only place I’ve ever been where the chicken soup had feathers in it!
The food in Czechoslovakia, though, in 1988, was often excellent.
These are dangerous young men. God knows how many Islamists Germany and Sweden have already taken in.
I've yet to be able to confirm the BBC footage with it edited out, although many people are talking about it.
Why are they dangerous? Allahu Akhbar from my understanding literally translated to Praise Be To God. If a Christian had walked in saying Thank God or Praise The Lord would they be dangerous?
"Allah Akhbar" shouted as a cry is well established as an Islamist slogan, from the Iranian revolutionaries to Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State. You don't get democratic Arab liberals shouting it.
There is a reason the BBC apparently edited it out of its footage.
Actually moderate Muslims shout it too.
I know all Muslims use it as an expression, but I've never known moderate Muslims use it as a rallying cry during protests.
Well that's just ignorance then. It's exactly the same as Thank God or Praise The Lord.
Just because some shout it while committing horrific crimes does not mean the phrase is by itself horrific.
Actually as its translation is "God is Great", the better comparison would be to "Glory to God" for Christians.
Which, like Allahu Ackbar, is a War Cry.
For one, I thought Allahu Akhbar was the comparative or superlative.
For two, Glory to God is from the New Testament - the Angel Chorus in the Christmas Story to be exact. There aren't many battle cries in the New Testament.
I'd be interested to hear of its (mis)use as a battle cry.
I can't comment on Allahi Akhbar in the Quran, but Mohammed was quite warlike according to some (later?) sections.
I guess hear that it is being used as a rally cry for the protestors.
Not all are literal :-).
eg F**k the Police. F**k the Tories.
Its use as a war cry is very old. But it has much wider applications. Here "rally cry" seems a good way to put it.
For comparison, though not an exact match, "deus volente = if god wills it" is a Catholic version of inshallah (in a secular context, the basic equivalent is "let's keep our fingers crossed for it") but the Crusader war cry was "deus vult = god wills it". One everyday phrase and one warcry, albeit not quite identical but with similar roots.
Talking to The Huffington Post UK, Ms Phillips, who despite being elected in May has already earned a reputation for being one of the most outspoken MPs, said: “I roundly told her to fuck off.”
When asked what Ms Abbott did after that suggestion, Ms Phillips replied: “She fucked off.”
She added: “People said to me they had always wanted to say that to her, and I don’t know why they don’t as the opportunity presents itself every other minute.”
It has many entirely quotidian uses including as a call to prayer. It is also a warcry. Most people using it, most of the time, are doing so in a non-extreme context. Anyone denying that should read the article above. Or better yet, get some everyday boring moderate normal non-terrorist muslim friends.
I don't think anyone is denying it. We are just saying that protesters using it as they throw rocks at police are using it as a warcry rather than a call to prayer.
Not so much "against invading infidels" as "expanding Islam through conquest as taught by Mohammed".
Islam is, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Go back 500 years..... Christianity was, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Islam is just catching up with its predecessor
No it wasn't. Evangelising, yes, but by example and sacrifice; not by conquest. Apart from anything else, the early Christian church had no armies to wield. It's really only when you get to Justinian that you have the concept of a globe-spanning universal Christian empire as a state vision. Even then, politics came first.
Islam came first in conquering in the name of religion. Of course, once Islam had set the example, Christian states and churches were more than willing to follow it.
Jeremy Corbyn faced a threat of Labour defections today after days of turmoil over his leadership.
In a dramatic interview, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron revealed he has been called since last Saturday’s election result by Labour figures distraught about their new boss.
Mr Farron told the Evening Standard: “I’ve had various unsolicited texts, some of them over the weekend, where I felt like I was being an agony aunt rather than anything else.
......The revelations over possible defections, which emerged less than a week after Mr Corbyn became party leader, came as many Labour MPs were in despair over its future.
One said: “It’s a question of whether it’s going to be a disaster or a bloodbath.”
SDP 2.0 ? "Mr Farron is said to be on good terms with several Labour moderates including arch moderniser Lord Mandelson." Doesn't back up some on PB who paint Farron as a 'leftie'.
Although of course Mandelson was one who in many ways could have joined the SDP in the early 1980s and felt comfortable there, but didn't.
Talking to The Huffington Post UK, Ms Phillips, who despite being elected in May has already earned a reputation for being one of the most outspoken MPs, said: “I roundly told her to fuck off.”
When asked what Ms Abbott did after that suggestion, Ms Phillips replied: “She fucked off.”
She added: “People said to me they had always wanted to say that to her, and I don’t know why they don’t as the opportunity presents itself every other minute.”
Not so much "against invading infidels" as "expanding Islam through conquest as taught by Mohammed".
Islam is, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Go back 500 years..... Christianity was, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Islam is just catching up with its predecessor
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
It has many entirely quotidian uses including as a call to prayer. It is also a warcry. Most people using it, most of the time, are doing so in a non-extreme context. Anyone denying that should read the article above. Or better yet, get some everyday boring moderate normal non-terrorist muslim friends.
Stop this sensible, rational, well-researched, unprejudiced nonsense immediately.
Not so much "against invading infidels" as "expanding Islam through conquest as taught by Mohammed".
Islam is, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Go back 500 years..... Christianity was, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Islam is just catching up with its predecessor
I've seen this argument advanced a number of times. It's a poor one, simply because we're not living 500 years ago (in fairness, the last great war of religion only ended in 1648 and we could argue that 1745 was our last hurrah for religious strife [ modulo NI ofc] ).
Persian-influenced Islam was a great boon to the west - it preserved a lot of the classical world's knowledge and was intellectually forward thinking. The latter day Salafists are intent on taking Islam back to the 7th century.
Off-topic: I think that they are very intelligent young women: That said; imagine Charlotte Proundman's face upon Lisa Nandy's neck. Not that each are attractive in their own right, but....
Proudman, not the nearly Freudian slip Proundman ("Poundman" would be wonderfully descriptive).
Unfortunately everytime I hear the stunningly photographed Ms Proudman's name I think of families of hobbits out of Tolkien:
"'Proudfeet!' shouted an elderly hobbit from the back of the pavilion. His name, of course, was Proudfoot, and well merited; his feet were large, exceptionally furry, and both were on the table."
It has many entirely quotidian uses including as a call to prayer. It is also a warcry. Most people using it, most of the time, are doing so in a non-extreme context. Anyone denying that should read the article above. Or better yet, get some everyday boring moderate normal non-terrorist muslim friends.
Stop this sensible, rational, well-researched, unprejudiced nonsense immediately.
This is PB, for god's sake.
It was well-researched and unprejudiced, but also misunderstanding of the argument that others have made.
No-one is arguing that all people saying "Allah Akhbar" are extremists. We are just arguing that those migrants shouting it as they throw rocks at Hungarian police officers are. Do you think they were saying it as a call to prayer, as an informal confirmation of their faith, or as a war cry?
Talking to The Huffington Post UK, Ms Phillips, who despite being elected in May has already earned a reputation for being one of the most outspoken MPs, said: “I roundly told her to fuck off.”
When asked what Ms Abbott did after that suggestion, Ms Phillips replied: “She fucked off.”
She added: “People said to me they had always wanted to say that to her, and I don’t know why they don’t as the opportunity presents itself every other minute.”
Not so much "against invading infidels" as "expanding Islam through conquest as taught by Mohammed".
Islam is, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Go back 500 years..... Christianity was, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Islam is just catching up with its predecessor
It’s noticeable that it seems to have taken 500 years to get to similar places! Schism etc, although I’m aware of the existence of the Eastern Churches.Don’t think though there was ever the same hositity between them and Rome as between Geneva (etc) and Rome!
The Islamic schism began immediately on Mohammed's death, and has persisted to this day.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
The site of the Glasgow Garden Festival (1988) lay predominantly dormant for over a decade. Only in 2001 was anything actually built on the site (the Glasgow Science Centre and new HQ for BBC Scotland), this took up around 30% of the site. over the next few years a Premier Inn, new HQ for STV and a few office blocks were built but it was still less than 60% of the total site capacity (and almost half of that was open plan car parking in a location less than 3 miles from the city centre).
Today the last few units are finally being utilised. But that has taken 27 years. That is hardly a success.
The Infrastructure required was never built, indeed until the Squinty Bridge was built, providing decent access to the city centre, the site was absolute awful for prospective businesses. Fortunately the bridge has changed that but so damn late.
BTW, if you include the wider dock area, including the dry docks on the Govan side of the basin, arguably half the developable land is still derelict.
There are several things to say about this. Firstly, money was spent, and land was cleared ready for other industries. Clearing and decontaminating land is a large barrier to industry. Also, much of it was on land that first became derelict in the 1970s.
Secondly, it was a big message that Glasgow was open for business. From wiki:
It attracted 4.3 million visitors over 152 days, by far the most successful of the five National Garden Festivals. Its significance in the rebirth of the city was underlined by the 1990 European City of Culture title bestowed on Glasgow in September 1986. The two events together did much to restore Glasgow to national and international prominence.
This should not be underestimated.
Thirdly, it isn't just the London government's fault if the land was not immediately built on. It's also down to the local councils to attract businesses, and the local people as well to innovate and train.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
It has many entirely quotidian uses including as a call to prayer. It is also a warcry. Most people using it, most of the time, are doing so in a non-extreme context. Anyone denying that should read the article above. Or better yet, get some everyday boring moderate normal non-terrorist muslim friends.
Stop this sensible, rational, well-researched, unprejudiced nonsense immediately.
This is PB, for god's sake.
It was well-researched and unprejudiced, but also misunderstanding of the argument that others have made.
No-one is arguing that all people saying "Allah Akhbar" are extremists. We are just arguing that those migrants shouting it as they throw rocks at Hungarian police officers are. Do you think they were saying it as a call to prayer, as an informal confirmation of their faith, or as a war cry?
Well, if they'd shouted "Hungarian scum" at the time, I'm sure you could class that as a 'war cry' too.
I think the point being made is that Allāhu Akbar is commonly used, including but not limited to violent confrontations. That does not mean that those shouting it are cut from the same cloth as a suicide bomber. My reading of your posts is that you are strongly implying that they are...
Persian-influenced Islam was a great boon to the west - it preserved a lot of the classical world's knowledge and was intellectually forward thinking. The latter day Salafists are intent on taking Islam back to the 7th century.
Indeed. Many classical Greek works such as Ptolemy's Almagest are only known through the arab copies and they give us many advances in mathematics. Sadly all now past glories.
I just view both Islam and Christianity as homophobic, misogynistic, paternalistic desert religions. Not a lot to choose...
I wish humanity would grow up and start taking responsibility for its actions instead of blaming a bearded old man in the sky or a little red man with a trident running around underground or whatever.
In a dramatic interview, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron revealed he has been called since last Saturday’s election result by Labour figures distraught about their new boss. [..]
One said: “It’s a question of whether it’s going to be a disaster or a bloodbath.”
When asked if they included Labour frontbenchers he replied: “I couldn’t possibly comment. The bottom line is, ... people in the Labour Party need to understand they can have conversations with me, which may or may not be conclusive, which will remain totally between me and them.”
"Well, between me, them and the Evening Standard, obv."
It seems so much more likely that Hilary Benn will take over. He's in the Shadow Cabinet and retained the same senior role - so he has loyalty to the party written all over him plus is positioned well to sensibly take over. Also he's a good egg, generally respected, and the name will appeal to the social media generation who supported Corbyn.
If the Byzantines and Sassanids hadn't spent a quarter of a century beating the crap out of each other, I doubt the Arab conquest would have been anything like as successful.
In a dramatic interview, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron revealed he has been called since last Saturday’s election result by Labour figures distraught about their new boss. [..]
One said: “It’s a question of whether it’s going to be a disaster or a bloodbath.”
I meant Carthage has a history of giving command to inept Commanders.
I'm concurrently working, writing the afternoon thread and educating you. Cut me some slack
One part-time job, one hobby, and one full-time job, eh?
The latter is a full time job for at least 5 people.
PS - Can you find any bookies who have got Jess Phillips as next Labour leader, I might do a thread on her tomorrow.
Confess to never having actually heard of her until this thread!
She cost me a lot of money at the election. I went balls deep on John Hemming holding Yardley
She sounds just the sort of compliant young lady who would meekly fall in line with the choice of whichever elderly white male the grandees decide should be Corbyn's replacement.
Mr. M, Chosroes II was a very interesting historical figure, from the little I've read of him. Took Persia from peace with Byzantium, to successful war against them, only to be smashed by Heraclius, with the remnants swallowed up by Islam. Both he and Heraclius had wild roller-coaster reigns (although Heraclius' was due to misfortune rather than madness).
If he'd maintained peace following Maurice's toppling, I do wonder if Islam might have had a rather different history.
It seems so much more likely that Hilary Benn will take over. He's in the Shadow Cabinet and retained the same senior role - so he has loyalty to the party written all over him plus is positioned well to sensibly take over. Also he's a good egg, generally respected, and the name will appeal to the social media generation who supported Corbyn.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
I meant Carthage has a history of giving command to inept Commanders.
I'm concurrently working, writing the afternoon thread and educating you. Cut me some slack
One part-time job, one hobby, and one full-time job, eh?
The latter is a full time job for at least 5 people.
PS - Can you find any bookies who have got Jess Phillips as next Labour leader, I might do a thread on her tomorrow.
Confess to never having actually heard of her until this thread!
She cost me a lot of money at the election. I went balls deep on John Hemming holding Yardley
She sounds just the sort of compliant young lady who would meekly fall in line with the choice of whichever elderly white male the grandees decide should be Corbyn's replacement.
Not that youg. She’s in her mid-thirties, with a ten year old son.
If the Byzantines and Sassanids hadn't spent a quarter of a century beating the crap out of each other, I doubt the Arab conquest would have been anything like as successful.
Only the Chinese seemed to have been able to stop their eastward march?
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
When asked if they included Labour frontbenchers he replied: “I couldn’t possibly comment. The bottom line is, ... people in the Labour Party need to understand they can have conversations with me, which may or may not be conclusive, which will remain totally between me and them.”
"Well, between me, them and the Evening Standard, obv."
The first time this was mentioned, I immediately thought "he's lying just to try and drum up business".
And every extra piece of information consolidates that view.
So was it Corbyn's romantic past with Abbott that caused him to ignore her blatant racism when appointing her to the shadow cabinet? Or was it just another issue where Corbyn has double standards depending on who is committing the sin?
What I find most surprising about all this is that they did a road trip around the GDR in the 1970s and still maintained their socialist views. You would have to be truly blinded by ideology to see the tip that the GDR was, compare it to the FRG, and conclude socialism was the better system.
Unless my recollection is playing tricks with me you might want to look at what they both think of the Socialist paradise of Venezuela.
If the Byzantines and Sassanids hadn't spent a quarter of a century beating the crap out of each other, I doubt the Arab conquest would have been anything like as successful.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
The results are the same.
As a gay man i think I find life in a broadly christian country somewhat more comfortable than in many Muslim countries and much more than in ~Isisland. You really need to pause before hitting the keyboard.
So was it Corbyn's romantic past with Abbott that caused him to ignore her blatant racism when appointing her to the shadow cabinet? Or was it just another issue where Corbyn has double standards depending on who is committing the sin?
What I find most surprising about all this is that they did a road trip around the GDR in the 1970s and still maintained their socialist views. You would have to be truly blinded by ideology to see the tip that the GDR was, compare it to the FRG, and conclude socialism was the better system.
You forget.
They came from Britain in the 1970s.
GDR would have been cleaner and greener without undeveloped bomb sites and buildings crumbling all around you**.
No doubt the GDR was a grim place compared to many in the world. But compared to 1970s Britain it was Utopia.
Dr. Prasannan, was unaware of that. Lucky for the Chinese that the strong Tang dynasty was around (a high point for China) to see them off.
Mr Dancer, it would appear that Talas was an Arab victory, but they seemed to be content to stick to Central Asia, rather than take on the Tangs on their own turf.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Hypothetically, if you were an ordinary, law abiding Muslim, living in the Middle East. How would you view the Christian Crusades? Or the American adventures in Iraq? Or, even, America and the UK's unquestioning support of Israel?
Would these be the actions of a benign Christianity, or a muscular aggressive one?
If I were sitting in those shoes, I might think the latter.
Of course, the West has troubles enough of its own. And the appetite for adventures in Muslim lands is - outside the Wingnut Portion of the Republican Party - zero. But I don't think I'd see it that way if I lived in Damascus.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
The results are the same.
As a gay man i think I find life in a broadly christian country somewhat more comfortable than in many Muslim countries and much more than in ~Isisland. You really need to pause before hitting the keyboard.
"somewhat" - you win this month's award for English understatement.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
The results are the same.
No they are not.
I am not aware of any Christian Sect where the members cannot be devout while renouncing conquest to promote their religion.
To many Muslims, it is a Pillar of Islam, without which they cannot call themselves Muslims, it is fundamental to their sense of faith.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Hypothetically, if you were an ordinary, law abiding Muslim, living in the Middle East. How would you view the Christian Crusades? .
Didn't the Crusades happen after the Battle of Tours (732 AD)?
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Yes there is. You can cherrypick whatever you like in the Bible but there are plenty of passages in the New Testament (not just the Old Testament) that back up war and prosecuting your religious enemies.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Comments
Here's Newcastle in the 70s. We still had a rag and bone man with his horse collecting stuff in the early 80s.
35 MPs is a relatively high bar. We know that Corbyn couldn't have reached it without help. Would that help be forthcoming a second time in the event of a Corbyn departure? On the one hand, MPs themselves are likely to be under pressure from constituencies selecting and reselecting candidates, which may play to the left's advantage; on the other, if Corbyn has done so disastrously that a coup is viable, MPs may well reason that there's no great risk in the selection process if whoever gets it is going to lose anyway.
You're right that there would need to be a magic circle coronation but that's not wholly alien to Labour's culture. Brown succeeded Blair unopposed (more through brute strength than consensus admittedly). And it's not simply that there would need to be more than 35 MPs actively opposed to Johnson, Harman, Benn or whoever taking over: those dissidents would need to rally round some alternative candidate to force an election, which is a harder task.
Now, I agree 100% that it'd still be a high-risk option with the possibility that it could make matters even worse if Corbyn is forced out in favour of, say, Dianne Abbott. After all, the main reason that Major wasn't deposed is that his critics could neither agree on a successor and were more fearful of the wrong outcome from their point of view than they were hopeful of the right one. But for all that, it could be done. The odds quoted on Johnson, Harman and Benn remain value but Corbyn should probably still be favourite to lead Labour into the election.
Come on. I feel like Cameron versus Corbyn.
Today the last few units are finally being utilised. But that has taken 27 years. That is hardly a success.
The Infrastructure required was never built, indeed until the Squinty Bridge was built, providing decent access to the city centre, the site was absolute awful for prospective businesses. Fortunately the bridge has changed that but so damn late.
BTW, if you include the wider dock area, including the dry docks on the Govan side of the basin, arguably half the developable land is still derelict.
Jeremy Corbyn faced a threat of Labour defections today after days of turmoil over his leadership.
In a dramatic interview, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron revealed he has been called since last Saturday’s election result by Labour figures distraught about their new boss.
Mr Farron told the Evening Standard: “I’ve had various unsolicited texts, some of them over the weekend, where I felt like I was being an agony aunt rather than anything else.
......The revelations over possible defections, which emerged less than a week after Mr Corbyn became party leader, came as many Labour MPs were in despair over its future.
One said: “It’s a question of whether it’s going to be a disaster or a bloodbath.”
http://bit.ly/1iyBlR8
I think that they are very intelligent young women: That said; imagine Charlotte Proundman's face upon Lisa Nandy's neck. Not that each are attractive in their own right, but....
Ofcourse we could 'desensitive' the craven male-instinct by treating males and females as commodities and not 'tick-boxes' (and vice-versa). Until then it is all about riding the horse throughout the course....
Still we must hope Corbyn and McDonnell stay together at least to give the responses to the 2016 budget.
I'm concurrently working, writing the afternoon thread and educating you. Cut me some slack
Islam is, at heart, a religion of war and conquest.
Islam is just catching up with its predecessor
Not so sure about Docklands, although possibly I’m underestimating the ability of the sons (and daughters) of dockers and printers to “transfer" to the new “industries” there.
Straw and Rifkind have been cleared by Parliamentary Standards.
The mind just boggles.
"Mr Farron is said to be on good terms with several Labour moderates including arch moderniser Lord Mandelson." Doesn't back up some on PB who paint Farron as a 'leftie'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir
It has many entirely quotidian uses including as a call to prayer. It is also a warcry. Most people using it, most of the time, are doing so in a non-extreme context. Anyone denying that should read the article above. Or better yet, get some everyday boring moderate normal non-terrorist muslim friends.
I have never made it over that far east. I have yet to get to Beverley in East Yorks.....
http://www.peterloud.co.uk/photos/Newcastle/Wallsend/Tyne_Pride_02b-w768.jpg
Frankly, I don't really believe him. I can't think of a politician that I doubted like that.
It’s also the only place I’ve ever been where the chicken soup had feathers in it!
The food in Czechoslovakia, though, in 1988, was often excellent.
For comparison, though not an exact match, "deus volente = if god wills it" is a Catholic version of inshallah (in a secular context, the basic equivalent is "let's keep our fingers crossed for it") but the Crusader war cry was "deus vult = god wills it". One everyday phrase and one warcry, albeit not quite identical but with similar roots.
Talking to The Huffington Post UK, Ms Phillips, who despite being elected in May has already earned a reputation for being one of the most outspoken MPs, said: “I roundly told her to fuck off.”
When asked what Ms Abbott did after that suggestion, Ms Phillips replied: “She fucked off.”
She added: “People said to me they had always wanted to say that to her, and I don’t know why they don’t as the opportunity presents itself every other minute.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/17/jess-phillips-diane-abbott-corbyn_n_8151468.html
Islam came first in conquering in the name of religion. Of course, once Islam had set the example, Christian states and churches were more than willing to follow it.
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
This is PB, for god's* sake.
(great or otherwise)
Btw, I find this first reaction of Jeremy Corbyn to 7/7 very interesting. Blaming us for the bombings, obviously: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XH0AmIjD6s …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
Persian-influenced Islam was a great boon to the west - it preserved a lot of the classical world's knowledge and was intellectually forward thinking. The latter day Salafists are intent on taking Islam back to the 7th century.
Unfortunately everytime I hear the stunningly photographed Ms Proudman's name I think of families of hobbits out of Tolkien: http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/thumb/8/8c/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film)_-_Odo_Proudfoot.png/250px-The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film)_-_Odo_Proudfoot.png
No-one is arguing that all people saying "Allah Akhbar" are extremists. We are just arguing that those migrants shouting it as they throw rocks at Hungarian police officers are. Do you think they were saying it as a call to prayer, as an informal confirmation of their faith, or as a war cry?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
Secondly, it was a big message that Glasgow was open for business. From wiki: This should not be underestimated.
Thirdly, it isn't just the London government's fault if the land was not immediately built on. It's also down to the local councils to attract businesses, and the local people as well to innovate and train.
PS - Can you find any bookies who have got Jess Phillips as next Labour leader, I might do a thread on her tomorrow.
I think the point being made is that Allāhu Akbar is commonly used, including but not limited to violent confrontations. That does not mean that those shouting it are cut from the same cloth as a suicide bomber. My reading of your posts is that you are strongly implying that they are...
Just need to buy some shares in a mind bleach company
I just view both Islam and Christianity as homophobic, misogynistic, paternalistic desert religions. Not a lot to choose...
I wish humanity would grow up and start taking responsibility for its actions instead of blaming a bearded old man in the sky or a little red man with a trident running around underground or whatever.
LibDems had a great result at GE2015 didn't they?
Last night's interview with Laura Kuenssberg was enlightening for those that missed it.
When asked if they included Labour frontbenchers he replied: “I couldn’t possibly comment. The bottom line is, ... people in the Labour Party need to understand they can have conversations with me, which may or may not be conclusive, which will remain totally between me and them.”
"Well, between me, them and the Evening Standard, obv."
If it had gone the other way, history may have been very different.
Similarly, if the Byzantines hadn't dropped the ball at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk, who knows what the Middle East would look like now.
If the Byzantines and Sassanids hadn't spent a quarter of a century beating the crap out of each other, I doubt the Arab conquest would have been anything like as successful.
If he'd maintained peace following Maurice's toppling, I do wonder if Islam might have had a rather different history.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas (751 AD)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPGltXXWEAAuPCO.jpg
I roughly agree with Dair.
That's why atheists on trolling expeditions (not calling Beverly one here) have to go grubbing about in the OT for their arguments much of the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Caliphs.png
The above map dates shows conquests up to around 750 AD, ie. 742 years before Columbus!
And every extra piece of information consolidates that view.
Anyone got a toilet roll ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
Im sure there are no parallels to today.
Would these be the actions of a benign Christianity, or a muscular aggressive one?
If I were sitting in those shoes, I might think the latter.
Of course, the West has troubles enough of its own. And the appetite for adventures in Muslim lands is - outside the Wingnut Portion of the Republican Party - zero. But I don't think I'd see it that way if I lived in Damascus.
I am not aware of any Christian Sect where the members cannot be devout while renouncing conquest to promote their religion.
To many Muslims, it is a Pillar of Islam, without which they cannot call themselves Muslims, it is fundamental to their sense of faith.
Sounds like we have a problem, then.