Agreed.

It’s quite not the argument I’m making but even if it was, similar arguments have been made re:Muslims being at risk from the general population after terrorist attacks by Islamic terrorists.

Plenty of ‘moderate’ non-Muslims accept as a fait accompli that Muslims will be targeted after events such as 7/7, or Straw’s veil comments, indeed some may be “tempted to kill Muslims and engage in terrorism”, a real risk as we saw with the BNP chemical’s case. Over the past few days we’ve had mosques firebombed, Imam’s assaulted while actually in mosques, Muslim women assaulted in the streets for wearing veils.

Do the actions of a small minority of non-Muslims and the danger they pose to the Muslim community mean that the situation with non-Muslim is extremely dire, that a great darkness has prevailed?

The fact is that a small number of young Muslims are being radicalised and they are motivated by what they see as the West’s collusion in Israeli terrorism. No one disputes that fact, not ‘moderate’ Muslims, not ‘moderate’non-Muslims.

The problem with then placing the whole Muslim community under scrutiny — unfairly since the vast majority are peaceful, condemn terrorism and want to integrate — including those you label as ‘moderate’ (an insinuation that there is no such thing I suppose), is that it risks being counterproductive, it risks alienating the majority of Muslims without whom the task of locating and isolating extremists and fanatics becomes hopeless.

BTW, the idea that Finkelstein and Chomsky should be placed on Muslim school curriculums is a great one, but I think that Chomsky especially should be on ALL school curriculums.

It’s quite not the argument I’m making but even if it was, similar arguments have been made re:Muslims being at risk from the general population after terrorist attacks by Islamic terrorists. The fact is that a number of young Muslims are being radicalised and they are motivated by what they see as the West’s collusion in Israeli terrorism. Just as ‘moderate’ non-Muslims accept as a fait accompli that Muslims will be targeted after events such as 7/7, or Straw’s veil comments, indeed some may be “tempted to kill Jews and engage in terrorism”, a real risk as we saw with the BNP chemical’s case. Nice bit of double standards there.

It’s incredibly short sighted to focus on Islamic radicalisation and its potential dangers without examining some of its causes. It’s my belief that the I/P conflict has played a chief role in radicalising young Muslims especially in the West. Why? Because Britain and America are perceived as having played a supporting role in the injustices that have occurred in that part of the world.

There are a few contradictions here. Firstly you say you’re interested in issues that affect other Muslims. That’s fine with me because British Jews are concerned about Israel, British Siks about Punjab etc.

Not really, you asked why I wasn’t obsessed with Pakistan – I’m not obsessed with it but of course I am concerned with it: especially with the fact that much of the repression of for example the Baluchis in Pak is being armed by the US. I told you that it was because as a citizen of Britain which is a democratic state I have more of a stake in its actions across the world than the actions of Pakistan.

I/P is only an issue that destabilises the entire Middle East because there are so many armchair revolutionaries (I won’t use the word fundamentalist) who are obsessed with it. And most of the time they ignore the fact that more Muslims have been killed by other groups or by other Muslims than by Israel in the last two intafadas. What about being more obsessed with Darfur for example?

But none of these other groups have had the overwhelming extent of support, military, financial, or diplomatic (the holy trinity) that Israel has had from Britain and America in order to continue its illegal settlement building, its imprisonment and starvation of Gaza’s population. It’s the hypocrisy that galls. It’s not inconsistent to prioritise the wrongs of your home country over that of others.

But without the UK govt’s involvement one could also say that terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hizballah or Iran would be closer to destroying Israel completely.
With the UK govt’s involvement one could also say that Israel is closer to destroying the prospects of there ever being a viable Palestinian state completely. A country’s involvement in a conflict can either grossly favour one side out of some notion of what its best interests are, or it can take a balanced approach. Guess which ours is.

You may not want the destruction of Israel but there are plenty on the British hard-left and in the Arab world who do. Unless they are dealt with, don’t you think Israel will keep feeling paranoid?
Most of the Arab world does not want the destruction of Israel, most are willing to negotiate for a two state settlement, most Arab states have shown their willingness to do so for decades. Even Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah has said he agrees with the Arab consensus on normalisation with Israel. It’s just that doesn’t get reported.

Or you’re only going to criticise the UK’s actions and leave everyone else out because you don’t live there?
Well I’ve answered this above.
I’m going to discuss this and similar issues on my blog in the near future, so I’ll try to limit any extended discussion in here.

But Samuel didn’t really, did he? The sweeping generalisations are close to some I hope you would reject. Perhaps I should have just labelled him a troll.

As for Sunny, I thought we were finally getting back to closing down the side-conversation – hopefully then back on-thread. In any case Anas made his own response

Nevertheless – what would you like me to address?

In general – these threads get painfully tedious, after about post #73. Some get there sooner.

I can chat movies with Nyrone and still tell the truth about everything else. I am very good at multi-tasking — see, as I type these words my son is showing me his headstand and I’m downloading family photographs — it’s simple!

Jai/ I liked the departed, but NO WAY was it close to the original infernal affairs…and the music in the departed was so cheesy, and there was less tension….and as for Jack Nicholson with his black dildo….what the hell was that about???

I thought the acting from all (bar that clown Alec Baldwin) was excellent. Leo Decaprio looked particulary agitated through the film, which fit the role like a glove.

Leave it. The man’s a fool (or worse).