A'Merka

[Jack Cade]

Ack, yes, your killer logic has caught me out. I hate beards, despite having one. I also despise poor people, like that bllionaire leader of the Hindu terrorists Osama Bin Patel. Military training camps on the other hand - those places where idealists are taught how to kill other people more effectively - are completely harmless and fun. Everyone should have one in their back yard.

And in response to the actual point?

The thing I don't get is: you had a fairly easy case to argue if you'd just stuck with mainstream Islam. You'd already been doing it for four or five pages. You can keep pointing to honour killings, child brides, sympathy with terrorists etc. if you want to answer "Why Islam?" much more reasonably. And something useful might come out of that because Yaya might argue that all these things are less common than they're made out to be, produce some other statistics etc.

But to point to 9/11 as if to say, "They did this" is - as you've no doubt noticed - where you've lost the rest of us. Because it really isn't a good enough explanation in itself. It's more like equating IRA bombings with a modern contempt for the Irish.

[Metal Vendetta]

Rob – no one has suggested this. Why do you keep saying it? Especially when you are apparently irked by revisionism on the part of others.

I don't know, perhaps it's something to do with the fact that every time I suggested that the west's continued distrust of Islam might have something to do with the atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists I got shouted down as "generalising", "equating all Muslims with terrorists" or "hating beards". If no-one else has to make any sense in this topic, why should I bother?

If Yaya had said,” I don’t know why anti-terrorism efforts are focused on Islamic extremists”, you may have had a point (although it wouldn't be asking much to have responded in a less vile fashion)

But he didn’t – he was pointing out that a lot of the criticism that is (rightly or wrongly, which is a separate point) leveled at both Islam as a religion and Islamic countries can also be leveled at other religions and other regimes.

And nowhere have I disputed that point - in fact I'd go further and suggest that so-called "western" religions like Scientology and Catholicism are incompatible with western values. Even that most liberal of institutions, the CofE, is tying itself in knots over gays' and women's rights (though that has more to do with pressures from outside the west).

What an uneven application of judgement does mean though is that those on the receiving end sniff hypocrisy and alternate agendas, which is something that should be explored, either to be exposed or dismissed. But dismissed in a manner that has some weight, not “ha ha you are a retard, burning buildings picture” If you want people to respond to criticism you are going to get a lot further if they feel it is being meted out fairly, not to mention if you can avoid the air of just trying as hard as possible to wind them up.

And subsequently I explained several times that the events of 9/11 - along with subsequent issues like the cartoon protests, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the 7/7 bombings etc. dragged Islam into the western media's spotlight and kept it there, which is why its foibles receive more scrutiny than, say, Hinduism. As I've mentioned (again, several times) if there was a Hindu terrorist organisation out there that had declared war on the west, Hinduism would come under greater scrutiny, public fear of Hindus would increase and we'd all be discussing the caste system, but that hasn't happened.

Equally the “why now” point merits review as anti-Islamic tension within the US having increased since the initial explainable (if not desirable – just because you can say its understandable that the man in the street would opine in a certain way does not mean it’s a good thing) backlash to 9/11. So after 9 years relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in America are worse then they were immediately after 9/11. Surely that bears some scrutiny?

The "Why now" part of the question wasn't added until much later, but sure, let's look at that. It's been 9 years since 9/11, granted, but it's only been 2 years since Islamic terrorists set up that retarded guy to blow up a Giraffe restaurant with a nailbomb, it's been 3 years since the Glasgow International Airport attacks and the Haymaket Tiger Tiger attack, it's been 5 years since 7/7 (and the copycat attacks two weeks later) and the 2005 Bali bombing, it's been 8 years since the 2002 Bali bombing...this is just off the top of my head. Are you suggesting that Islamic terrorism began and ended in 2001? That after the dust settled when the towers fell everyone could breathe a sigh of relief and say "Thank goodness that's all over, then"?

I think this is the other thing people are struggling with – you seem to be projecting the view of the man on the street, or the security forces, or a soldier, or the ‘average US citizen’ within your posts without being clear when you are saying what you think or what you think others think. Also you have stated these things in a manner that suggests because the opinions exist, they are justified, which are two entirely different things.

No, I've said these opinions exist and that given the situation I can understand why they exist. Anything else is just your inference. I've stated (again, many times) that I don't agree with the west's reaction to 9/11, the wars and so on, but I can see where they're coming from. I know that the west isn't perfect, its response isn't perfect and the world is a crazy ****ed-up place as a result, but I fail to see why it's a great surprise to anyone here that Islamic terror attacks lead to popular mistrust of Islam.

So when you say – it’s not possible to tell a terrorist from an extremist (despite using a survey which people have responded to as a basis for this), how can someone not assume you are advocating something? Am I supposed to guess that this isn’t you, this is you being the voice of the police?

Okay, look again at Mohammed Siddique Khan, the ringleader of the 7/7 bombers. A laid-back, friendly, westernised teacher who spoke out against 9/11. Would you pick him out as a terrorist? His coworkers said that he was the last person they would have suspected. I'll ask again, how would you differentiate Islamic terrorists from ordinary Muslims? I'm not advocating a mother****ing thing here, just to make that clear, I'm genuinely curious what your answer would be.

And in response to the actual point?

I'm genuinely struggling to find a coherent point in your last post. You're saying Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism? That beards are more important? That Osama Bin Laden is a poor person? That you sympathise with the 7/7 bombers? What?

[bumblemusprime]

Okay, look again at Mohammed Siddique Khan, the ringleader of the 7/7 bombers. A laid-back, friendly, westernised teacher who spoke out against 9/11. Would you pick him out as a terrorist? His coworkers said that he was the last person they would have suspected. I'll ask again, how would you differentiate Islamic terrorists from ordinary Muslims? I'm not advocating a mother****ing thing here, just to make that clear, I'm genuinely curious what your answer would be.

This gets me too. The Army psychiatrist who went bonkers over here--how the hell does that happen?

I can point out one big fat freaking problem from growing up LDS. Our loyalty was always supposed to go first to the Church. Always. There's a temple oath in which you consecrate yourself to the Church. This doesn't seem like much in a bland homogenized conservative movement, but when the LDS church called for its members in California to support Prop 8, the movement against gay marriage suddenly got a kick in the pants because of tribalism+easy answer from God. Prop 8 passed by 51 percent. There is no doubt that if the LDS church hadn't spoken out on it, gay marriage in California would not be the kerfluffle that is now going before the Supreme Court.

But a lot of Mormons came out in public opposition against 8, including some prominent figures like former 49er quarterback Steve Young. Normally the Church would be rough on any members who publicly opposed their leaders, but this was just too big for that.

So what makes someone like my wife, who publicly opposes Prop 8 but remains a faithful Mormon, different from my mother, who is horrified that any Mormon could even question the will of the Queen Morg?

My wife is pretty good about focusing on religion as a personal thing and not a social thing, for one. She doesn't want a homogeneous Mormon society. She just likes her own form of worship as a way to personal improvement and communication with the divine.

My mother, on the other hand, seems to see Mormonism as the cure for all society's ills. It's so great that it has to be everyone else's code of conduct. So yeah, I guess I could see my mother becoming a terrorist for Mormonism, because she can't get over the fact that her choices must be right for everyone. And maybe I sound worse because I was raised by the lady. Nonetheless.

[Metal Vendetta]

This gets me too. The Army psychiatrist who went bonkers over here--how the hell does that happen?

****, I forgot all about him - I did say I was going off the top of my head - but that's an even better example than any I came up with.

[Yaya]

And subsequently I explained several times that the events of 9/11 - along with subsequent issues like the cartoon protests, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the 7/7 bombings etc. dragged Islam into the western media's spotlight and kept it there

A completely unjust and unfair assessment of how we got to where we are today.

It appears you are suffering from the same malady many are right now here in the U.S. I call it "selective memoritis."

It's when a person can make statements as above to explain away things to fit their biases and almost, miraculously, forget events on the scale of entire wars, like the unilateral support in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Operation :"Let's free Our Beloved Kuwait from Iraq So We Can Steal Their Oil" and Operation "Let's Use American Sentiments to Return to Iraq and Steal Their Oil".

How do these events fit into your equation? Many argue these events dragged the West in Muslim's spotlight, and that we should have just left Israel and Palestine, Iraq and Kuwait, to fend for themselves? But how crazy is that idea, right? Perish the thought.

Which takes me to my overarching point. Hate breeds hate. Unjust behavior leads to unjust behavior.

[Metal Vendetta]

A completely unjust and unfair assessment of how we got to where we are today.

Uh, how so? Those things happened, the western media reported on them, Islam came under greater scrutiny as a result. I didn't think that was a controversial opinion at all.

It appears you are suffering from the same malady many are right now here in the U.S. I call it "selective memoritis."

You do know there's a actual word for that, right?

It's when a person can make statements as above to explain away things to fit their biases and almost, miraculously, forget events on the scale of entire wars, like the unilateral support in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Operation :"Let's free Our Beloved Kuwait from Iraq So We Can Steal Their Oil" and Operation "Let's Use American Sentiments to Return to Iraq and Steal Their Oil".

Nope, didn't forget about those at all. I've already posted that I was against Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2 and George and Tony's Excellent Afghan Adventure, already posted that British and American troops don't belong there, already posted that the media was completely wrong in linking Saddam and 9/11, already posted that I don't agree with the way things have turned out over the past 9 years...so where's the bias?

[Best First]

Right, last question on my part, mainly in the interests of brevity;

Rob – no one has suggested this. Why do you keep saying it? Especially when you are apparently irked by revisionism on the part of others.

I don't know, perhaps it's something to do with the fact that every time I suggested that the west's continued distrust of Islam might have something to do with the atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists I got shouted down as "generalising", "equating all Muslims with terrorists" or "hating beards". If no-one else has to make any sense in this topic, why should I bother?

Just to be clear, just so I understand, you don’t consider this to, in any way, be generalising?

I have no idea why the west would choose Islam as their enemy instead of India.



Nope, can't think of a single reason. It's as if it was completely unprovoked.

[Metal Vendetta]

Not really. It might be insensitive, about which I couldn't really give a ****, but it's a graphic illustration of why Muslims are distrusted and feared by the west. Look, I'll make it simple for you:

9/11 made everyone's lives crappier. Security increased across the board - as a non-American travelling to the US I am now subject to a whole raft of measures that weren't there before. For a start, I have to take my shoes off (thanks to the shoebomber) and several times I've been searched intimately and questionned endlessly. I'm not allowed to take a drink on board, thanks to - hey, you guessed it, another Islamic terrorist plot. Hell, driving to work, I've been pulled over at the side of the road and held at gunpoint (with no less than 12 H&K MP5s pointing at my head) for half an hour by counter-terrorist police because I was in a sensitive area, and I'm a white atheist.

Thanks to something called "ethnic profiling", Muslims' lives have been made just that little bit crappier than the rest of us. I've only anecdotal evidence to back this up but friends of mine who are - or look - Muslim are stopped and searched more frequenty by police and have an even more difficult time getting through airport customs. I'm not saying whether this is a good or a bad thing, I'm just illustrating that thanks to the actions of a misguided few, the majority suffer.

The point is, if 9/11 hadn't happened, none of this would have happened.

Is that such a difficult concept to grasp? How come nobody seems to get this but me?

[Jack Cade]

Okay, look again at Mohammed Siddique Khan, the ringleader of the 7/7 bombers. A laid-back, friendly, westernised teacher who spoke out against 9/11. Would you pick him out as a terrorist? His coworkers said that he was the last person they would have suspected. I'll ask again, how would you differentiate Islamic terrorists from ordinary Muslims?

You're seriously asking this?

The terrorists are the ones committing, or planning to commit, acts of terrorism. The 'ordinary Muslims' are not. What possible problem could you have with this distinction?

Not really. It might be insensitive, about which I couldn't really give a ****, but it's a graphic illustration of why Muslims are distrusted and feared by the west.

So if we definitely rounded up all the terrorists for good and that was that, everyone would calm down, right? It would be thumbs up for Islam once again.

Except - heck, I'm not sure - are you saying that the only way to round up all the terrorists is to round up all the Muslims because there's really no way to tell the difference?

I'm genuinely struggling to find a coherent point in your last post. You're saying Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism? That beards are more important? That Osama Bin Laden is a poor person? That you sympathise with the 7/7 bombers? What?

So you 'genuinely struggled' to read the bit where I wrote:
"All these things have something to do with the people who orchestrated 9/11. The latter two are very definitive ingredients. But when an event is the result of a whole bubbling hodge-podge of different factors, it's wrong to point to it as any sort of explanation for criticism of one of those things it's connected to."

Islam itself wasn't the sole or even the main driving factor behind 9/11. And 9/11 isn't the sole or even the main driving factor behind Western distrust of Islam. Plainly and simple, you've got it wrong.

The point is, if 9/11 hadn't happened, none of this would have happened.

But Islam would still be the focal point of a lot of Western hostility. That's the point I think you're missing.

[Metal Vendetta]

So if we definitely rounded up all the terrorists for good and that was that, everyone would calm down, right? It would be thumbs up for Islam once again.

Except - heck, I'm not sure - are you saying that the only way to round up all the terrorists is to round up all the Muslims because there's really no way to tell the difference?

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth. Read my posts again, and try again.

So you 'genuinely struggled' to read the bit where I wrote:
"All these things have something to do with the people who orchestrated 9/11. The latter two are very definitive ingredients. But when an event is the result of a whole bubbling hodge-podge of different factors, it's wrong to point to it as any sort of explanation for criticism of one of those things it's connected to."

**** man, I've just read it again and I still don't get your point. Maybe you could translate?

Islam itself wasn't the sole or even the main driving factor behind 9/11. And 9/11 isn't the sole or even the main driving factor behind Western distrust of Islam. Plainly and simple, you've got it wrong.

Again, that's your conclusion. I'm saying that thanks to 9/11, Islam has become associated with terrorism. Rightly or wrongly, but it has. There's no denying that.

But Islam would still be the focal point of a lot of Western hostility. That's the point I think you're missing.

I don't agree. Until 9/11 Islam wasn't even a factor in my life, it was one of those religions that I learned about at school and then pretty much forgot about, like the Sikhs and the Hindus. These days I don't give much thought to the Sikhs and Hindus except to attend the odd wedding or party, but thanks to the wonders of international terrorism, I hear about Islam all the time, on the news, holding rallies, doing demonstrations, arguing on Newsnight...are you seriously telling me that Islamic terrorism hasn't focused the media's attention on Islam?

[Yaya]

I just don't get what you're saying here.

You don't like Islam, fine. I mean, I can accept that. To each his own.

But to label Islam as the primary reason there is chaos in the world and that we now find ourselves in a downward spiral of what seems like ever-increasing tensions and violence because of it is, well, it's unfair.

I've never said Muslims are not responsible for some of the problems and injustices that occur in the world. They will answer for it, just as anyone else will. Many times I have been quite vocal against the behavior of Muslims in the world, even labeling the Saudi princes as perhaps some of the most corrupt people in the world.

But to say Islam is the primary reason your liberties are being infringed upon or that Islam brings disorder and chaos to a world that would otherwise find order and peace is not right. It's just not. By adopting this stance, you make a tenuous co-existence between differing peoples that much more tenuous.

Bush/Cheney/ Saudi princes/non-religious oil tycoons/big business conglomerates. I blame them. In that group are Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, Hindus, etc. These are the people that get rich from the suffering of others. These are the people that demonize Islam and Muslims to sway voters around election time. The "Ground Zero"mosque was a small issue in December last year. Republicans remained quiet. Til now. What's happening now? Elections. They saved this mosque. They saved the "Obama is a Muslim".

I would urge you not to let your distaste and dislike for Islam add fuel to a fire of hatred that is already burning too brightly.

[Best First]

Not really. It might be insensitive, about which I couldn't really give a ****

Fine. Very impressive. In that case though don't look so suprised when acting like a bit of a clunge rather derails the topic.

The point is, if 9/11 hadn't happened, none of this would have happened.

Right. So you are not generalising. But 9/11 is the start of historical discourse as and when it suits.

How come nobody seems to get this but me?

Yeah, that's probably the one you want to focus on, assuming the heat from the centre of the earth isn't interfering with the wireless connection.

[Metal Vendetta]

But to label Islam as the primary reason there is chaos in the world and that we now find ourselves in a downward spiral of what seems like ever-increasing tensions and violence because of it is, well, it's unfair.

It's also nothing like what I said. I thought this debate was about "Why are Muslims treated unfairly by the west?" My answer is: "Because of the high profile the religion has garnered thanks to the shock tactics of Islamic terrorism, which has spread fear and distrust through the west, exacerbated by the wetern media and exploited by their governments."

But apparently I wrote "Round up all the Muslims and put them in concentration camps" (Jack) and "Islam is responsible for everything bad that' happened ever" (Yaya).

Tell you what, in future, I'll jut PM one of you guys wih my password and you can write my responses too, that way you'll be able to properly put the words in my mouth to have the argument you think you're having.

But to say Islam is the primary reason your liberties are being infringed upon or that Islam brings disorder and chaos to a world that would otherwise find order and peace is not right. It's just not. By adopting this stance, you make a tenuous co-existence between differing peoples that much more tenuous.

I said "Islamic terrorism", rather than Islam, but yeah the rest of your point seems perfectly valid. All those extra security measures following 9/11 weren't because people were frightened Al-Q would blow up some more buildings, they were actually because Metal Vendetta of transfans.co.uk adopted the stance of pointing out that "people in the west associate Islam and Islamic terrorism, rightly or wrongly". Fame at last!

The "Ground Zero"mosque was a small issue in December last year. Republicans remained quiet. Til now. What's happening now? Elections. They saved this mosque. They saved the "Obama is a Muslim".

There's plenty of truth in that; it's how politics works. Can't help thinking that the Ground Zero mosque would be a non-issue if say, 9/11 hadn't happened in the first place though.

I would urge you not to let your distaste and dislike for Islam add fuel to a fire of hatred that is already burning too brightly.

****, I actually feel quite sorry for you, having experienced a taste of UK counter-terrorist measures first hand. What's your experience been like? Ever been told (as I have) that a policeman was ordered to shoot you dead at the wheel and was seconds away from pulling the trigger just because you couldn't find a safe spot to pull over? It's ****ing scary. But of course, as you posted above, it's my own fault for trying to talk some sense into a debate on an internet message board. It's totally because I posted that "the west tightened security after 9/11" on here that the counter-terrorist police were out looking for Islamic terrorists and thought my van laden with computers was full of explosives on its way to destroy a London landmark. They must have read this messageboard somehow, from seven years into the future. They definitely weren't looking to prevent another 9/11, nosirree.

Right. So you are not generalising. But 9/11 is the start of historical discourse as and when it suits.

So you trimmed off the preceding three paragraphs in which I described all the specific things that happened in response to 9/11, then accused me of generalising. Good argument.

I'm not making a general point. I'm making the specific point that post-9/11, things got worse for Muslims. It's quite well-documented:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3860505.stm (2004)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005 ... ionpolicy1 (2005)
http://www.irr.org.uk/2006/january/ha000025.html (2006)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 77107.html (2009)

Did we not all talk at the time about what a bad idea the USA PATRIOT Act was? Seriously, am I the only one who remembers the past 9 years?

Oh, wait, you'll just ignore every link that proves my point, quote that last sentence and say something sarcastic, because that's what you do. If you PM me your password I'll save you the bother.

[Jack Cade]

**** man, I've just read it again and I still don't get your point. Maybe you could translate?

You do get the point because you reply to it at the next stage of the post:

Again, that's your conclusion. I'm saying that thanks to 9/11, Islam has become associated with terrorism. Rightly or wrongly, but it has. There's no denying that.

For what it's worth, I agree that 'thanks to 9/11, Islam has become associated with terrorism' and yes, we all understand that after 9/11 things 'got worse for Muslims'. But I don't think terrorism is by any means the sole extent of people's problems with Islam. You were the one talking most vehemently about the dehumanising effect of the burka a while ago. Are you saying know you wouldn't care about that if Islam wasn't associated with terrorism? Are you saying no one would?

So when someone essentially says, "Why Islam?" the answer might be, "Partly because it's associated with terrorism", but it ain't: "9/11! That's where it all began!"

I get that you say *you* weren't aware of Islam until 9/11 but that doesn't mean that no one was, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a history of suspicion and prejudice going back way before then and it doesn't mean that there wouldn't still be clashes now. Did 9/11 intensify hostilities? Sure. Was it the sole cause of it? Yeah, right. Was there zero distrust of Muslims before it? Yeah, right.

You're getting on a high horse about stuff that we probably all agree on. Stop and think about what the real distance between us is here, rather than spending paragraphs arguing things that no one is debating, like: everything got pretty bloody stupid after 9/11.

All of us except you took Yaya's question to be more along the lines of: "Why do even the liberal, intelligent, non-paranoid elements of the West focus in on non-terrorist, mainstream Islam as a serious issue?" Not "Why is the average bigot convinced we're in a war against the Muzzies?"

And no, I'm not calling you a bigot but you seem to be trying to answer on behalf of them rather than yourself. Why do *you* have a problem with Islam? Is it seriously because of 9/11 or is it because of human rights issues?

But apparently I wrote "Round up all the Muslims and put them in concentration camps"

Actually, you demanded someone tell you what the difference is between terrorists and mainstream Islam. I've no idea what point you were trying to make but you seemed very much to be implying that no one can tell the difference.

It's also nothing like what I said. I thought this debate was about "Why are Muslims treated unfairly by the west?" My answer is: "Because of the high profile the religion has garnered thanks to the shock tactics of Islamic terrorism, which has spread fear and distrust through the west, exacerbated by the wetern media and exploited by their governments."

The thing is, although I'd still cavil with that answer, if you'd just written that instead of posting the image of the burning towers (which only addresses the first part of the triumvirate you now say you're blaming), I don't think you'd have got anyone's hackles up.

[Jack Cade]

Incidentally, since you mentioned Theo van Gogh:

Van Gogh rejected every form of religion, and in the late 1990s he started to focus on Islam. He felt strongly that political Islam is an increasing threat to liberal western societies, and said that, if he'd been younger, he would have emigrated to the U.S.A..

Just one weirdo or perhaps something a lot of people were feeling 'in the late 1990s'?

[Metal Vendetta]

For what it's worth, I agree that 'thanks to 9/11, Islam has become associated with terrorism' and yes, we all understand that after 9/11 things 'got worse for Muslims'. But I don't think terrorism is by any means the sole extent of people's problems with Islam. You were the one talking most vehemently about the dehumanising effect of the burka a while ago. Are you saying know you wouldn't care about that if Islam wasn't associated with terrorism? Are you saying no one would?

There's an old saying: "Don't borrow trouble". Yaya correctly points out that the caste system can be every bit as dehumanising as the burka, but because there are no Hindu terrorist groups pulling off audacious high-profile attacks against the west, the majority of people couldn't care less what happens in India. There's a huge element of "As long as they stay out of our business, we'll stay out of theirs" at play here, and most people don't go looking to make a rod for their own backs. As long as the Hindus don't cause us any trouble why should we cause any for them? I appreciate that's a slightly cynical take on the situation but it's not unrealistic.

As for the Burka, well of course there would still be tensions over it, but it would never have become as big an issue as it is now if we weren't operating against a backdrop of heightened tensions thanks - again - to the ever-present spectre of international terrorism.

I get that you say *you* weren't aware of Islam until 9/11 but that doesn't mean that no one was, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a history of suspicion and prejudice going back way before then and it doesn't mean that there wouldn't still be clashes now. Did 9/11 intensify hostilities? Sure. Was it the sole cause of it? Yeah, right. Was there zero distrust of Muslims before it? Yeah, right.

Nowhere near the same scale. I spent the summer of 1998 backpacking around Northern Pakistan; I even made it as far as Afghanistan. At the time relations between Pakistan and Britain were positively healthy - everyone I met there was delighted to meet a Brit and play cricket or drink tea. I look at how relations have changed since and I'm deeply sad, but the date that all that started changing was 9/11/01 (or 11/9/01 if you write it properly). I lived in a very densely-populated Muslim street (St. Peter's Road in Leicester, look it up) and never had any problems mixing with the people who lived there but in the week following 9/11 I saw my old house on TV a bunch of times as my previous neighbours' houses were searched and they were taken away by the police.

You're getting on a high horse about stuff that we probably all agree on.

Maybe I'd come down off this "high horse" a bit if people actually responded to the points I made instead of inventing things I said and accusing me of inciting genocide or whatever, over "stuff we probably all agree on".

Stop and think about what the real distance between us is here, rather than spending paragraphs arguing things that no one is debating, like: everything got pretty bloody stupid after 9/11.

It seems to me I'm saying 9/11 was a pretty bloody important event in the recent history of the world and you and Besty are saying "nah, that was nothing". I'm trying to impress the massive psychological impact the attacks on the most famous buildings in the most famous city in the world has had on every single person on this planet. It was a game-changer, it was the start of the 21st Century. ****, it's probably the biggest historical event that has happened in our lives since the fall of communism.

All of us except you took Yaya's question to be more along the lines of: "Why do even the liberal, intelligent, non-paranoid elements of the West focus in on non-terrorist, mainstream Islam as a serious issue?" Not "Why is the average bigot convinced we're in a war against the Muzzies?"

And I've said it's because since 9/11 Islam has barely been out of the western media's spotlight. It means we all pay attention to Islam more than we do Hinduism, or Sikhism. There are tons of articles about Islam in the Guardian every week; commenters have lately begun to complain of a pro-Muslim bias there because Islam seems to be covered to the detriment of other faiths. Go and have a look on their website, check it out. Again, I don't think this is a controversial opinion. Islamic terrorism focused our attention on Islam.

Subsequently, the increased reporting of events like the murder of Theo Van Gogh - killed for making a film, ffs - rightfully offend our liberal, intelligent, non-paranoid senses. Or do you think it's acceptable to shoot, stab and behead a film's director because you don't agree with its content?

And no, I'm not calling you a bigot but you seem to be trying to answer on behalf of them rather than yourself. Why do *you* have a problem with Islam? Is it seriously because of 9/11 or is it because of human rights issues?

I have a problem with Islam because it's a religion. It's a bit worse than some and a bit better than others, but I'm anti-religious full stop, so I'm hardly biased against it.

Actually, you demanded someone tell you what the difference is between terrorists and mainstream Islam. I've no idea what point you were trying to make but you seemed very much to be implying that no one can tell the difference.

Ah yes, and you came back with the beautifully tautological:

The terrorists are the ones committing, or planning to commit, acts of terrorism. The 'ordinary Muslims' are not. What possible problem could you have with this distinction?

Uhm, that it only applies after the fact? That if I were in charge of security, I'd really want to know beforehand whether someone was a terrorist or a greengrocer? Or both?

I don't think you'd have got anyone's hackles up.

I'm sorry, but Captain Give-a-**** has seen the Give-a-**** symbol high over the skies of Give-a-**** City, and has had to leave the Give-a-**** Cave in his Give-a-****mobile. Please leave a message if you think he really gives a **** about people getting upset online.

[Metal Vendetta]

Just one weirdo or perhaps something a lot of people were feeling 'in the late 1990s'?

You mean in the late 90s he figured that "political Islam" might be dangerous? You think he suspected they might be planning some sort of big attack?

[Jack Cade]

Subsequently, the increased reporting of events like the murder of Theo Van Gogh - killed for making a film, ffs - rightfully offend our liberal, intelligent, non-paranoid senses. Or do you think it's acceptable to shoot, stab and behead a film's director because you don't agree with its content?

OK, MV for a start, it's pretty obvious this is way more ridiculously off-track than any time I've ventured to summarise your opinions, so I think you can stop complaining about people putting words in your mouth now, 'cos you've got your own back and then some.

You mean in the late 90s he figured that "political Islam" might be dangerous? You think he suspected they might be planning some sort of big attack?

Oh, what, so now 9/11 was responsible for anti-Muslim feeling before it actually happened? Brilliant.

Why not go back all the way and say the Crusades happened because of 9/11? I mean, they were probably planning some kind of **** back then, right?

No, I'm not actually accusing your of thinking this, but it's the logical extension of this kind of silly remark. You've got pretty clear evidence that at least someone was focusing on Islam before 9/11, so unless you're seriously telling me Van Gogh knew what was going to go down, that's gives the lie to the idea that it's only 9/11 that put it in the picture.

Yaya correctly points out that the caste system can be every bit as dehumanising as the burka, but because there are no Hindu terrorist groups pulling off audacious high-profile attacks against the west, the majority of people couldn't care less what happens in India.

The 'majority of people' can't care less what happens in Pakistan either. Their problem with Muslims is that they're coming over here, and bringing their burkas with them. Again, of course I agree 9/11 *heightens* existing tensions. But it's not actually *responsible* for them existing in the first place. And it seems to me you're second-guessing why a lot of people give a damn about these issues by presuming they would just let them slide, or would be concerned about caste systems in other countries were it not for terrorism paranoia. You concede that some people would still be irked but you seem to think to an almost irrelevant degree, which is where we differ. I think, in a world where 9/11, didn't happen, opinions like Van Gogh's would only have become more widespread.

Uhm, that it only applies after the fact? That if I were in charge of security, I'd really want to know beforehand whether someone was a terrorist or a greengrocer? Or both?

I cannot even remotely fathom the point you're trying to make here. Is it that terrorists (and other criminals) are hard to identify in the street because they act like normal, decent people? What would be the point of saying that?

The answer to your question wasn't 'tautological' - it was just extremely obvious, because it was a stupid question. You seem to be saying that we can't reasonably delineate between mainstream Islam and Islamic terrorists, even in theory, and your support for this contention is that the terrorists don't go round wearing badges identifying them as terrorists.

Or is this another case of 'man in the street' view? I just don't know. All I know is that I asked, "Can't we stick to the problems that still exist in non-terrorist mainstream Islam?" and your answer seems to be that we cannot possibly talk about Islam without talking about terrorists because they all look the same.

I'm sorry, but Captain Give-a-**** has seen the Give-a-**** symbol high over the skies of Give-a-**** City, and has had to leave the Give-a-**** Cave in his Give-a-****mobile. Please leave a message if you think he really gives a **** about people getting upset online.

Yeah, well, pardon me for thinking you were interested in getting at some kind of understanding or truth, rather than just pissing people off by getting everything wrong and then insisting it's them who got it wrong.

I have a problem with Islam because it's a religion. It's a bit worse than some and a bit better than others, but I'm anti-religious full stop, so I'm hardly biased against it.

So you feel pretty much the same about buddhism then, I guess?

[Metal Vendetta]

You've got pretty clear evidence that at least someone was focusing on Islam before 9/11, so unless you're seriously telling me Van Gogh knew what was going to go down, that's gives the lie to the idea that it's only 9/11 that put it in the picture.

Yeah, but that same unsourced quote you used (Wikipedia, if anyone's wondering) also says:

In the 1980s, Van Gogh became a newspaper columnist, and through the years he used his columns to vent his anger at politicians, actors, film directors, writers and other people he considered to be part of "the establishment". He became a controversial figure who delighted in provocation. He considered himself to be a misunderstood visionary.

So this "misunderstood visionary" who "delighted in provocation" turned his attentions to winding up Islam, the religion with the most negligible sense of humour in the world. Hardly ground-shattering stuff, is it?

The 'majority of people' can't care less what happens in Pakistan either. Their problem with Muslims is that they're coming over here, and bringing their burkas with them. Again, of course I agree 9/11 *heightens* existing tensions. But it's not actually *responsible* for them existing in the first place. And it seems to me you're second-guessing why a lot of people give a damn about these issues by presuming they would just let them slide, or would be concerned about caste systems in other countries were it not for terrorism paranoia. You concede that some people would still be irked but you seem to think to an almost irrelevant degree, which is where we differ. I think, in a world where 9/11, didn't happen, opinions like Van Gogh's would only have become more widespread.

Well we're into speculation here, granted, and there's no real or easy answer, but I'd highlight the fact that Hindus are coming over here too, bringing their caste system with them and still no-one cares. Why would they? Could it be that there are no Hindus out in the street with banners reading "Death to those who insult Hinduism" and "Europe you will pay 7/7 on its way"?

I cannot even remotely fathom the point you're trying to make here. Is it that terrorists (and other criminals) are hard to identify in the street because they act like normal, decent people? What would be the point of saying that?

It was in reference to the earlier point, that after multiple terrorist attacks have been carried out by people previously considered to be "moderate, mainstream" Muslims, others might start to question the wisdom of co-existing alongside Muslim communities. Essentially an update of the "Red under the Bed" paranoia of the cold war, except this time they're not just passing secrets back to Mother Russia, they're blowing themselves and other people up on the tube in the name of Allah. Used here as an illustration as to why post-9/11 westerners might not feel too crazy about having Islamic communities living amongst them.

The answer to your question wasn't 'tautological' - it was just extremely obvious, because it was a stupid question.

I beg to differ - you said "A terrorist is one who carries out or plans terrorist acts" - if that's not a "tautology", please "direct" me to the "updated" "definition".

You seem to be saying that we can't reasonably delineate between mainstream Islam and Islamic terrorists, even in theory, and your support for this contention is that the terrorists don't go round wearing badges identifying them as terrorists.

I'm saying that up until the moment someone posts their farewell video on the internet praising Allah and detonates their bomb on the underground, there's no way to tell whether they are an islamic terrorist or an ordinary muslim. I think this is a cause for concern amongst many people, not least the western security services.

Or is this another case of 'man in the street' view? I just don't know. All I know is that I asked, "Can't we stick to the problems that still exist in non-terrorist mainstream Islam?" and your answer seems to be that we cannot possibly talk about Islam without talking about terrorists because they all look the same.

Well, you're much smarter than the "man in the street", aren't you? If you've got a quick and easy solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism, I'd love to hear it. Sure, there are a load of problems with Islam without bringing terrorism into it, but people are by and large selfish creatures, and yes, the "man in the street" probably couldn't care less if a whole street of muslims keep their wives inside wearing Burkas and chained to the sink, but he's going to be extremely concerned if say, just one Muslim went out on a Saturday morning and blew up a football ground.

Yeah, well, pardon me for thinking you were interested in getting at some kind of understanding or truth, rather than just pissing people off by getting everything wrong and then insisting it's them who got it wrong.

And so far the only person to flatly tell another person that they're wrong during this topic has been...you. *slow hand clap*

So you feel pretty much the same about buddhism then, I guess?

Pretty much, it's better than some, worse than others. I assume you're familiar with what conditions were like in the feudal world of Buddhist pre-China Tibet?

[Metal Vendetta]

While we're on the subject, the Koran burning's been called off!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11256182
No, wait, it's back on again!
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/2010 ... n-Flag.pdf
Awesome.

[bumblemusprime]

I intend to burn my copies of Secret Invasion and Final Crisis this weekend. OH ****. Terrizum!

[Jack Cade]

So this "misunderstood visionary" who "delighted in provocation" turned his attentions to winding up Islam, the religion with the most negligible sense of humour in the world. Hardly ground-shattering stuff, is it?

Your second attempt to sweep this under the rug isn't very convincing either. The religion with the most negligible sense of humour in the world? Yes, I'm sure that's why he went after them. He was just a prankster. He worked out which religion was the most humourless and went after that one for a giggle. That's exactly how 'misunderstood visionaries' operate.

Well we're into speculation here, granted, and there's no real or easy answer, but I'd highlight the fact that Hindus are coming over here too, bringing their caste system with them ...

They're doing whatnow? Bringing an entire system of social stratification with them? Is that visible on the street the way women in burkas is? Do they hand out leaflets advocating this system to white British people? I don't know. Maybe. But from where I'm sitting, terrorism or no, Islam, with all its accoutrements, is much more socially visible than any kind of caste system.

Could it be that there are no Hindus out in the street with banners reading "Death to those who insult Hinduism" ...

Yeah, MV, maybe that's a factor too (I'm not being sarcastic). But it's not terrorism, is it? That's an aspect of Islam that might well be around with or without the actual terrorism. That's something you could legitimately point to in answer to "Why Islam?"

It was in reference to the earlier point, that after multiple terrorist attacks have been carried out by people previously considered to be "moderate, mainstream" Muslims, others might start to question the wisdom of co-existing alongside Muslim communities.

Fair enough. But we could have got it a lot more quickly, surely, without the layers of sarcasm.

I beg to differ - you said "A terrorist is one who carries out or plans terrorist acts" - if that's not a "tautology", please "direct" me to the "updated" "definition".

What I gave you is pretty much the dictionary definition of 'terrorist'. If you think dictionaries are constantly tautological, then I guess I was being too.

Well, you're much smarter than the "man in the street", aren't you? If you've got a quick and easy solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism, I'd love to hear it.

I just don't see what this has got to do with anything.

Sure, there are a load of problems with Islam without bringing terrorism into it, but people are by and large selfish creatures, and yes, the "man in the street" probably couldn't care less if a whole street of muslims keep their wives inside wearing Burkas and chained to the sink...

Nope, sorry. There's a huge vein of xenophobia in this country. People *do* care about entire communities of Bangladeshis or people with different cultures, whether they're harmless or not. I don't think the journalists at the Daily Mail were sitting around on 10th September thinking, "Gee, we really need something to get people riled up at Muslims or no one's going to buy our anti-immigration headlines."

And so far the only person to flatly tell another person that they're wrong during this topic has been...you. *slow hand clap*

I'm sorry for being upfront about what I think rather than constantly using snippy sarcasm to say essentially the same thing, but as you can see, I'm trying to mend my ways.

Pretty much, it's better than some, worse than others. I assume you're familiar with what conditions were like in the feudal world of Buddhist pre-China Tibet?

OK, for you it's just 'all religion'. I get it. But for me and others, the 'some better, some worse' counts for a lot.

[Shanti418]

On the subject of holy book burning in Florida, the idea (from the coverage I've read, popular if not prevalent in the Muslim world) that "ALLOWING the burning of the Qur'an somehow signals that yes, the US IS against Islam because if not, why doesn't the government step in and stop it?" is again, a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation at hand because of the vastly different roles of church and state in two different cultures. I mean, to the great displeasure of many a right-winger, the government doesn't even outlaw burning its own flag, so the idea that they would do something about a religious text is ridiculous. (Although one may argue after the Mohammad political cartoon debacle, you can't blame that Islamic world for thinking a precedent had been set.)

[Kaylee]

Oh yeah? I say the Phantom Menace sucked more!

[Professor Smooth]

Why's this Koran burning a big deal? It's been done before. Like by this crazy person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_dOWfojCFg

[Yaya]

I'm confused now what to think about the "Ground Zero" mosque, and my thinking seems to change daily as I try to decide what is the best course of action that Muslims should take here.

On the one hand, I feel like saying "okay, just tell us where we can build that community center then and we'll do it there" in an effort to avoid confrontation and possible violent backlash that could result in bloodshed. At that moment it seems like the best course of action, to relinquish our Constitutional rights just to avoid tensions, something I don't think any group has ever been asked to do, at least in my lifetime. The head of the project himself admitted that had he known ahead of time this kind of reaction would occur, he never would have gone ahead with it.

Then I get to thinking what the opponents of this mosque have said. "They are responsible for the death of so many American lives and it's an insult if they build a mosque here", which is what 70% of the country is saying in polls. So if we mainstream moderate Muslims do decide to move the mosque, we in essence admit to being guilty of a terrorist act which we had nothing to do with. It would be making a statement like "Okay, we'll move it since what you are saying is true about us and those ten guys on that plane do represent the six million of us that have been living amongst you for so long". We in essence will, by default, be including ourselves in the "they" of which they speak. How can we do that?

And if we do agree to move it, we will be setting a dangerous precedent, not just for Muslims, but possibly for any minority who thinks they have a right under the law when in reality it wouldn't hold if majority opinion is against it, Constitution or no Constitution.

Sigh. It's the proverbial 'rock vs. the hard place' scenario.

[Kaylee]

The problem with populist polls is the wording dramatically affects the response.

If you ask "Should Muslims be allowed to build a mosque at Ground Zero" you'll get a totally different answer than if you'd asked "Should religious people have a right to build a holy building wherever they choose?"

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/20 ... index.html

So don't be too disheartened. Frankly IMO people should be allowed to build what they like.

[Jack Cade]

I see where you're coming from on both points, Yaya. My own feelings are split rather differently. On the one hand, I don't think anyone should be bullied into changing their plans by bigots. On the other hand, I'm not really comfortable with anyone continuing to build religious buildings anywhere because - while I don't believe in forcefully *preventing* them from doing so - I have a strong preference for the world drifting away from conventional religion. While mosques and churches are traditionally good centrepoints for communities, this is less so when a community is made up of various faiths. Instead they become a place for a certain segment of the community, while another segment becomes paranoid that the others are planning something there. That's divisive.

Anecdotally, when I was working on some of the 21/7-related trials, there was a disturbing accumulation of witness evidence that suggested the people involved did meet and discuss their plans at the local mosque.

[Metal Vendetta]

Anecdotally, when I was working on some of the 21/7-related trials, there was a disturbing accumulation of witness evidence that suggested the people involved did meet and discuss their plans at the local mosque.

A more prominent example would be the Finsbury Park mosque (just a stone's throw from where I write this) which was a training centre for terrorists until the police, the home office and local MPs forced the Muslim Association of Britain to do something about it. Later, the extremists moved to the community centre in Bethnal Green - and again, when I lived on Bethnal Green Road I could see it from my bedroom window as I was watching it on the news. Notably, following this, the plans for the East London "Super-Mosque" were shelved indefinitely in response to residents' concerns.

Frankly IMO people should be allowed to build what they like.

I totally agree, though I'd add that people should be allowed to burn books too, if they like.

The head of the project himself admitted that had he known ahead of time this kind of reaction would occur, he never would have gone ahead with it.

I really have to question exactly what he thought was going to happen? Did he really think that no-one would object?

[Kaylee]

>>I totally agree, though I'd add that people should be allowed to burn books too, if they like.

Absolutely. They're his books he has bought, presumably with his own money, he can do as he fancies with them