Or is it just another publicity stunt?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/23/tony-blair-battle-islamic-extremism-political-agenda

The man just doesn't understand the subject. And in that he's not alone among Western politicians.

The Islamic extremists are one vast subject, mainly derived from Sunni factions.

Iran and the Shia sects are a totally different set of problems.

Until our 'leaders' and our media people start to differentiate all the participants, their ideologies and their aims, we shall get nowhere.

As someone who also does not understand the manifold varieties of Islam and its extremists, I think Tony Blair is just trying to jump on the bandwagon. The only trouble is, the wagon has already got so far ahead that it has turned the corner.

Blair, by referring to "extremism" and "radical Islam" is rather missing the point that all Islam is radical and extreme. There is not "moderate" version that can be compatible with Western standards and values. There is not a "moderate" version that doesn't try to impose itself upon others.

Many Moslem individuals are good, kind people, but that is not because of their religion - it's despite it.

Blair, by referring to "extremism" and "radical Islam" is rather missing the point that all Islam is radical and extreme. There is not "moderate" version that can be compatible with Western standards and values. There is not a "moderate" version that doesn't try to impose itself upon others.

Many Moslem individuals are good, kind people, but that is not because of their religion - it's despite it.

Sorry, AyG, that is simply untrue.

Liberal Islam is indeed compatible with Western standards. I have met many Muslims who are prepared to discuss their faith, do not subscribe to Sharia Law, and hold the radical terrorist-types in as much abhorrence as we do.

As I said in a previous post, HB knows a lot more about it than I do, and I am sure he can explain better than I can.

What does western standards mean?

Blair, by referring to "extremism" and "radical Islam" is rather missing the point that all Islam is radical and extreme. There is not "moderate" version that can be compatible with Western standards and values. There is not a "moderate" version that doesn't try to impose itself upon others.

Many Moslem individuals are good, kind people, but that is not because of their religion - it's despite it.

Sorry, AyG, that is simply untrue.

Liberal Islam is indeed compatible with Western standards. I have met many Muslims who are prepared to discuss their faith, do not subscribe to Sharia Law, and hold the radical terrorist-types in as much abhorrence as we do.

As I said in a previous post, HB knows a lot more about it than I do, and I am sure he can explain better than I can.

There are indeed liberal Moslems. (Liberal here is a relative term.) However, they are overshadowed by their stricter coreligionists. Consider the recently reported case of the school hijacked by strict Moslems. More moderate parents were deeply concerned by the takeover, but felt unable to respond because of the likely community repercussions.

These liberal Moslems are also not good Moslems because they don't believe in the literal truth of every word in the Koran, or that Mohammed was the perfect man - a role model for all of humanity. Remember that the Koran includes such injunctions:

- "When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks"

- "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them"

- "O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends"

- "And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them" (referring to women)

The status of the Koran in Islam is very different from the status of the Old Testament in Christianity (which was "overturned" by the New Testament). The Koran remains for Moslems the ultimate source of authority.

Finally, even the liberal Moslems place unreasonable demands upon society for special treatment - demands which are often acceded to for fear of being labelled "racist". For example, schools and prisons are dropping pork from menus for fear of offending Moslems, and in supermarkets a significant proportion of the chicken is sold is halal (killed by having its throat cut whilst facing Mecca whilst the slaughterman says a prayer) and is not labelled as such, so can't be avoided.

Personally, I don't want even the liberal adherents of a religion for which I have no respect to dictate whether or not I can have a pork chop for lunch, or to make me eat meat cruelly slaughtered and dedicated to a pagan god.

It is not for you, AyG, to say who is or is not a 'good' Muslim.

And what is that at the end of your post about 'a pagan god'?

It is not for you, AyG, to say who is or is not a 'good' Muslim.

And what is that at the end of your post about 'a pagan god'?

I don't say who is or isn't a good Muslim, but it's axiomatic that a good Muslim is one who follows his or her faith, and one of the tenets of that faith is that the believer must treat every word of the Koran as true and unalterable for ever. A good Muslim therefore is required to shun and/or kill non-Moslems.

When Mohammed decided to set up a new religion he thought it would be easier to pick an existing god than create a new one. He picked upon a pre-Islamic (i.e. pagan) moon god for the purpose.

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, has several different interpretations, and many, many learned scholars to support each such interpretation. Some believe in the word absolute, others take the writings as a guide.

In the Christian far-right there are those who blow up abortion clinics, murder doctors who perform abortions, who believe that the coming of the Messiah is imminent, who refuse to allow their children medication when ill, and so on. Do we say that Christianity is a religion of hate and terrorism because of these extremists?

Similarly in Islam there is at the moment a great struggle going on between the fundamentalist 'word-is-absolute' brigade within the Sunni community, the 'Messiah-is-coming' believers in the Shia sects and various 'back-to-the-purity-of-the-Prophet (pbuh)' people who cannot cope with this modern world.

In Judaism we have the Chassidic sects who have moved but little since the Middle Ages. We have had violent protests in Israel between these and government forces over many laws that, elsewhere, would be considered as fundamental to society's functions.

Do we judge the Jewish faith by these people?

All three religions take the Abrahamic doctrine of one God omnipotent as the base of faith, yet only one is frequently called evil or disruptive or other abusive names. Yet Christianity has been the faith that has killed more people in it's name than either Judaism or Islam, from the Byzantine Empire, through the Crusades to the Spanish Conquistadores, the conquest of America and the abduction of Australian aborigine children to the Jones Gatorade picnic and similar.

It is not the basics of the religion that is at fault, it is the interpretation of that religion by zealots with their own agendae.

Look at Pakistan as it is now. Within the country are thousands of people dying every year - killed by their co-religionists because they crack their eggs at the big end rather than the little end. This is not a unified religion, but one fractioned even more than Christianity. Very few sects have a pyramid structure of control (the Ismailis have the Aga Khan) but rely on individual Imams, who are reputed to be scholars of the Q'ran. There can be disputes between the various leaders within one mosque, even. I have built new mosques in both Libya and the UAE, also Indonesia, and In two of these cases there was months of argument as to the exact orientation of the structure before we could set the foundations.

Remember further that in Islam it is expected that the true believer will pray five times a day, which entails using work-place locations as well as mosques to worship shoulder-to-shoulder with his brothers-in-faith. These communal prayers are often led not by imams, mullahs or others with specific training, but by a fellow communicant of that particular congregation (to use Christian definitions). These leaders are as respected as the ordained imams, but may often have their own agenda, not necessarily based firmly in the Laws of the Prophet (bbhn). Go back in Christian history to people like Peter the Hermit, who wreaked havoc in Europe and Asia Minor with his Crusade.

Do not blame the religion - blame the human interpretations, the hatreds within so many leaders of the extreme sects. The medieval structure of so much of the world will slowly be brought up to the 'Western' model. provided the West remains prosperous, innovative and welcoming to those who wish to join. Exclusion will only breed antagonism.

Yet Christianity has been the faith that has killed more people in it's name than either Judaism or Islam, from the Byzantine Empire, through the Crusades to the Spanish Conquistadores, the conquest of America and the abduction of Australian aborigine children to the Jones Gatorade picnic and similar.

It's debatable how many people have been killed by each religion over time. It's also difficult to point a finger at the culprit in individual attacks. It could be argued that the crusades were a necessary response to the expansion of the Islamic world.

If one looks at the last few decades, Islam has by far been responsible for more religiously inspired deaths than any other religion. Other religions have adapted and modernised; the Islamic world remains inspired by its prophet who was, after all, a blood-thirsty warmonger who entreated his followers to do the same.

Do not blame the religion - blame the human interpretations, the hatreds within so many leaders of the extreme sects. The medieval structure of so much of the world will slowly be brought up to the 'Western' model. provided the West remains prosperous, innovative and welcoming to those who wish to join. Exclusion will only breed antagonism.

At one time the Islamic world was technologically more advanced than the West. It then decided to turn its back on science and technology, favouring religious devotion over learning. It sank into a dark age from which it has never recovered.

It is overly optimistic to expect that the Islamic world will develop. I can't think of a single Islamic country which has anything approaching Western levels of freedom, equality and education. Progress is, at best, patchy, and regression common. Women in Iran used to be relatively free; now they're not. In Turkey, female teachers, lawyers and MPs used not to cover their heads; now they do.

As for the West remaining welcoming, it's been too welcoming for too long. Mass immigration into Europe from Pakistan, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa has brought virtually nothing of value to Europe, and plenty of social ills. Most worrying is that second and third generation immigrants are more likely to hold extreme views than their parents. Unlike the Jews, they have failed to integrate into society, but would rather try to impose their values upon it.

Yet Christianity has been the faith that has killed more people in it's name than either Judaism or Islam, from the Byzantine Empire, through the Crusades to the Spanish Conquistadores, the conquest of America and the abduction of Australian aborigine children to the Jones Gatorade picnic and similar.

It's debatable how many people have been killed by each religion over time. It's also difficult to point a finger at the culprit in individual attacks. It could be argued that the crusades were a necessary response to the expansion of the Islamic world.

If one looks at the last few decades, Islam has by far been responsible for more religiously inspired deaths than any other religion. Other religions have adapted and modernised; the Islamic world remains inspired by its prophet who was, after all, a blood-thirsty warmonger who entreated his followers to do the same.

Do not blame the religion - blame the human interpretations, the hatreds within so many leaders of the extreme sects. The medieval structure of so much of the world will slowly be brought up to the 'Western' model. provided the West remains prosperous, innovative and welcoming to those who wish to join. Exclusion will only breed antagonism.

At one time the Islamic world was technologically more advanced than the West. It then decided to turn its back on science and technology, favouring religious devotion over learning. It sank into a dark age from which it has never recovered.

It is overly optimistic to expect that the Islamic world will develop. I can't think of a single Islamic country which has anything approaching Western levels of freedom, equality and education. Progress is, at best, patchy, and regression common. Women in Iran used to be relatively free; now they're not. In Turkey, female teachers, lawyers and MPs used not to cover their heads; now they do.

As for the West remaining welcoming, it's been too welcoming for too long. Mass immigration into Europe from Pakistan, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa has brought virtually nothing of value to Europe, and plenty of social ills. Most worrying is that second and third generation immigrants are more likely to hold extreme views than their parents. Unlike the Jews, they have failed to integrate into society, but would rather try to impose their values upon it.

Thank you, HB, for putting the facts about Islam (which I didn't really know) so well.

In every religion there are two 'aspects', the tenets of the faith, and the behaviour of the people who profess to believe them. When there are different views on 'the tenets of the faith', this becomes even more complex. But the two aspects must not be confused.

The Islamic country with the largest population, Indonesia (bigger than Pakistan, I think) tends to be fairly relaxed about its Islamism, and is developing fast as a nation. It was held back by the Dutch colonists for some years, though. Muslims in SE Asia in general seem to be less militaristic than those in the Middle East, partly because of the strong influence of British colonialism, and partly because of the nature of the people themselves. (The insurrection in S Thailand is political rather than Islamic, though Islamism is used as an excuse).

Why are Middle Eastern Muslims more militaristic? Well, one reason is the establishment of Israel bang in the middle of an otherwise Islamic area. This, to my mind, was the biggest political mistake of the 20th century (and I have no animus against the Jews).

Yet Christianity has been the faith that has killed more people in it's name than either Judaism or Islam, from the Byzantine Empire, through the Crusades to the Spanish Conquistadores, the conquest of America and the abduction of Australian aborigine children to the Jones Gatorade picnic and similar.

It's debatable how many people have been killed by each religion over time. It's also difficult to point a finger at the culprit in individual attacks. It could be argued that the crusades were a necessary response to the expansion of the Islamic world.

If one looks at the last few decades, Islam has by far been responsible for more religiously inspired deaths than any other religion. Other religions have adapted and modernised; the Islamic world remains inspired by its prophet who was, after all, a blood-thirsty warmonger who entreated his followers to do the same.

Do not blame the religion - blame the human interpretations, the hatreds within so many leaders of the extreme sects. The medieval structure of so much of the world will slowly be brought up to the 'Western' model. provided the West remains prosperous, innovative and welcoming to those who wish to join. Exclusion will only breed antagonism.

At one time the Islamic world was technologically more advanced than the West. It then decided to turn its back on science and technology, favouring religious devotion over learning. It sank into a dark age from which it has never recovered.

It is overly optimistic to expect that the Islamic world will develop. I can't think of a single Islamic country which has anything approaching Western levels of freedom, equality and education. Progress is, at best, patchy, and regression common. Women in Iran used to be relatively free; now they're not. In Turkey, female teachers, lawyers and MPs used not to cover their heads; now they do.

As for the West remaining welcoming, it's been too welcoming for too long. Mass immigration into Europe from Pakistan, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa has brought virtually nothing of value to Europe, and plenty of social ills. Most worrying is that second and third generation immigrants are more likely to hold extreme views than their parents. Unlike the Jews, they have failed to integrate into society, but would rather try to impose their values upon it.

Thank you, HB, for putting the facts about Islam (which I didn't really know) so well.

In every religion there are two 'aspects', the tenets of the faith, and the behaviour of the people who profess to believe them. When there are different views on 'the tenets of the faith', this becomes even more complex. But the two aspects must not be confused.

The Islamic country with the largest population, Indonesia (bigger than Pakistan, I think) tends to be fairly relaxed about its Islamism, and is developing fast as a nation. It was held back by the Dutch colonists for some years, though. Muslims in SE Asia in general seem to be less militaristic than those in the Middle East, partly because of the strong influence of British colonialism, and partly because of the nature of the people themselves. (The insurrection in S Thailand is political rather than Islamic, though Islamism is used as an excuse).

Why are Middle Eastern Muslims more militaristic? Well, one reason is the establishment of Israel bang in the middle of an otherwise Islamic area. This, to my mind, was the biggest political mistake of the 20th century (and I have no animus against the Jews).

The Islamic country with the largest population, Indonesia (bigger than Pakistan, I think) tends to be fairly relaxed about its Islamism, and is developing fast as a nation. It was held back by the Dutch colonists for some years, though. Muslims in SE Asia in general seem to be less militaristic than those in the Middle East, partly because of the strong influence of British colonialism, and partly because of the nature of the people themselves. (The insurrection in S Thailand is political rather than Islamic, though Islamism is used as an excuse).

Why are Middle Eastern Muslims more militaristic? Well, one reason is the establishment of Israel bang in the middle of an otherwise Islamic area. This, to my mind, was the biggest political mistake of the 20th century (and I have no animus against the Jews).

Indonesia has been fairly tolerant in the past. However now, 58% of Moslems oppose the construction of churches or other non-Moslem place of worship. 28% don't want non-Moslem teachers teach Moslems. (Data from 2010.)

72% of Indonesian Muslims would like to see Shariah law established and enforced as the nation’s legal code - they are in favour of stonings, beheadings and amputations for acts that might not even be a crime in the West.

I'm not sure that really counts as being "fairly relaxed about its Islamism".

Aceh province earlier this year decided to impose Shariah law on everyone - not just Moslems. (See http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/02/07/aceh-fully-enforces-sharia.html). Again, that's not really "fairly relaxed" - at least not for the Christians and Buddhists who face 40 lashes of the cane or 40 months in prison for violating Islamic law.

As for the Dutch colonists, they were responsible for building infrastructure that helped extract wealth from the country. Once they left the infrastructure was not maintained or enhanced, leaving the country much poorer than it could have been. One characteristic I've noticed from my travels in Malaysia and Indonesia is the lack of maintenance of facilities. I suspect (but can't be sure) it's related to the attitude of "insha'Allah" - it's up to Allah (so don't bother trying).

The insurrection in southern Thailand is a complex matter. I'm not sure that it is "political rather than Islamic". A close Malay Moslem friend of mine (a member of one of the royal families who has family members on both sides of the border) believes it's more criminal, based upon smuggling and other illegal activities than political or religious. On balance I'm inclined to believe him.

The restoration of land to the Jews after so many centuries was bound to cause some unrest. However, the area concerned was pretty much barren desert at the time. Very few Moslems were actually affected. The cause of the strife, however, has been that Moslems are taught through the Koran to hate Jews as "sons of apes and pigs" - a formulation repeated by Egyptian president Morsi in 2010. The Koran, of course, includes many verses of similar hate speech against the Jewish people.

It is not for you, AyG, to say who is or is not a 'good' Muslim.

And what is that at the end of your post about 'a pagan god'?

I don't say who is or isn't a good Muslim, but it's axiomatic that a good Muslim is one who follows his or her faith, and one of the tenets of that faith is that the believer must treat every word of the Koran as true and unalterable for ever. A good Muslim therefore is required to shun and/or kill non-Moslems.

When Mohammed decided to set up a new religion he thought it would be easier to pick an existing god than create a new one. He picked upon a pre-Islamic (i.e. pagan) moon god for the purpose.

your knowledge about Islam is comparable to the level of my gardener's knowledge concerning quantum physics.

your knowledge about Islam is comparable to the level of my gardener's knowledge concerning quantum physics.

Wow! Your gardener has an in depth knowledge of quantum physics!

I'm surprised, but thank you for the compliment.

your knowledge about Islam is comparable to the level of my gardener's knowledge concerning quantum physics.

Wow! Your gardener has an in depth knowledge of quantum physics!

I'm surprised, but thank you for the compliment.

You will find that member Naam has extensive knowledge of Islamic belief, as does member HB.

In my post a few clicks above, I deliberately did not mention either Indonesia or Malaysia, as they have changed considerably since I worked there.

The tsunami seems to have changed a lot of peoples thoughts and attitudes in Indo. Aceh, which had always been the most Islamic of the provinces, has become much stronger in influence than before the tsunami and has thus radicalised many of the younger generation, including many politicians and activists. The friends I used to have in Sumatera Barat now correspond less frequently with me and several have stopped altogether. Many have put this down to familial pressure.

There is also the problem in much of Indonesia of their Chinese-descent citizens, most of whom profess a Christian faith. These are mainly small businessmen - running the local stores or the wholesalers from whom the local stores buy their goods. Due to the high levels of poverty in the countryside the people often get into debt with these shopkeepers and the shopkeepers get into debt with the wholesalers. This causes resentment and the Chinese/Christian become the target of such resentment. This has led to many purges among the two communities, which have been very nasty in the carrying-out.

Malaysia is a little different, in that during Mahatir Mohammed's time as PM there was quite a religious feel to the government. The constitution is biased towards the (Muslim) ethnic Malays as compared to the ethnic Chinese part of the population. However MM did not tolerate the fundamentalist type of Islam that sought to eliminate the Chinese. He knew he needed them to carry out the business of Malaysia, while the Malays did the governing, the Army and the labouring. (This is all broad-brush analysis - obviously there were - and are - Malays in business, Chinese in the Army and labouring). Since the change of government there have been more radical Muslims in the government and pressure on the Chinese/Christian citizenry has developed. When everyone knew their place and kept to it, the system worked - now with Chinese-based opposition in politics - developed to combat the increasing Islamisation of Malaysia's government - there is more discord in the place. And with Islamic activists in the border regions of Malaysia/Thailand spreading Arab-type dissent things are changing for the worse.

But I still have faith in the general attitude of most of the population of both these fine countries to weed out the radical elements and revert to a far more stable system of guarded tolerance. However I do not see any future co-mingling of the separate communities. There will always be a separation on both racial and religious lines.

The north-eastern provinces of Malaya have always been strongly Muslim, and I guess it is largely their influence which has led to the increased Islamisation of the Government. I doubt whether this will last, though there may be some hiccups along the way. The Chinese businessmen are still very much needed there, and the more sensible Malays know it. (They also remember the anti-Chinese riots of 1968)

Eastern Malaysia has not been too much affected, but then the Muslim element has never been so strong there.

Ironically, my only visit to St Peter's in Rome was in the company of a Kelantan tunku! I didn't try to convert him.

The restoration of land to the Jews after so many centuries was bound to cause some unrest. However, the area concerned was pretty much barren desert at the time. Very few Moslems were actually affected.

Your knowledge of Palestinian geography and 20th century history are both extremely lacking.

The preamble of the British Mandate for Palestine states

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

(my emphasis)

We all know how that turned out for the Palestinian Muslims post establishment of Israel!

And, of course, the mandate itself only came into existence after Britain and France reneged on their agreement with the Arabs and divided the area up under the Sykes-Picot agreement.

Looking at the events of the last 100 years in the Middle East, it is little wonder that the West is at best mistrusted, at worst hated in much of the Muslim world.

The irony, the champion of runaway immigration from hotbeds of extremism smells the coffee. Kudos to him too for siding with the Egyptian military as oppose to the Muslim Brotherhood, unlike the clueless Obama administration. We are reaching an interesting juncture whilst PC erosion of free speech is threatening to shut down debate on Islamic extremism, just as people are indeed starting to wake up and smell the coffee.

Paul Weston was recently arrested for a speech containing a verbatim quotation from Winston Churchill. A sobering thought that a former British prime minister, and arguably the greatest, would today be arrested for hate speech. Careful how you phrase things Mr Blair.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/27711

The irony, the champion of runaway immigration from hotbeds of extremism smells the coffee. Kudos to him too for siding with the Egyptian military as oppose to the Muslim Brotherhood, unlike the clueless Obama administration. We are reaching an interesting juncture whilst PC erosion of free speech is threatening to shut down debate on Islamic extremism, just as people are indeed starting to wake up and smell the coffee.

Paul Weston was recently arrested for a speech containing a verbatim quotation from Winston Churchill. A sobering thought that a former British prime minister, and arguably the greatest, would today be arrested for hate speech. Careful how you phrase things Mr Blair.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/27711

The Churchill quote was made in 1899 and reflects the thinking of the time.

Regrettably it was a quote from his time as a journalist and was opinion rather than fact - a fault common to most journalists from the year dot up to the present day.

He was commenting on the society of the time, their customs and his interpretation of the law of the land in various parts of what is now the Middle East, was then the Ottoman empire. The laws of the time were medieval - the Turkish rulers had handed control of their empire to locally appointed officials who owed their positions (and promotions) to the amount of money they could extort and pass on to their superiors in the organisation.

I totally agree that we need an open debate on the effects of Islam on British culture, as we need an open debate on the effects of the EU on British society, an open debate on climate change and the potential effects on Britain, an open debate on the dichotomy of socialism and capitalism.

But it seems to me that at least 80% of people in the UK do not want to hear and understand the many facets of all these matters, they just take their views from some of the commentators in the media, whom they believe are 'on their side'. Everyone in the media has an agenda - that is why they took up that sort of career in the first place. Very few have done so from an altruistic view of 'informing people', they have done so to 'indoctrinate' people.

But it seems to me that at least 80% of people in the UK do not want to hear and understand the many facets of all these matters, they just take their views from some of the commentators in the media, whom they believe are 'on their side'. Everyone in the media has an agenda - that is why they took up that sort of career in the first place. Very few have done so from an altruistic view of 'informing people', they have done so to 'indoctrinate' people.

Blame the education system because it is designed around a religious culture that is in itself intellectually lazy. The same culture produces....

Very few have done so from an altruistic view of 'informing people', they have done so to 'indoctrinate' people.

A number of members know a great deal about various individual beliefs such as yourself and Naam with regard to Islam but so what! It's like saying that someone who has intricate knowledge of how to make the best brick knows everything about a house or a jockey knows the best way to train a race horse.

But anyway.... Blair shows the same lack of understanding to a slightly lesser degree that he did some years back which can at least be considered a start. He batted on in 2010? in a debate with the late Christopher Hitchens about how religion had managed to cross the divide. I paused and found the clip. Look at Blair's face when asked where the divide came from.

Blair has done nothing but tickle the prostrate in his latest act. Faith is the word used to describe belief without reason and he should be ashamed to have been so very very active in promulgating it in the UK for so long when people were waking up.

Current PM stated just the other day that the UK is a Christian country and got a huge backlash for stating it. I'm not surprised because it is simply untrue regardless of where one gets the figures from. Close down all faith schools because they are infecting our youth resulting on poor journalists and politicians.

The irony, the champion of runaway immigration from hotbeds of extremism smells the coffee. Kudos to him too for siding with the Egyptian military as oppose to the Muslim Brotherhood, unlike the clueless Obama administration. We are reaching an interesting juncture whilst PC erosion of free speech is threatening to shut down debate on Islamic extremism, just as people are indeed starting to wake up and smell the coffee.

Paul Weston was recently arrested for a speech containing a verbatim quotation from Winston Churchill. A sobering thought that a former British prime minister, and arguably the greatest, would today be arrested for hate speech. Careful how you phrase things Mr Blair.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/27711

The Churchill quote was made in 1899 and reflects the thinking of the time.

Regrettably it was a quote from his time as a journalist and was opinion rather than fact - a fault common to most journalists from the year dot up to the present day.

He was commenting on the society of the time, their customs and his interpretation of the law of the land in various parts of what is now the Middle East, was then the Ottoman empire. The laws of the time were medieval - the Turkish rulers had handed control of their empire to locally appointed officials who owed their positions (and promotions) to the amount of money they could extort and pass on to their superiors in the organisation.

I totally agree that we need an open debate on the effects of Islam on British culture, as we need an open debate on the effects of the EU on British society, an open debate on climate change and the potential effects on Britain, an open debate on the dichotomy of socialism and capitalism.

But it seems to me that at least 80% of people in the UK do not want to hear and understand the many facets of all these matters, they just take their views from some of the commentators in the media, whom they believe are 'on their side'. Everyone in the media has an agenda - that is why they took up that sort of career in the first place. Very few have done so from an altruistic view of 'informing people', they have done so to 'indoctrinate' people.

I wonder whether the Islamic extremism Tony Blair referred to in 2014 is that much different to the one described by Winston Churchill in 1899, I suspect not. Sure Churchill was expressing an opinion, but I can quite easily find objective fact to back up every one of his assertions. Churchill went on to observe that it was science that has prevented Europe from going the same way as ancient Rome. I wonder what he would have made of the current climate of appeasement and paralysis we find ourselves in today.

As for Blair, better late than never - a secular tyrant is far easier to deal with than religious extremists - this may sound cynical, but who can honestly say Libya or Iraq for that matter are better off now than they were under previous regimes? Shame we had to learn his lesson the hard way.

Hmmm, Hell hath no fury greater than that reserved for someone (supposedly) of the left going off reservation, especially where Islam is involved. Editorials spitting bile from the Independant among several others attest to that. Here is what the JPost has to say, which I agree with in it's entirety;-

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/What-Blair-should-have-said-350511

He quite rightly spotlights the west's reluctance to deal with the elephant in the room, however he falls down at the last by rationalizing Islamism is some perversion of Islam. It is not, it is a widespread ideology with backing from the main Islamic schools of jurisprudence. I suppose to acknowledge this would have been even more damning towards his 'cool Britannia' open doors immigration policy, which let in vast numbers of people who loathe, detest and would quite like to destroy our civilization. - Full circle to Churchill and what you can now be arrested for.

He quite rightly spotlights the west's reluctance to deal with the elephant in the room, however he falls down at the last by rationalizing Islamism is some perversion of Islam. It is not, it is a widespread ideology with backing from the main Islamic schools of jurisprudence.

You are wasting your time because apparently 300,000 people taking to the streets burning and rioting do not represent the majority while a couple of self appointed people do.

What does western standards mean?

What does 'liberal Islam' mean? A contradiction in terms if ever there was.

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/headlines/11300775.Six_men_charged_following_child_sex_exploitation_raids_in_Banbury/

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike