You will recall that we discussed the story the other day of how an Anglican priest was viciously attacked by “asian youths” in Tower Hamlets in London. The BBC apologists that frequent this space immediately took issue with my suggestion that the “asian youths” were, in all likelihood, Muslims. They also cheered the BBC’s refusal to suggest that there may have been any Muslim involvement. But guess what – the BBC has now run a story entitled “Muslims denounce attack on priest”! Abdul Qayum, imam of the East London Mosque, also said: “Our congregation is united in condemnation. The imam described the attack as “cowardly and despicable.” Now naturally all condemnation of such brutality is welcome but isn’t it odd that whilst the BBC steadfastly refuses to suggest that Muslims may have been the perpetrators of this violence, it provides a soap-box for Muslims to make clear that they oppose all such attacks. The thing is that this same East London Mosque hosted Saudi cleric Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, who refers to Jews as monkeys and pigs and in 2004 was denied entry into Canada. It also has Muhammad Abdul Bari, the guy who believes the UK should adopt Islamic arranged marriages, as chairman. Moderation incarnate.
THOSE MYSTERIOUS YOUTHS – UPDATE.
Bookmark the permalink.
“whats with typhoo and pick axe handles?…was he frightened by one as a child?”
No he and Hillhunt miss the good old days,probably had their electric drill permits confiscated
Well I’ve said somethings on this thread that could be interpeted as personal on david vance. I’m sorry, particularly to david, but I stand over them.
I had a friend, I say had, because he is now dead this afternoon with multiple head injuries by a blunt instrument. His head was staved in.
Local murder does not get mentioned, not on DV’s own site. What we have are jukeboxes and hangover threads, and tip jar. I am disappointed and deeply hurt by David Vances remarks.
I suspect I’m the sort of person that calls a spade a spade, and David has behaved today like a pharisee, and I told him so.
Now if he is looking to ban me – no problem. I’ve only ever given David good will. I’ve been a loyal supporter that way, yet it took a whole thread on his site to get him to even condemn a mans murder.
I’m deeply hurt by that, since in the past I supported David when he was feeling like packing it all in, sent him stuff. In short I’d have done anything for ATW.
His reluctance to mention the murder, or condemn it has made me see another side. The side that a lot of northern Irish people are critical off. What has to befal a man in death before the manner of it gets condemned by the high and mighty DV, or how much silver does it take?
I pray for you David. Now bring on your ban.
Would it be this MPAC that John Reith is talking about?
“Now, when the authorities are trying to get ordinary UK Muslims onside in the struggle against Islamist extremism • how helpful are you being?”
Why not try getting the commenters here on side – or are they unimportant in the BBC’s scheme of things?
“2. It’s a fair swap. You stop your bigoted behaviour towards Muslims and others who fall foul of your, um, high standards, and…
Hillhunt | 18.03.08 – 6:55 pm |”
It is also an old leftist trick to cast themselves as arbiters of the behaviour of others. Assume the moral high ground and make the rules.
Typhoo,
Sorry you feel like that.
You’re not banned but you could do with learning to stick to topic. Further, I do not take orders on what I condemn.
Wasn’t giving orders. Asking for decency maybe, but I never ordered anything.
I do stick to topic. condemnation of an attack on a priest and saying it was muslims due tothe link is stretching it. Not Condemning a local murder stretches decency.
Dv…don’t believe a word…don’t apologise..its your site…we are guests and if we don’t like it here we can leave…trolls are getting rather cheeky and more devious it seems.
Thud,
It’s about maintaining good quality debate. That provides scope for anyone who seeks to defend/attack the BBC – but without the ad hominems that some trolls engage in. I am constantly surprised and impressed by the quality of comments and links here, it’s such a good site. I want to keep all that is good about it, maybe add my own ideas, but get rid of the disruptive off-topic trolling.
I hold to my views, have nothing to apologise to anyone for, invite support and criticism, but want it all done in a civil way. I believe that may require a few red cards being issued unless things improve.
re hillhunt, I assumed he was part of the beeboid jr collective response team. Anyway, he’s a pillock and hill hunting is a wonderful passtime , not to be sullied by association with a shill like that.
Again its important to remind people not to argue with these trolls – its what they are employed by the bbc to do, move the point of discussion etc.
We know the bbc are guilty, the aim of this blog should be to ensure as many others are drawn to it as possible, and that the MSM can use it as a point of reference.
It is right for the BBC not to mention that the attackers were muslims as fact. But I take issue with the double standards. If they inject editorials in their reporting about the recent Jerusalem ‘incident’, why don’t they with this?
For what it’s worth, it would be a very great shame if the troll-cull drove away reasoned BBC-apologists. JR has consistently tried to fight his end of the argument reasonably and rationally and has even won a few. But I can’t think of anything Hillhunt has brought to this blog except pretty nasty personal abuse. If he’s got it in him to argue rather than shout, his contributions should be welcomed. But if he can’t up his game – exclude him.
Michael Taylor,
Well said.
AYA, HH, JR, I’m really struggling to find anything on the reported incident in Glasgow a few months ago where an immigrant (illegal, I believe) was pushing her pram with her baby in it and some men threw stones at her and called her names. This dreadful racist incident has had no further reporting so can you tell me if the police have found these dreadful, racists from Glasgow who throw stones.
It wouldn’t have been a story made up by her ‘human rights’ lawyer in a bid to prevent deportation, would it?
The best way to stop it is to simply ignore the perceived insults and focus on the subject matter. By the way, David, I now find myself verifying practically every BBC story against this site to garner a balanced approach, so thanks for your efforts.
For what it’s worth, it would be a very great shame if the troll-cull drove away reasoned BBC-apologists
I’d like to see David Gregory return, he was the most reasoned of the lot.
Many have gone and are unlikely to return. JR, SJ and DG may not have written things I agreed with but at least they were engaged. If we want them to change we simply must engage them.
Non beebiods have left too (Rockall et al).
Don’t just hang the beebiod trolls. There are trolls of other kinds here as well.
John Reith,
Yes, we’ve had this discussion before, haven’t we? I’m sure you know that I, for one, am in complete agreement with you that the BBC needs to help out occasionally with social cohesion, and getting Muslims onside. I understand this to be part of the Charter we’re always demanding the BBC follow, and that your namesake would agree as well.
Where we disagree, as you probably also know, is in the BBC’s strategy. I put it to you that the current BBC attitude and tactics actually harm the cause rather than help it. The error comes from typical, wet, Leftoid thinking: we must cater to the fragile self-esteem of Muslims in the UK, so that they don’t feel that we are at war against them, etc. The result is that the already sociopathic mindset of cavemen (nothing to do with Islam, per se, just the culture from which this derives) is confirmed rather than calmed. Sociopaths tend to have very high self-esteem, and programmes showing white people being redeemed by Islam, or harmless, fun-loving religious young men, always allowing their “grievances” pride of place, or hiding unpleasant truths from them only serves to reinforce that already over-blown self-esteem. This does not get them onside. It confirms their mindset. There is also the type of sociopath who has a very low self-esteem, and causes harm to others to compensate in order to feel superior. The result is a very fragile, but seriously over-inflated self-esteem. The current BBC tactic reinforces that, too. Of course, in the world of Muslims, especially living in non-Muslim countries, you get both.
None of the BBC’s efforts show an angry young man who has recently been spending too much time at that bookshop where Charles Moore’s group supposedly bought all those jihadi tracts that he might be wrong about non-Muslims. All that just allows him to carry on, and then he can get insulted all over again when he hears aggressive comments from white people (who are pissed off because, etc.). It’s a vicious cycle, one that is reinforced by the BBC’s approach, not broken. You get somebody to join your side by showing them how good it is, and how they would fit in, not by telling them how great they are already, and affirming everything they think is bad about your side.
So what you (the BBC) are doing is completely wrong. Even then, there is the added cost of insulting and alienating those whom you claim to be helping with all this.
Instead of doing what you (the BBC) have been doing, try a different approach entirely. I wouldn’t suggest anything completely insane, like showing a Muslim girl from a troubled Pakistani family who finds solace in Dibley parish. But what about something non-trivial, like showing a reasonably successful bi-cultural community? I submit that you really ought to be showing Muslims that the kafirs are not to be despised, that they can interact with the “other”, and that they will not lose their cultural identity the moment they walk out the door or allow their women the minimum of rights. Again, I must remind you that I don’t think this is down to Islam, full stop, but rather the caveman culture in which most of these people are stuck. I would tell the same thing to the Lubavitch in Crown Heights, if you see what I mean.
I realize our own politicians have been absolutely crap at getting out the message that there is no actual War Against Islam. I also realize that there are many in the BBC who think that this is what is really going on, and that such an attitude is only encouraged by the occasional angry outburst against the Muslim problem. I get it. But those BBC people don’t want to admit that there is, in fact, a War Against the non-Muslims. So they are messing about with the wrong side.
The BBC could very easily manufacture some “town hall” programme wherein the two sides all get along. When there were some very serious race riots between blacks and Jews in Crown Heights, we got lots of reports on a couple of bi-cultural groups who did some good community work. We got interviews, air time, etc., of members of both communities working together, being friends, reaching across the aisle, and other clichés. The BBC needs to do lots more of that. The BBC needs to do lots more of all kinds of programmes depicting Muslims peacefully interacting with kafirs – not assimilating, mind – and Muslims reaching out for peace with the kafirs in their own neighborhoods.
Instead of burying reports about bishops bitching about no-go areas, show infidel whites moving about freely, patronizing the shops instead. Hell, it can be about as truthful as a Blue Peter phone-in competition for all I care. So long as you stop fighting the wrong battle. And you’d be going a damn sight farther in obeying the Charter, and actually doing something right for social cohesion.
I’ll leave you to decide on how you are going to deal with your own forum. But I dont think there is much point in trying to engage while threads go downhill in tone and OT so quickly. I’m still reading it, it’s still an excellent blog, but don’t have the desire to comment much.
Hillhunt – if you are going to stick up for the BBC, pls do so politely, it is what Reith would have wanted. And also remember, ‘promoting social cohesion’ is now a Charter requirement – while this is probably a crock of PC shite – it is also the case that polite political discourse with people you don’t agree with is very British. DV has cut you a lot of slack but he is smart enough to know that some of your posts favour his cause more than your own.
The people here who eg persistently go on about a gay mafia do this blog no credit and should ignored and just be left to type whatever they want, until they tone it down or are removed, but it’s not our role to decide that. DV can decide if that kind of comment reflects well on the blog, or badly.
The telly tax is an anachronism and has to change – it will change much quicker and for the better if people remember some basic manners*
* as long as some banter and name-calling remain, otherwise it would be too PC and we can’t have that.
Sarah Jane,
I want to do my best to create a pleasant environment here where people can argue, profoundly disagree, but without the vitriol that spoils it a bit.
David – how much to moderate is a fine line particularly when the blog’s viewpoint is effectively a libertarian one so I don’t envy your choices (things here got a bit silly when the moderation was over vigorous before and some commenters who were pretty reasonable and polite got driven away (although it’s nice to see so many of them coming back :)).
But with libertarianism comes personal responsibility and people need to reflect on how their words reflect on either this blog or the BBC depending on which viewpoint they take.
“I want to do my best to create a pleasant environment here where people can argue”
Come off it, David. Anyone with the temerity to actually defend the BBC is instantly labelled a lefty bedwetting troll and dismissed as stoopid for not seeing the “obvious” truth.
Both Reith and David Gregory were pretty civil in the face of repeated attacks on their integrity and intelligence. Now that actual BBC staff members like Reith, DG and Nick Reynolds have decided not to post here [as much] the main thrust of disagreement is whether the BBC is a stooge of a covert islamist gay leftist mafia or something worse.
p and one chip
Coming here as a beeboid, I am fair game for a bit of abuse from some commenters , and Reith, David, Nick we are all adults and know what is going to happen and we are in no illusion that some people are really feckin angry about the BBC. But as long as there is a bit of wit and reason to it, or better still some coherent argument and some links, no problem.
I am not going to deny that the boring relentless ‘you are all gay dhimmis’ stuff does get tedious – but it is clear to me that when the lefty wind-up merchants are baiting people then there is a lot more of it.
If BBC supporters could only realise that sensible coherent argument helps the BBC, and calling people names does not, then this blog will get back to being more informative and constructive, and we can have a more reasonable discussion with eg David about the difference between ‘bias’ and ‘not enough airtime for my point of view’.
Then if B-BBC supporters want to keep on with the ad hominen they can, but it will be clear what is driving it and who it reflects on.
“If BBC supporters could only realise that sensible coherent argument helps the BBC, and calling people names does not, then this blog will get back to being more informative and constructive”
Hmm, maybe.
Personally I think this blog would become more informative and constructive by not reflexively screaming bias at the slightest thing and by actually spending some time understanding how the news process works. Oh, and not trotting out the old “I personally haven’t seen any mention on the BBC of topic x, therefore the BBC can’t have covered it” or “This story in the Ripley Morning Advertiser hasn’t been covered by the BBC so they must be hiding something”.
‘The people here who eg persistently go on about a gay mafia do this blog no credit…..’
Sarah Jane | 19.03.08 – 5:17 pm |
I knew it. Gordon Correra during the week, Sarah Jane at weekends 🙂
(things here got a bit silly when the moderation was over vigorous before and some commenters who were pretty reasonable and polite got driven away (although it’s nice to see so many of them coming back)
Sarah Jane | 19.03.08 – 6:01 pm |
If I’m included in that then I thank you.
Yours always & miss dreadfully seeing you on CBBC 8)
How bizarre.
No sillybunt today, just a load of stale chips.
….we can have a more reasonable discussion with eg David about the difference between ‘bias’ and ‘not enough airtime for my point of view’….
Sarah Jane | 19.03.08 – 6:25 pm |
SJ
Your rather twee appeal for cosy debate neatly sidesteps the fundamental argument – that the idea of a dominant, compulsorily funded, state broadcaster is an essentially totalitarian concept, which has no place in a modern democratic society.
Some of us don’t want to discuss “airtime for our point of view” – we want to get you lot of freeloaders off our backs for good.
Coming here as a beeboid
Sarah Jane | 19.03.08 – 6:25 pm
First you said you were one, then you denied it, now you’re a beeboid again?
Both Reith and David Gregory were pretty civil in the face of repeated attacks on their integrity and intelligence.
p and a tale of one chip | 19.03.08 – 6:02 pm
Gregory yes, but you can’t have seen too many of Reith’s posts if you really think he’s in the same class as Gregory.
miss dreadfully seeing you on CBBC
Disinterested Bystander | 19.03.08 – 7:00 pm
Sarah Jane. You’re the that Sarah Jane?
Oops,
I seem to have stuttered. Sarah Jane, choose ‘the’ or ‘that’ as you prefer.
No, he’s not.
So he’s a male non-BBC “Sarah Jane” passing himself off as the female CBBC Sarah Jane?
That’s what I understood from earlier comments. He/she has been clear about not being the Sarah Jane in any case (and I have to confess, I’ve no idea who that is). I don’t think you can accuse him of being deliberately misleading in that way.
‘An opportunity bungled’ from Brett:
“So a Christian priest gets his head kicked in by Muslim youths, and we the public are instructed that the real victims are Muslims and the real issue is Islamophobia.”
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/03/20/an_opportunity_bungled.php
George R | 20.03.08 – 9:00 pm |
I’m afraid punkawallah’s pedigree says it all.
His dad did time (sentenced to 8 years) for heroin importation and trafficking.
Hugh | 20.03.08 – 12:08 pm,
No, I’m not accusing him/her of midleading anyone. But in his/her current incarnation he/she is now apparently a BBC staff member again so I’m just looking for clarification.
Oh, I see. I think I remember him/her saying they used to be staff then went freelance or something along those lines if that helps. Would be useful to know, though, yes.
David Preiser (USA) | 19.03.08 – 4:26 pm
I would tell the same thing to the Lubavitch in Crown Heights, if you see what I mean.
Well, I’m glad you raised it. If I had, I’d have been howled down as an anti-semite.
It’s apt • the whole problem with your analysis is that it’s predicated on the Biased-BBC house line that depicts all UK Muslims as fundamentalists and ‘understands’ Islam only in terms of the preaching of crackpot clerics. No wonder you think of ordinary Muslims as sociopathic cavemen.
To follow your own analogy, it’s a bit like regarding all Jews as haredim and assessing Jewish culture solely in terms of somewhat strict Rabbinical teachings composed in Eastern Europe a hundred years ago.
Daily experience suggests otherwise. There are plenty of ‘secular’ Muslims • they don’t wear Islamic clothing, the women aren’t veiled, many seldom, if ever, go to a Mosque and they certainly don’t subscribe to all the Caliphate, kill-the-kufr baloney. The majority of those who are religiously observant are Sufi. (Yes, sure there are some whacky Sufis too…..but let’s not go there for now) The point is your average young, UK-born British Muslim is more like a secular, a Reform, or a Liberal Jew than an Orthodox, let alone an Ultra-Orthodox. But just as Jews will club together with people they’d normally have little time for when anti-semites are roaming the streets, so the ‘ordinary decent Muslims’ will start showing solidarity with extremists if they encounter the undifferentiated hostility exemplified by many of the posters on this blog (e.g. Martin).
John Reith: “The point is your average young, UK-born British Muslim is more like a secular, a Reform, or a Liberal Jew than an Orthodox, let alone an Ultra-Orthodox…‘ordinary decent Muslims’ will start showing solidarity with extremists if they encounter the undifferentiated hostility exemplified by many of the posters on this blog”
Yes, I agree. But I’m at a loss as to why this means we need to abandon the principles of sober, balanced reporting that serve every other ordinary secular individual perfectly well as soon as it comes to reporting anything to do with Islam.
the Biased-BBC house line that depicts all UK Muslims as fundamentalists
The BBC on the other hand is promoting islamophobia by insisting that NO muslim are fundamentalists and that hate speech in mosques is a figment of peoples imagination.
I do not want the BBC to demonise the muslim community, but I expect to be told the truth about the news, both good and bad unsubjected to the endemic bias of the BBC to hide those things that they deem are not suitable to be broadcast.
Peter Mullen points out that the attackers wre Muslims (but called ‘Asians’). He adds:
” If I smashed the windows of a Brick Lane curry house and gave the manager two black eyes, you can be sure the police and the papers” (and the BBC) “wouldn’t describe me as a ‘European’.”
‘Without Christianity, our society is doomed’:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/21/do2102.xml
Yeah, but he also says “Well, it’s clear that the yobs who attacked Michael were Muslims.” without mentioning how it came to be so clear.
We, at the BBC, have an implicit house-line that regards Islam as largely benign; that the history of Islamic Jihad and the present Islamic Jihad is simply a minor aberration (and not as analysed in books such as:
Andrew G. Bostom (ed.) ‘The Legacy of Jihad’, E.Karsh ‘Islamic Imperialism’, R. Spencer ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, and the Crusades’, Ibn Warraq ‘Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism’.)
We, at the BBC, have a determinist and teleological view of history whereby we presume that Islam, despite its history, and despite the predominantly violent message to kafirs in the Koran, will become peaceful, like Christianity. Accordingly, the BBC regards sites such as these ‘off-message’:
http://www.jihadwatch.org
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch
http://www.newenglishreview.org
We, at the BBC, are happy to transmit without criticism, any threats or lies which Islamic Jihadist Bin Laden cares to make against the West, in the interests of peace. And, in contrast,we at the BBC, do not appreciate sites like this:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
If a Neo Nazi party were to propose the building of a centre to house 12,000 of their followers in east London, a place to celebrate and promote their beliefs, then the majority of the people in this country would rightly be appalled at such a prospect. And yet it seems that we are going to have a mosque of this proportion. A landmark building.
We must not be seduced into seeing Islam as a comparitively benign and tolerant faith such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity or Judaism. Islam is intolerant of any other system of belief. Muslims are slaughtering Buddhists in East Asia, their detestation for the Hindus is intrinsic, and their utter hatred for the Jews is fundamental to their beliefs.
Go to most of the Islamic web sites and you will see “Kill the Jews” “Kill all the Jews” Even films designed to brainwash children are filled with this hatred. Islam should be seen for what it is, not the religion of peace as they laughingly call it, but the religion of deep hatred and resentment of anything other than itself, and John Reith’s line, don’t rock the boat for fear of upsetting them, would no doubt find parallels in the 1930s and many people’s response to the rise of Hitler.
The point is your average young, UK-born British Muslim is more like a secular, a Reform, or a Liberal Jew than an Orthodox, let alone an Ultra-Orthodox. But just as Jews will club together with people they’d normally have little time for when anti-semites are roaming the streets, so the ‘ordinary decent Muslims’ will start showing solidarity with extremists if they encounter the undifferentiated hostility exemplified by many of the posters on this blog…
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 9:03 am
Here we go with the old moral equivalence game again, courtesy of Reith. In fact, there is no moral equivalence between Jewish fundamentalists, who so rarely produce a terrorist like Baruch Goldstein that his name is remembered decades after his killing spree, and Islamic terrorists, whose worldwide killing spree produces a new “martyr” practically on an hourly basis.
And there is no equivalence between the occasional dirty look or blog rant Muslims are subjected to because of the reign of terror of their fellow Muslims, and the poisonous hatred spewed out on the Internet against Jews and Israel along with the physical attacks on Jews and desecration of synagogues and graveyards, often because of Jewish defence against Islamic terrorism. I’m sure Reith doesn’t remember the name Ala Abu Dheim. Not too many people, apart from those who hero-worship him because he killed eight Jewish students, will recall it.
And no, Reith, the average secular or Reform or Orthodox Jew is not driven into the arms of the fundamentalists, even when faced with the constant verbal and physical attacks on Jews and Israel. And here you are trying to tell us that British Muslims are somehow justified in coming under the influence of Islamic terrorists because of the occasional insult on blogs like this one? Have you lost your ability for rational argument?
You can reply to these points if you like on your return from the mosque.
I think you’ll find there is some pretty nasty stuff said about Muslims on the internet. Read the post above yours for a start. And of course Mosques do get desecrated too.
“In fact, there is no moral equivalence between Jewish fundamentalists…Islamic terrorists”
Perhaps no moral equivalence, but John Reith was talking about a numerical, not a moral equivalence. The fact that Islamic extremists blow more stuff up than Jewish extremists is irrelevant to what proportion of Muslims espouse fundamentalism in relation to Jews.
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 9:03 am |
I see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re missing the point when you focus on such a breakdown of Muslim demographics. Even if a large percentage of them are secularized to a degree, that doesn’t solve the xenophobic, angry cultural problem. I raised the Crown Heights issue because I see the whole problem as a cultural clash, really one that exists outside of any religion.
I’ve seen perfectly friendly (to me) Lubavitch adults – professionals with advanced degrees who work in and interact with secular society every day – who, when walking down the street on which they live, will cross the street, then cross back again just so they don’t walk directly past a black man sitting on the stoop in front of the building in which he (the black man) lives. His apartment building right next door to the ultra-Orthodox Jewish family’s home, yet they cross the street, very blatantly and there is no mistake about what’s going on, just so they don’t walk past their own neighbor. The Talmud, in fact, instructs/advises against this kind of behavior, so such an unpleasant act is not based on any religious doctrine.
This is what’s going on in many Muslim communities. So even if they don’t buy into the whole “kill all infidels” mentality, they do buy into various forms of cultural identity which, in caveman form, seem to lead to a “the world is against us” mentality, and that sort of thing.
Most secular Jews, even ones who have never set foot in a synagogue except for weddings or a relative’s bar-mitzvah, take it somewhat personally when Israel is attacked. Even though with Jews the religion is about as intertwined with the cultural and ethnic structures as anyone can get, this kind of identification is a cultural, tribal thing. It’s sort of beyond religion.
So even if the young men on the streets of, say, certain areas of North London are secularized and don’t pray all the time, don’t walk around fuming about that picture of Piglet in the bookshop window, they will still beat up a Jewish-looking person, they will still scream in anger against any non-Muslim military action in Iraq or Afghanistan. They will still get angry about the Mohammed cartoons. I bet whoever is trying to make certain parts of Nottingham into no-go areas are just the kind of not-very-religious people you describe.
These people will still do honor killings, send their teenage daughters back to Pakistan to marry strangers, and warn their children against “the other”. This is human behavior that existed long before any religion, and I think you can understand where I’m going with this.
I realize that it’s very easy to get into the “Islam is evil, that’s the problem” mode of thought, and I’m trying to get beyond that. I still say that my suggested programming direction would be very effective reaching out to these people. Even if the vast majority of them are not zebibah-sporting, bearded über-Muslims, they still self-identify that way, and would respond to such programming. They don’t have to be religious at all. Obviously one can’t attempt to address them from a superficial cultural level either. It would be insane to address each individual demographic of the larger Muslim (or Muslim-ish, if you take my meaning) population, since they come from so many different ethnicities and regions. So the only way to really do this is with a Muslim focus.
As for Sufis, although they can get very fervorous (concerts of Sufi devotional music can be tremendous fun, especially performances of the late great Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan), I don’t think the imams who got deported or the mosques and bookshops which sell jihadi materials are strictly Sufi. That’s more Wahabbi influence, and often Saudi financed.
There is no conclusive evidence that “the fact that Islamic extremists blow up more stuff than Jewish extremists is irrelevant.”
There is no conclusive evidence that there is no conclusive evidence.
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. The comparative number of fundamentalists within Islam and Judaism is an entirely different statistic to the comparative wanton destruction these fundamentalists carry out.
Alex:
You are contradicting yourself.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.