Good speech but the one really important thing she fails to bring up - and the media and others tend to ignore it too - is that the extreme radicals, the threat to the west, belong to distinct sects within Islam and they are being taken on by not just by us but by other Muslims - Shia - as well.

Iran - a Shia country - will be our ally very soon in all of this because it turns out they are not the real danger to us that we were told they were over the last 30 years.

The fanatical Sunni Muslims are the enemy. We should be told that from all angles and we should be olive branching the Muslims that abhor them as much as we do. Strength in numbers.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Essentially she's right.

People should really read the work of Irshad Manji. She's an Islamic reformist and she isn't happy with the attitudes of well meaning people who essentially have made extremism easier. Her message is principally to them....It's them who need to change......They should read her books....But they won't of course.

Anyway to an extent, in my opinion, the relative success of radical Islam in this country is down to the ideology of left wing politicians and commentators.

They created the fear of accusation....It was they who created the climate of fear to call a spade a spade. It was them who provided the space and freedom for radical groups to form without scrutiny.

For years whoever raised an objection was called a racist.......The left have been terribly wrong and almost criminal on this.....They deserve blame for their 'head in the sand' blindness and inaction.

All the easy cries of racism, all the easy cries of bullying and unfairness.....I remember a few weeks before 7/7 my left wing mate telling me that our government over stated the Islamic threat so that it could ask for what it wanted in terms of security funding.....It's a joke really.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jun 2014 9.36am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

That's simplistic and again reducing things to the usual convenient but red herring of left/right.

London became "Londonstan" with a deliberate or blind eye policy allowing many "extremist" Sunni political and religious figures to operate here and then start to radicalise opinion in many Mosques ,in the eighties and nineties.......who was in power then?

Similarly, the overreaction to 9/11 in terms of going into (completely unconnected to 9/11)Iraq which perhaps did more than anything else to radicalise domestic Muslim opinion was orchestrated by G Bush Jr's administration (hardly of the left)

The issue/question of balance between taking on extremism and not demonising a whole religious group isn't assisted by sweeping generalisations

Notably they were known to be involved in those groups, and courted really as potential allies for western interests against hostile interests in the middle east (as well as allies representing anti-Soviet interests).

Throughout the 90s the UK was regarded by groups such as Al-Quedia as a 'safe haven' and operated with a covenant that no direct action should be taken that could compromise the UK as a operational and logistics safe haven. A lot of groups, particularly those active in Chechynia, Bosnia and the Middle east utilised the UK as an operational centre, notably for groups to liaise, organise financially and trade information.

These groups were also seen as an alternative to other less 'western' friendly movements (Hezbollah, the PLO, PFLP Iran, Iraq etc which had been the face of change in the middle east and were anti-western)

9/11 changed all that (although in truth from about 1998 with the Embassy bombings of Tanzania and Nirobi and the US Cole bombing, the existing 'detente' between Islamists and the UK was already broken, with the UK beginning to abandon these groups as potential 'allies'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

So you appear to be saying that the 'right' were responsible for "Londonstan" and then you make an excuse for anti western attitudes amongst Muslims due to the Iraq war.

Now the term came about in the mid to late nineties when Major and Blair were in power.

In your post you imply that the UK intentionally tolerated radical Muslims and I imagine by implication stopped extradition of suspects in order to buy peace from these terrorists.

Point me to the Tory politician or indeed Labour politician who accepted this compact. If this happened at all it was far more likely to have been a cross party convenience devised by civil servants.

You describe the Iraq war as being a form of radicalization of some British Muslims.......Yes, it was. That isn't a fault of an unpopular decision made by western government....These are made all the time. instead it's a fault of the failure of multiculturalism...A policy, in the main, presued by the left....Other countries were the left are almost non-existent...America for example....Just how many American Muslims went to kill westerners?.....It was a tiny number in a country with five times the population....Whereas we have thousands of 'nutters' to monitor.

For hundreds of years we have gone to war with Christian countries.....Did we have this issue then?

Radicalization is impossible to stop but the reason it's been easier in this country is almost entirely down to left wing ideology.

Your third paragraph sums up why I criticise the left for the problem of Islamic extremism in this country.

Lets straighten out a few things. Those on the right wouldn't have these people here...It's a European body's rules...That organization the left support...Which stop this country from deporting these individuals easily.

The principle of 'no borders' and multiculturalism, which I repeat, is almost exclusively a left wing belief system for decades any raised issues with this country's Islamic movement was greeted by an almost obsessive and blanket accusation of racism and bigotry. The left created a 'fear' of talking about these issues....Some still do try to shut down debate.

To answer the third paragraph I have no issue with those who attack a person's right to peaceful religion being called bigoted. I have no problem with those who attacked a person's race being called a racist.......But this isn't what happened in many cases....It's the Gordon Brown mindset of 'bigoted woman'.

Any serious debate or complaint was tarred with the same racist finger pointing. It's only very recently that some on the left chose to temper their words and paper over their own re-actions.

So you might think it is simplistic but I do blame the left for some of why we have such a big problem here.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jun 2014 9.36pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

See, for example, BBC News website 26 September 2001:

"Britain's relationship with Bin Laden dates back to the 1980s when Whitehall and Washington pumped billions of dollars to Muslim fighters fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Arab volunteers recall fondly passing through Britain en route to Bin Laden's processing centre near the Afghan front.

With victory against the Soviets in 1989, many of the "Afghan Arabs" headed back to Britain.

Cash for Jihad

Like Beirut in the 1970s, London became a safe haven from which to broaden the Jihad armed struggle from Afghanistan to the secular regimes of the Arab world.

Libyan, Tunisian and Egyptian Islamists, many of them ex-fighters, all made London their base and some 2,000 Middle East dissidents a year poured into Britain. "