Verbal

Yes, as I've said, their end game is the fall of Mecca and Medina, which is why Muslims are predominantly the victims. This seems a difficult concept to grasp, but if you read one book and one book only on the actual causes and consequences of 9/11, read the New Yorker writer Lawrence Wright's 'The Looming Tower'. It is, by far, the best researched work on the subject. I fear you have a very one-dimensional view that sees the problem in the religion rather than the death cult that's evolved around bin Laden and his ugly band of murderers. And the consequence of that view becoming widespread is that it plays directly into the hands of the extremists. They WANT to create a world in which everyone sees what's going on now as 'them and us', because it raises funds and recruits. Of course, it doesn't always work. Read Lawrence Wright's account of the massacre at Luxor, for example, which not only caused a wave of revulsion throughout Egypt, but came tantalisingly close to wiping out al Jihad (as al Qaeada was known at the time) before it had really got going. And their tactics won't work if we don't fall so gullibly and gormlessly into the trap they've laid.

I've no doubt you're right about appeasement, but that wasn't done in the name of liberty or freedom of speech; it was done in the name of good old realpolitik - a very inter-war way of thinking. In other words: it was about as far from 'high principles' as you could possibly get - and if appeasers had stuck to these high principles, it's certainly arguable that the outcome would have been different - to the extent that it could have speare some of the 70 million lives. Nevertheless, I agree with your last sentence for the reasons I've already given.

I agree with you. There. I said it.

I seriously thought about calling you a name.

I didn't miss your point so much as argue that it wasn't very interesting. Of course extremists of varying kinds kill in support of their views. The critical points are: Why? What are their aims? And who do they target and kill? Your attempt to dismiss as irrelevant that other muslims are in the VAST majority of cases the victims is odd, because they are being killed in such huge numbers (certainly compared to the tragic but relatively paltry numbers of non-Muslims) for a reason. And of course there's plenty of persecution of other faiths in Islamic countries, just as Muslims are targeted in Screbinica, Western China and Kashmir. Religious intolerance, unfortunately, is rife, and should be condemned. Do you have a point beyond that?

So freedom of speech - or liberty, which amounts to the same thing - means jacksh!t to you? You'd be right at home in somewhere like Saudi Arabia. Besides, to make a very obvious point, it was the 'softies', as you call them, that defeated the Axis powers in the Second World War. Of course, the not exactly freedom-loving USSR was an ally, but the Soviet bloc's denial of basic liberties like freedom of speech only lasted another four decades. The idea of freedom of speech is so corrosive of oppressive governments that they have to lock up democratic leaders in Burma, imprison dissidents calling precisely for freedom of speech for years on end, and beat advocates of political freedom to death in Iran. Eventually, all of those regimes will fall because of this 'soft' idea. And it may suffer setbacks from time to time - as with the Weimar Republic and the Nazis - but think of it as another version of the race between the tortoise and the hare.

Where's your 'don't blame the messenger'?

But the idea of freedom of speech, as expressed by John Stuart Mill, who essentially formulated it for the modern world, is in no way 'complete' or absolute. He argues that our right to do as we want should be free from the interference of others, so long as what we want does no harm to others. He qualifies this by saying that 'harm to others' cannot mean simply something we find repugnant. You could quite easily argue that preventing a march in Wootton Bassett is the right thing to do, because there is the clear implication that the 'protest' goes beyond moral repugnance, and is really a symbolic attempt to dance on the graves of dead soldiers. With this definition of freedom of speech, the idiotic al Mahajiroun can make their protest elsewhere without complaint...if they genuinely believe they have a point to make. So while your second paragraph is right, in my opinion it really isn't 'compromising' freedom of speech at all.

It's no coincidence. There is a battle for the 'soul' of the religion going on, and the victims are predominantly Muslims. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other salafists virulently hate Muslims who do not agree with them, and have a very detailed theological argument worked out that justifies killing other Muslims. Because of 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, etc., we tend too easily to believe that these lunatics are trying to provoke some kind of 'war of civilizations' between east and west. They are not. as cynical as it may sound, the attacks in the west are nothing more than fund-raising and recruit-raising exercises. The real battle is for Mecca and Medina, not London or Washington.

That's actually worse than name calling. Threatening violence on here fits into a democratic response how exactly? It's also precisely how they WANT you to react. You've just been successfully manipulated by them.

It very much IS the point, sadly. You don't blow up spectators at a volleyball in the Pakistan Tribal Areas expecting to hit anyone other than other muslims. And that was the entire motive behind that and almost all the other attacks listed in that link. What had happened prior to that explosion was the the local people had expelled Taliban thugs - something that takes a great deal of courage to do. The Taliban retaliated in the way they always do - by dynamiting all Muslims who get in their way. It is no coincidence that by far - by MILES - the greatest number of victims of Taliban and al Qaeda violence is other muslims.

A little information that may be of assistance to you. At the time of the London march, the British Cabinet was split down the middle about our impending involvement in the war, the Lib Dems were solidly against, as were a number of Conservatives. There were substantial claims at the time that the pretext for going to war was false - namely, that Saddam was about to fire WMDs and that these could hit the southern UK within 45 minutes. And of course, as it turned out, we were lied to by Blair, et al, who has since admitted he knew it wasn't true. But aside from all that, peaceful protest is part of the essence of a democratic society. And the 2003 protest about war was, above all, 'democratic', in the sense that there was no popular pressure to wage war against Saddam - Quite the contrary. but even if the war protest was carried out in the teeth of a public opinion that supported the war, there was and always will be a right to protest. In short, to claim that to protest about an impending war was 'against Britain', is full-on absurd. The difference between the 2003 protest and the al Mahajiroun 'protest' is that the former actually WAS a protest against the war, while the latter is simply a provocation aimed mostly, as I've said, at encouraging a reaction and embarrassing moderate Muslims.

Moron? Why the name calling?

Did you happen to notice who the victims were?

What?!

All true enough, but there's more to it than that, and I hope the police ban it - but only on the day. Al Mahajiroun are looking to provoke a violent reaction, so that they can cast themselves as martyrs to the tyrannical crusader cops (!) and appeal to a few more of the feeble-minded. They are also desperate to embarrass moderate Muslims, and to silence them. Al Mahajiroun are cartoon characters whose modus operandum is to think of the most provocative thing to do - then threaten to do it. I doubt these cartoon characters would even turn up - but if they did, just turn them around on the day. At least let the inconvenience fall on them.

Agreed. Shallow depth of field works beautifully in conventional films, but in 3D, it can make foreground characters look like 2D cut-outs and background characters unnaturally muzzy. If 3D is going to stay around this time, directors and cinematographers will have to adapt by dropping some of the oldest cinematic conventions. Conversely, infinite depth of field really doesn't work if overused in 2D. Try watching Speed Racer for more than ten minutes - it's really unpleasant.

How much beer did you have in that teacup?

I'll forgive Fulham, who have one of the most charming grounds in the Prem - not something you could remotely say about you know who.

If you end it in the river, it could be the exit for away fans.

I'm going to pretend that this post does not exist.

Agreed. I lived in Norwich for a few years, and never understood how such a small city managed to produce that many fans. The stadium is nothing much, and the football is usually so-so at best - yet they have a better attendance this season than seven premiership clubs.

I think you will find that this place is called The Lounge for a reason.

Secret - but I see most films before release. The movie to watch out for is Invictus, though, and Morgan Freeman will compete for the lead actor Oscar with Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart, in which he is simply brilliant. You heard it here first!

It strongly underlines the sense that the PL is hoping that Pompey muddle through to inevitable relegation, when it ceases to be their problem. Hopefully, Lens and the Inland Revenue will help bring things to a head before then.