If the senior politicians had stood on a platform with moderate Muslims or moderate Islamists- that would have been fine to me, probably not to Islamophobics. However they were also billed with a lunatic fringe who were pushing conspiracies. That is very poor judgement.

Whether or not he loses respect for being inconsistent we should still reach out to people who are prepared to work together.

I think I prefer Richard Thompson anyway.

Yeah, a bit.

“Why don’t you find a speech or even a significant part of a speech that any of the speakers have recorded in which they use extremist views.”

I’ve already mentioned Yusuf Islam. Do you really think it is appropriate for someone of his views to be speaking under the umbrella of “global peace and unity”?

Your evaluation of an entire person’s life fits in one or two sentences that are quoted out of context?

Yasir never denied holocaust, he questioned the figureds, and that was years ago, before he started his doctorate. And similarly to quote a statement or two and make it appear that those define the person’s entire makeup is nothing short of neocon and zionist techniques routinely employed in the United States for witch-hunting.

Why don’t you find a speech or even a significant part of a speech that any of the speakers have recorded in which they use extremist views. Sometimes, move your anchor point from your own little world, to the larger world where people view things differently from you. If you are looking for few drunken gay men to be your reps for Islam, then you are never going to get there. On the other hand, if your goal is to defeat radicalism and extremism that leads to oppression or terrorism, then these people are your allies. TREAT them as such otherwise don’t blame Muslims for not rooting out from “within”.

Shame on you David T, and Habeeby! You are the sly islamophobia creators like your counterparts Horowitz and Daniel Pipes in States. Keep up your islamophobia manufacturing factory… I am sure that will do a lot of good for eveyone.

I think there may have been. Just a couple of points that might help. First, I think that some people have difficultly comprehending the vast quantities of energy that were released that day. It’s not entirely intuitive. Most of us have a rough feel for the amount of energy contained in a pan of boiling water, but of course 9/11 was astronomical by comparison.

Secondly, imagine if you will that the official explanations make perfect sense, and what errors and omissions exists represent either honest mistakes or the inevitable gaps in our knowledge. You would nevertheless always have people claiming a conspiracy every single time. I don’t know why, it’s just what people do. It doesn’t make the truthers wrong, but it should make one pause for thought.

It’s the same deal with religion. God or no God, you’d always have all the world’s religion’s arguing over who is the greatest.

Do you find it exciting to imagine a conspiracy?

Elvis did. Or, indeed, does. Get yourself down Shoreditch and we can ask him if he has access to the CIA files.

Do you get a badge when you join the “I’m a conspiracy loon” cult?

This cannot be, surely?

But I guess that would rule Clegg out of the Commons, so he is unlikely to follow my advice. I advise the rest of you to follow suit, however.

I assumed (wrongly and unwisely) that everyone would understand what “Chris Broadhurst” was driving at.

Chris Broadhurst wrote:

“Does Nick Clegg believe that 9/11 was a ZOG plot?”

“ZOG” stands for “Zionist Occupation Government”.

This is a clear attempt to smear the 9/11 Truth Movement as anti-Semitic.

If the 9/11 Truth Movement really was a bunch of looneys, and its claims wholly devoid of merit, why do the likes of “Chris Broadhurst” feel the need to do this?