CarolC - I thank you for your reasoned and dignified response to my previous query. I appreciate that it is your habit to stand up for whomever you perceive as the underdog under attack whatever the situation, be they Muslims or Lizzie {for whom I too have stood up in my time - I know she can sometimes sound hysterical but I think she often takes an eminently sensible and defensible view - and as I have for you also, against some unworthy suggestions above by one Bonzo}.

I would, however, in this present instance, beg you at least to consider the following, which we have already differed about on another thread:—

You insist that all the violent Islamist intransigence of which we have seen examples over the last decade — 9/11, 7/7, 21/7, Madrid ... — are solely the result of US/UK officious imperialistic interference into the affairs of Islamic states, and that absolutely none of them has been motivated by any supposed Koranic injunctions to Jihad or Ummah; so that, if the interference by the West into Muslim affairs ceased, so immediately would the violence. I have said before: I think you misunderstand and underestimate Al-Qaeda's and Bin-Laden's intent on global Islamisation, and overestimate the truth of their ostensible assertions as to their motivations. Consider that the numbers needed to wreak havoc need only be very small (in the instance of this present thread, count them - ONE: and how very few were needed to destroy the WTC entirely}; and at least admit that there just might be a small but dangerous movement to establish the worldwide Ummah independent of the determination to remove imperialist Western infuences — and then, in the light of such mere adventitious potentialities, at least consider modifying your present resolute "defensive·of·all·of·Islam·whilst·it·remains·under·attack" stance.