I find interesting discussions here. I consider this article as a piece of art with exposure to the believe background of the author Nick (Cohen) Mr. Cohen have you ever wrote a single article about the genocide that made by Israelis against innocent souls in holy land. now I believe what has happened in this world must have happened for a reason Muslims were living with Christians Jews for centuries and vice versa we born humans & die humans, and you smart enough to know what I mean.

So it’s OK for the BBC’s Spooks to have a storyline in which Jews (Mossad) run around London blowing people up and Bonekickers (BBC again) run a storyline in which a Christian beheads a Muslim, but not to allow this? I think the dialogue sounds hackneyed too, Steve. So what? That’s BBC house style for everything from Dr Who to the above-mentioned dramas. Throughout his piece, Nick Cohen has picked up one very salient – and distinguishing – point about this the script: it goes to the root causes of the jihad here, in China recently and the world over: religious fundamentalism. Many people have decided they don’t want to hear that and so gloss over it with arguments on imagined “grievances” on everything from “foreign policy” (despite the British jihad long pre-dating Iraq and Afghanistan – ask lifer Dhiren Borat, he’s got plenty of time on his hands now), “disenfranchisement” (despite Osama bin Laden being a spoilt brat playboy and one of the 7/7 bombers having £125,000 cash in his flat – isn’t “disenfranchisement” lovely?) and “disgust at Western decadence” (despite so much of the drugs that fuel this being grown in… Muslim countries such as Afghanistan). Channel 4 ran a drama recently, Britz, on Islamist terror in Britain and presented some of its characters’ reasoning for turning to jihad as being an increase in anti-terror legislation. The argument of the film: don’t try to tackle terror because that makes for more terror. What nonsense. What has jihad here got to do with jihad in China or Lebanon, where extremists have destabilised a once flourishing Middle East country? The common thread is most certainly not British government policy, as Britz director Peter Kosminsky would try to spin it in his clumsy propaganda film. But then re-writing history is Mr Kosminky’s forte, and don’t the Gliberal Establishment just love him for it. He'll never be short of commissions, that fellow. On a separate note, while I have some considerable time for Nick Cohen, it’s time he grew up and got to distinguish between Islamophobia and Muslimophobia. A phobia, as people keep pointing out, is an irrational fear of something. OK, Nick, let’s look at this: “Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” We know that if that sentence was re-written with the word “unbelievers” replaced by the word “Muslims” there would be uproar and prosecutions. So how is it irrational to object to it when the word isn’t “Muslims”? How does that amount to a “phobia”? Cohen also talks about the “tactless” Danish cartoonists. Sorry, Nick, not with you there. Jewish people wouldn’t start attacking someone verbally or physically for writing the word “God”, despite their religion requiring them to write the word as “G-d”. Jews don’t expect my life to be governed by Jewish custom so why are non-Muslims expected to live their life by the Islamic custom of not drawing Mohammed? We are not yet all governed by Islamic codes and customs, although some wish this, so please don’t help to bring it in via the backdoor by condoning the criticism of the Danish cartoons. The time to give up freedom of speech is when we’re in a Caliphate. Let’s not assist that to happen please, Nick.

I'm thinking that the BBC will not show this as it must not be as politically correct as the other 7/7 bomber shows that Steve has seen 'ad nauseum', which is probably why the BBC won't show it. And some don't want to face the un-PC version. Merely because it's poorly written, I'm sure.

I'd like to know where this ample evidence of the BBC being afraid to utter the word muslim can be found. Is it in your head, by any chance? Cohen's article isn't evidence since there are no reliable facts in it about the canning of this show. there are equally no actual facts in either your or xenophon's posts, despite what you claim - just a lot of idle speculation. Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. i love the way i'm accused of having an agenda by people on here; the only agenda i have is that of taking issues with unrealible parts of Cohen's flawed argument. Can you provide me with facts on my other agenda? what is it?

"The reason this programme was shelved seems pretty clear - the writing was woeful, and it covers no new ground." – Steve. That has never stopped them in the past.

What I like best about this great article is the reference to "our" stories. The bombers were English, our people. Cohen seems to see this. The BBC seems almost racist in its assumption that "we" cannot offend "them." The bombers were not "them." That English people should not feel free to produce a film like this about other English people is insane.

Steve: not sure WHAT your objection is - given that an outline must surely provoke subjective response, are you a professional drama critic? Or is the put-down purely subjective? Failing that, there is ample evidence that BBC and others are afraid to mention the word 'Muslim' never mind airing a drama where individuals from that community are proven terrorists. The M word? FO guidelines are available on the Net. Yet for you, 'virgil xenophon' in posting factual information is deemed "hysterical" and irrelevant? Your agenda is questionable.

Well, alas we will never have the chance to decide for ourselves whether or not this drama was 'woeful'. Personally, I would have been interested in watching a dramatized account of the most devasting terrorist attack on British soil of recent years, despite your claim that this has been dealt with 'ad nauseum' on our screens. Maybe if they changed the identity of the bombers to neo-Nazis or the pawns of American oil executives it would have a better chance of being made by the BBC.

No, I'm using the examples Cohen (who liked it) gave. the google line is particularly clunky. the only evidence he has for it being perceived 'islamophobia' that led to its canning are the words of the anonymous writers themselves, who of course have *no* axe to grind.

Steve - the writing was 'woeful', was it? You've read it, then, or are you just assuming that if Nick Cohen likes it, it must be bad?