From each of your perspectives you must of course both be right.

On the one hand, racism under any guise, for any reason, and under any circumstances is quite simply unjustified in my opinion.

Having friends of all races, it has been my experience that those not normally subjected to it, or with little direct experience of it, are the one's who'll wobble (or be a little flexible - say 'if justified') on this one. I don't call them racist. Just generally disaffected and doing their best to be both morally and politically correct... to a point.

On the other hand, governments must do all they can to secure their people, protect their borders, and defend against terrorism.

I have a few friends across the racial spectrum who in different capacities work with, and within law enforcement and the judicial systems of the UK and US. It is generally agreed by them that not only is profiling a universally accepted tool of law enforcement and civil protection, it is an old and absolutely essential one. One black police officer friend working in Washington DC has told me that unless they go out with an idea of what to look for, they cannot hone that 6th sense instinct (that the rest of us might describe as prejudicial) that alerts them to danger quicker than mere civilians. Surely thats what we demand and expect of them? We forget all too easily that for people who put themselves in the line of fire, we don't cut them enough slack. They deserve all the tools they can muster... at least so says this lobby.

So how do we bridge the gap?

I would suggest there isn't one. I'm pretty sure that in principle, both qd06 and you Butterfly agree that security for all is right, and racism for any reason is wrong.

I think the gap is intelligence. Our defenders of law and order need to get much much smarter at what they do. So smart in fact that they become so distinctly different from our enemies as to be easily distinguishable from them.

For some reason, as mankind has developed smart bombs that can fly through a doll-house window and explode a teacup, we've gotten less smart at decide who to kill. I lost count of how many smart bombs were involved in 'friendly fire' incidents causing fatalities. We've got to get smarter. That for me, that also means actively seeking to engage our conventional adversaries to truly understand what their beef is and use the opportunity to at least attempt to persuade them of how their issues might be addressed. If nothing else, while people ar ein dialogue, they are least not shooting each other.

A genuine understanding of Muslims (and yes, especially the young militant Muslims) would've perhaps persuaded Tony Blair not to make a statement as glaringly, blindingly ill-informed as when he said that terrorism was not linked to UK's foreign policy in Iraq, Palestine or the war in Afghanistan. That kind of ignorance coming from number 10, is exactly where I might start infusing a little intelligence and therefore closing the gap.

It is of course a two way street, and yes, to be clear I think moderate Muslims have a part to play in this. Again, I believe intelligence is the key. For the purposes of this argument though, I'll focus on governments' and their roles.