Rather than being a 'perversion' of Islam, it is truer to say that the version of Islam espoused by ISIS, while undoubtedly the worst possible interpretation of Islam, and for Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere obviously the most destructive version of Islam, is nevertheless a plausible interpretation of Islam.

Neoconservatism is not what people think it is. It is not a party or a group. Many people popularly seen as neocons - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld - are no such thing. Most neoconservatives reject the term. And those who accept it generally don't know each other and certainly don't act as the cabal that conspiracy-lovers imagine.

Audiences I speak to are often openly hostile, and I know my arguments might fall on deaf ears with 99% of the audience.

Fanaticism is at its very strongest when it has political or, better still, religious motivation.

In Israel, you see strong borders as the best way to ensure peace, while in Europe, people see it as a cause of war.

For historic reasons - principally the political Right's opposition to gay rights - most gay spokespeople continue to think that the political Right is the sole locale from which anti-gay sentiment can come.

Immigration is the major issue everywhere, and even the countries where it isn't the number one issue, it ends up becoming one.

Gay men don't have much in common with lesbians.

ISIS may seem un-Islamic to President Obama, but to anybody who has read Islam's core texts, it might appear to be a fairly straightforward attempt to create a state based on Mohammed's instructions as laid down in the Koran, in hadith, and in Mohammed's own example.

It's unwise to say nation-states wanting to retain their national identity in Europe should be dissuaded or stopped from doing so. Nationalism can go wrong, sure - but everything can go wrong.