twenty seventeen compared to twenty sixteen why is this happening well i think it's quite clear that this is not something that is coming from the bottom up but it's actually being promoted from the top even during the bush era after nine eleven there was an increase in. muslim hate crime but it didn't actually really start to rise up until during the obama years when you had a republican party that was very much using a language of islamophobia now you have a president who got elected on a platform of islamophobia so it is quite predictable that when you have leaders using language of that kind in essentially giving a green lights for these types of bigoted sentiments that that is going to lead to these types of crimes in society but others a lot of people as a kid trump of spring anti muslim sentiment across the country but research from the pew research center shows that a growing number of americans are actually becoming more sympathetic towards

muslims as muslim discrimination a part of the u.s. mainstream media stereo or is tom's anti islam rather exemplary i don't know maybe having a reverse the fact. i think it is having a reverse effect because a lot of people are starting to see the discrimination against muslims in the united states or people from middle east and background a lot of the people that are being discriminated against are actually not muslims but they're being perceived to be middle easterners and muslims there's a lot of people who started to realize that that's no different from the discrimination that earlier and continuously is taking place against the african-american community or other communities and as a result it should be opposed in the same way but while the number of people who are opposed to islam before you have increased it doesn't mean that islamophobia attacks and crimes will not increase that small minority that hold those views feel emboldened and empowered by the rhetoric and by the policy initiatives of the

trumpet ministration i think that's the reason why we're seeing an increasing number of such crimes so we are now witnessing a rise of the extreme right are america white supremacist groups filled by racial tensions do you think this stand of is going to be strictly a left versus right it. versus neo nazi or are muslims in danger as well. well i think we first have to recognize that while there is a minority that is perpetrating some of these crimes and while there is a political. element essentially the white house itself that is. to a certain extent allowing this to happen and even from opening it through their policy initiatives the united states as a whole as your own statistics showed is actually starting to unite against these types of crimes we saw people were protesting at the airports when this was happening we saw how the courts have shot down president trump's efforts to

institutionalize discrimination against muslims and middle easterners through the travel in the muslim bound for instance so i think the elements inside of the american society that that actually can battle this and i can bring about a much more tolerant society definitely are there i think actually they are having momentum on their side but the reason why we're seeing this is because they don't have the presidency on their side right now and then there's the other side of islamophobia the fact that it is brought up any time someone says anything critical about islam. do you feel that the non muslim majority has concerns and fears aren't being addressed properly since people who raised their voices are branded bigots instantly. i'm not sure if that's the case i don't know if i agree with your premise but i do believe that you have the scenario in which if you want to raise question marks etc there's a way to do it and there's

a way not to do it if you are essentially putting all one billion people in the same category or you're essentially treating isis as if it's a representative of one billion muslims and clearly people are going to be raising concerns about bigotry and quite correctly so if there's an academic conversation about the theological conversation of islam that would be a completely different thing that's not what we're seeing what we're seeing is that if there is an attack by someone who's been radicalized in the united states which was the case with a terrorist act in manhattan a two or so weeks ago that immediately the political establishment on the trump pushes for new immigration measures that are completely unfounded but when you have a gentleman go in and massacre people in churches we cannot have any conversation about gun control i think you see that this is a political problem this is not an issue in which people are shutting down debate

or that we cannot have a conversation about islam. those conversations have can be had but not if they are put in the language of bigotry then that's completely self-defeating for those people raising it like they're saying the recent terror attack in new york was conducted by and who is that radicalized in the united states are not have boston bombers as well as sunburn or they were attackers were u.s. citizens so was the latest terror attack seven being done by homegrown terrorists tell me why are american muslims radicalizing. well your question right there is false you say why are american muslims radicalizing you're speaking as if every american muslim is radicalized that's not the case you have examples of people being radicalized in the muslim community you have examples of people being radicalized in non muslim communities and we saw an entire march of neo nazis in

charlottesville those were not muslims who had been radicalized in the united states so when you mention that you know we can't talk about islam without being finger pointing being bigots well if you phrase the question the way that you just did then that is not a fair way of asking that question that is frankly a bigoted way of asking the question ok exactly and the moderate muslims american muslims are trying hard to spread the message that islam is a religion of peace however the actions of radicals the radical people a hundred times stronger and perswading the public otherwise can you blame americans who are feeling scared of muslims. first of all i am myself not a muslim and i think this question is actually not about islam proceed we're not having a theological conversation in the united states about this i think is media is presenting perpetrators of terrorist attacks as representatives of an

entire community or an entire religion then eventually you're going to have politicians who will try to benefit and further advance these bigoted notions and use it as a political. platform for themselves that can get them to the presidency that's exactly what is happening if we don't want to see these things happening it should also start with the media having a much more neutral and much more academic and correct view of looking at these things because you cannot on the one hand promote the notion that any act that is taking place is a representative an entire community and then be surprised that people might become scared of that community that there's a very logical link in between those two the question is are there networks out there are deliberately promoting these types of views and then there's always also the use the word terrorism. that is use them cautiously i believe towards muslims because the where surely moderate shootings done by near nazis in america are

classified as terrorism by the authorities a white supremacist rams a car into a crowd and then the president blames both sides but a similar attack done by a muslim is immediately branded terrorism which it undoubtedly is of course but why the discrepancy it's a great question why is it if so even in some cases in which there has been american muslims who have been radicalized in the united states or in some cases may not actually have been radicalized but maybe suffering from completely different other issues and then just use isis as. it were. of justifying their horrible acts that they're doing even then we're very quick to call that terrorism whereas when we have examples in which someone even walks into a church and expresses political motives which is what happened in the south of the united states not this recent attack in texas but the previous one in which he said

that he wanted to have a racial war he expressed clear political motives it was still not categorized as an act of terror in fact as the police arrested him they made sure that they can stop by at burger king and make and feed him before continuing on to the prison these are clear discrepancies and these are some of the things that are causing a lot of people a lot of concern about whether the law is being treated equally we'll take a break right now on one we're back we'll talk about the future of the iran nuclear deal with a parson the lists the obama administration's informal iran advisor during those historic talks stay with us.

i played for many clubs over the years so i know the game and so i got. the ball isn't only about what happens on the pitch pull the final school it's about the passion from the fans it's the age of the superman each kill the narrowness and spending to get to the twenty million and one player. it's an experience like nothing else not to because i want to share what i think of what i know about the beautiful guy but great so one more chance for. a nice minute. no it's all they all. fell. asleep oh please. please yes well this is all the good.

old flynn. it's the cradle of jazz. is america still america we. still know all this jazz feel are. a city of climatic contest of alligators on the loose of poverty and crime are used by the least swell members

of mob family to close not heard of street racing in the heat of the night this is new orleans supplement the best place in the world. to go.

know we're back what trade up r.c. had of the national iranian american council who was also an informal adviser to the obama administration during nuclear talks with iran discussing president trunk's middle policies but first i still want to ask you a few questions about the. what happened attacks happen tacker said he was radicalized in response to u.s. bombings in iraq last year or londo klopp shooter said his attack was a response to u.s. bomb makes in afghanistan i mean the logic of terrorists is of course hard to explain but is it maybe not today we're into saying that there would be fewer terrorist attacks in the us of us didn't bomb all those places in the middle east

certainly their views inside of the us government itself even saw some leaked memos which former bush officials made it's quite clear that they believe that their campaign is producing more terrorists than actually eliminating terrorists so there's definitely elements there. is difficult to get around which is that all of these foreign interventions nevertheless tend to radicalize people and as a result bring some of the terror all the way back to the united states but there are other elements as well such as the u.s. is support for saudi arabia essentially turning a blind eye to the tremendous amount of funding and other forms of ideological and logistical. porter has been provided by saudi arabia to terrorist networks and because disability are allies of the united states the us essentially has continuously turned a blind eye. to it talking about double standards how can trump say

whatever it is that he's saying about islam and muslims then you know go on trips to saudi arabia and do you like great business with them you are no stranger to diplomacy tell me are things like this just being me to good by diplomatic language . certainly not i think we this is a double standard this is something that a lot of people here in washington are also quite concerned about that the united states currently on the trumpet ministration have essentially written the saudis a cast of launch in which they can do almost anything they want and they can count on u.s. support what is happening right now in lebanon is causing a lot of concern because if here is to be such that the saudis are preparing for a military confrontation in some form of coordination with the israelis and whether they have received the green light from the united states or not they appear to believe that they have it or that they will get it and i don't see how that actually is advancing stability in the region nor do i see how that is advancing

u.s. interests in the region but the u.s. and saudi arabia have recently scolded iran for helping us in yemen and tom is really friendly with the saudi leadership the seaview iran through saudi glosses i think trump had almost no perspective on iran prior to running for office and at this moment it seems that his perspective is almost exclusively one that is informed by the saudis when it comes to iran and again it's not to make the argument that the saudis don't have legitimate concerns they do and so do the iranians the question is where is the u.s. perspective in all of this the united states is not and cannot be a proxy of the saudis because they have their own interests and they're pursuing them right now so i can understand why the saudis perhaps thought that this is a good moment to escalate tensions i don't understand why that would be a good thing from the u.s. perspective and that's where

a lot of concern is coming in which is is donald trump pursuing u.s. interests here or is he essentially just being led around by the saudis on this issue and of course the iran nuclear deal you know big topic trump is now looking to sabotage seems to work same to work ok. they under obama and the u.s. didn't get a nuclear iran iran got the sanctions lifted why is this white house team so how band scuttling this still isn't good for the u.s. i certainly think it's good for the u.s. you have the secretary of state the secretary of defense to chairman of the chiefs of staff. i believe even mcmaster all recognizing that it lies in the interest of the united states to continue with the nuclear deal they may have some concerns about certain aspects of it but that does not mean that a complete target of the deal or killing of it is in the interests of the u.s. this is entirely driven by trump himself and his motivations are not entirely clear

there are a couple of contending factors they may be mutually may not be mutually exclusive such as the fact that he simply opposes anything that obama has achieved and as a result he is adamantly against this nuclear deal for no other reason that it has obama's name on it you have the israeli and the saudi factor again the saudis and the israelis want denied states to come back into the region as a strong military dominant military power and reestablish the balance of power that existed in the region prior to two thousand and three necessitates no diplomacy with iran no deal with iran because any deal with iran would actually resolve some of those tensions between the u.s. and iran and the saudis don't want to see that happening they want the u.s. to come back in and provide saudi arabia with security and balance saudi arabia's own rivals in the region that is part of the reason i would say the main reason as

to why does saudis have been so adamantly against a nuclear deal so what do you think we'll have never hit his feelings about the iran deal but he never openly about to scrap it he said the deal needs to be actually did then he said what iranians go for it all he actually said. no one will go for renegotiation the russians will not go for a view negotiation the chinese dirani ns and the europeans made it very clear during their visit here in washington this week they will not call for any renegotiation. and trump said at his press conference that he wants to see congress change the terms of the deal if congress doesn't do so he said he will terminate the deal himself that's the words he used he said he will terminate it so how far he and occasionally incidentally aunt's how far will he go to kill if he can go the full distance he could in december decide not to renew the waivers the u.s. sanctions have not actually been lifted they have been waived which means that

every ninety or hundred twenty days they need to be re waived the next deadline for that is in december mid of december if he doesn't do and then then the united states is in clear violation of the deal and we're one significant step closer to we're seeing the deal being killed so what level of house style action is a going to take for iran to consider the deal cancelled and renew its nuclear program if. trump does not renew the waivers and if it did lead to a lot of companies not entering the iranian market a potentially even leaving the iranian markets then the benefits for iran to be compliance with the deal which they currently are will essentially have been evaporated and i doubt moment i fear that we may see the iranians taking the first steps towards restarting the nuclear program which will only further ratchet up tensions and further increase the risk of war thus the big danger here this is not just about killing the nuclear deal this is automatically putting the united states

on a path towards a military confrontation in the region well like you wrote when obama was trying to make a deal with iran he had a choice of nuclear iran a war since trump now wants to cancel the deal does that mean he wants war. if he counsels a nuclear deal he will likely end up only facing two options war or accepting a nuclear iran since it's clear he doesn't want to have a nuclear iran one has to ask oneself is he doing it because he wants to drive things towards a war but from a security standpoint with us involved in iraq and afghanistan want to war with iran be a disaster for those two complains and how's it going to be better for american security situation it will be a disaster for the united states it will be a disaster for most of the region it will be a disaster for the iranians obviously the instability will spread elsewhere potentially all the way to russia i think the only ones who calculated this could

be beneficial to them is the israelis and the saudis who believe that iran has become too powerful day themselves are not capable of pushing back iraq or reducing iran's influence so they want the united states to do it for them and trump seems to be more than willing to play along with the game but besides these two countries and potentially the u.a.e. i have a hard time seeing anyone calculating that this will be to their benefit i also happen to believe that the israelis and the saudis and the u.a.e. are miscalculating i think it's going to end up being a disaster for them as well i don't see any winners in this war tell me and show me the logic what is behind the american establishment of iran i mean american gulf allies have no fear of human rights problems or foreign policy mishaps than tehran letting alone like you yet have to show me like a she muscle in terrorists has blown up something lately everyone who blow something up lately are from the other side yet it's iranians who are seen as the

face of evil it seems quite irrational to me why is it happening who benefits from this. you mentioned something we looked at the state department's list of terrorist organization recently and forty plus of all of the organizations on that list are sunni or wahabi organizations with one connection or another to saudi arabia only to have direct links to the iranian government yet as you mentioned all of the focus is on iran and we're doing everything we can to turn a blind eye on the very very negative activities of the saudis why is that you know washington is a city that is susceptible to a lot of foreign influence and clearly there has been a lot of saudi foreign influence in the city we saw in there obama that there was a deliberate effort to be able to reduce america's dependence on saudi arabia now we're going in the opposite direction but i do believe that obviously there are

historical reasons for the iranians and the americans to have about relations and it goes both ways there's a lot of people inside of the iranian government are still cannot let go of the united states as an enemy but what we're seeing now is a deliberate effort to ratchet these tensions up to ratchet up these images you've hit it on the nail and tell me briefly america's distrust of iran is neutral right to set the iranian leaders are also saying that america is around number one enemy etc etc is any sort of deal between these two nations just an illusion briefly increase. no on the on the contrary we had a deal we had the nuclear deal it was put together by the us iran and five other countries it was a tremendous success up until this point there's been eight reports by the i.a.e.a. who have stated clearly that the iranians are complying with the deal if doubt diplomacy had been built upon if it had been continued we could have also seen

a reduction of tensions in other areas i don't think the united states and iran ever would become partners or allies. at least not on the current government in iran but they could lose each other as enemies they could tactically and strategically collaborate in areas of common interest and then compete with each others in areas where they don't have common interests but he wouldn't be a character arise in a relationship characterized by enmity it would be simply a much more complex relationship that opportunity to lose each other as enemies is the opportunity that donald trump is destroying by going down the path of killing the wrong deal. all right thank you very much for this interesting inside trade up parsi we were talking to have you or are you still iranian american council and obama's administration informal adviser during talks with iran discussing president transmittal is certain policies on the future of the iran daylon that's it for this

latest edition of so called see you next time. thank you. yes so all this is all the. fault.

thank you. i mean you called me a useful idiot useful idiot useful idiots were expressing my opinions are the first two things misdoing it is required is a simple strategy attack person instead of talking about what's next why stop

me from getting this close to the white house i'm with a group code pink why not ban the color pink one outstretch dildo right i should be sent to the town one because i'm a traitor brick me on the we'll put up with my lifetime of this sort of nonsense you don't scare me and i'll continue to voice my opinion i'll continue to speak out i'm in good company i'm in good company you going with me you want to do this because we're free thinkers. tough. luck good. luck with. the. little gunning humans only.

does she don't consume don't jell you can and i can do it on jellyfish dealing with the saying i'm done we'll soon enough that equal distance is also into what he calls this tells me back. because although he doesn't sell me i'm doing the we've got to those putting the onus is on this is the downside of us at all to the sitting on. the boardwalk still you on the idea that dropping bombs brings prisoners to the chicken hawks forcing you to fight the battle is going. to stop for the tell you that will be gossiped a couple of myself one day. but i'm off the bad guys and tell you on pulling up and let's buy their product. these are the hawks that we

all want to look for. donald trump said asian tour sees the u.s. leader in the philippines where his visit has been met by violent protests so well you know. the u.s. leaders again offering to help mediate the region's divisive conflicts. china sea dispute. arbitration efforts. to deal between russia and the kurdish military help bring the dozens of children safely home from syria after their parents joint islamic state. european military cooperation is on the cards but the bulk of the e.u. members are expected to sign up to.