Support NeoGAF

[BocoDragon]

...that's not what political correctness means. Political correctness does not mean "I'm a willful fucking racist and everyone knows I'm a willful fucking racist, but I'm going to pretend otherwise because willful racists tend to be looked down upon."

A limitation of speech to publically acceptable standards is exactly what political correctness means.

Also profiling by race is an utterly terrible and lazy way to assess threat.

And yet law enforcement does it. Each and every day. If there's a serial killer on the loose.... They're looking especially at white males.

They seem to think it's useful to narrow down suspects to specific demographics. They just can't say it bluntly or risk causing offense.

 

[aeolist]

We're not discussing torture, which I don't necessarily agree with him on because all of the available research says it has a poor record of success.

We're discussing profiling, which in theory is at least based on some statistical validity. Particularly when discussing airport security or the like.

statistically speaking, how many muslims who fly each year try to commit crimes aboard the plane vs other religious affiliations? what are the numbers for obviously brown people vs not-brown people, since i do believe that's the point he's actually making? how easy is it for airport security to tell who's muslim and who isn't?

it's a garbage argument

 

[Primethius]

If your gonna argue for profiling in such situations and then turn around and take race out of it, why even bother?

Shit seems useless then.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Surely statistically speaking, as a member of the UK, considering the war we've waged across the globe, I'm a bigger risk than a member of the muslim community.

One in 65 million compared to one in 1.6 billion.

Surely statistically I should be considered then?

Awful awful justification for those that have Harris et al as their leaders.

 

[Maxim726X]

statistically speaking, how many muslims who fly each year try to commit crimes aboard the plane vs other religious affiliations? what are the numbers for obviously brown people vs not-brown people, since i do believe that's the point he's actually making? how easy is it for airport security to tell who's muslim and who isn't?

it's a garbage argument

You clearly haven't actually listened to him speak on the subject, because he never once mentions skin color.

In fact he uses particular clothing styles as his example. I don't know the exact name of the article of clothing he used to make his point, but apparently there is a particular article of clothing that he argues only someone belonging to an Islamist group would wear.

 

[Kinyou]

making that distinction means less than nothing when popes call for the conquest and murder of muslim peoples

the point is that he defended the crusades as a response to muslims being worse and it's bullshit

He said that it was a response, but I'm not sure that already makes it a defense, it could simply be the chronology of events. If it's a flat out wrong fact that Muslims made incursions into Christian territory then fine, nail him on that. But interpreting so much into one word while ignoring the larger argument seems pointless

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

how about, unless law enforcement has word of a specific threat being mounted and reasonable confirmation that the perpetrator(s) will be of a particular ethnicity, they're not allowed to disproportionately target one demographic for invasive screenings.

 

[kavanf1]

As usual, loads of emotive criticism of Harris without actually paying attention to what he says.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

You clearly haven't actually listened to him speak on the subject, because he never once mentions skin color.

In fact he uses particular clothing styles as his example. I don't know the exact name of the article of clothing he used to make his point, but apparently there is a particular article of clothing that he argues only someone belonging to an Islamist group would wear.

any chance of replying to my points?

 

[RustyNails]

A limitation of speech to publically acceptable standards is exactly what political correctness means.



And yet law enforcement does it. Each and every day. If there's a serial killer on the loose.... They're looking especially at white males.

They seem to think it's useful to narrow down suspects to specific demographics. They just can't say it bluntly or risk causing offense.

Law enforcement looks for perps based on whatever identification that was detected by witnesses or database. This is after the fact (after a crime was comitted). Racial profiling is before the fact.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Profiling is one of the few cases where I think a slippery slope argument is well deserved. It needn't be intrinsically islamophobic, but in practice it ends up putting people through grief needlessly.

If you want to catch an Islamacist, you will have higher chances profiling people who are likely to be Islamic. But in practice, not only does it not do much in favoring of identifying terrorists. It needlessly puts those of a particular background through the wringer.

So arguing that while profiling doesn't necessitate racism, it leads to racism because there is no way to avoid the unnecessary ruffling of people, nor the unwarranted ostracism of people on account of a demographic that they belong to.

I don't think Sam Harris is an Islamophobe. Exploring the question of whether profiling is justified or not is an interesting ethical exercise. I think there are ideal forms of profiling, but the are unrealistic to implement. Thus pragmatically, and realistically it leads to islamophobia and racism. It is a slippery slope that we have no realistic handle on to prevent. I don't think many people appreciate the nuance of Sam Harris. People are too politically charged to entertain the conversation that Sam Harris employs.

There is no real nuance in the linked piece. It's pseudo-intellectual nonsense. His first sentence is correct, his second is a bit weird but not really something to object to and then it's sharply down hill from there. The only really valid and useful profiling in this sort of situation would be if it was based on statistics and he fails badly at that. Any action can have costs and benefits associated with it and he seems to entirely ignore the first half of that equation.

The threat posed by any one air passenger is almost nonexistent. The threat posed by a Muslim air passenger is almost equally nonexistent. Perhaps it is ever so slightly higher on the almost nonexistent scale, but it's still almost nothing. So, taking this, you could say that may using this to profile might have value. Except then you need to look at the costs, even ignoring the race and religion aspects. What would this do those people such profiled? Would this increase the chance that someone that is actually dangerous being overlooked because they didn't fit the part? Is it even worth putting any effort into profiling based on this given the minimal value it offers? Harris doesn't seem to care. In his mind it seems that p(m) is greater than p(nm) so there's not doubt about it. It also seems to assume that being any terrorist must be a Muslim jihadist and anyone that doesn't look the part is safe, which is awful security policy.

All of this also ignores the fact that the odds of another attack on an airplane are extremely small since terrorists, shockingly, have the ability to think and come up with new ideas instead of repeating the same thing over and over, especially when said thing mostly succeeded because people reacted to it based on knowledge of how hijackings normally worked. And I'm avoiding any of the other nonsense I could call out here as well.

 

[Henkka]

You clearly haven't actually listened to him speak on the subject, because he never once mentions skin color.

That's the whole point, they never respond directly to what he's saying. It's a deliberate tactic. It's far easier to say that Harris wants to profile brown people than to actually deal with the argument.

And I say this while disagreeing with Harris. Or rather, I can understand his reasoning, but I think it's an unnecessary can of worms and impractical.

 

[The Technomancer]

There is no real nuance in the linked piece. It's pseudo-intellectual nonsense. His first sentence is correct, his second is a bit weird but not really something to object to and then it's sharply down hill from there. The only really valid and useful profiling in this sort of situation would be if it was based on statistics and he fails badly at that. Any action can have costs and benefits associated with it and he seems to entirely ignore the first half of that equation.

The threat posed by any one air passenger is almost nonexistent. The threat posed by a Muslim air passenger is almost equally nonexistent. Perhaps it is ever so slightly higher on the almost nonexistent scale, but it's still almost nothing. So, taking this, you could say that may using this to profile might have value. Except then you need to look at the costs, even ignoring the race and religion aspects. What would this do those people such profiled? Would this increase the chance that someone that is actually dangerous being overlooked because they didn't fit the part? Is it even worth putting any effort into profiling based on this given the minimal value it offers? Harris doesn't seem to care. In his mind it seems that p(m) is greater than p(nm) so there's not doubt about it. It also seems to assume that being any terrorist must be a Muslim jihadist and anyone that doesn't look the part is safe, which is awful security policy.

All of this also ignores the fact that the odds of another attack on an airplane are extremely small since terrorists, shockingly, have the ability to think and come up with new ideas instead of repeating the same thing over and over, especially when said thing mostly succeeded because people reacted to it based on knowledge of how hijackings normally worked. And I'm avoiding any of the other nonsense I could call out here as well.

I agree with all of this

 

[Simply Sarah]

A limitation of speech to publically acceptable standards is exactly what political correctness means.

...there's no speech here. It's action. You're basically saying that anti-discrimination policy is "political correctness".

And yet law enforcement does it. Each and every day. If there's a serial killer on the loose.... They're looking especially at white males.

They seem to think it's useful to narrow down suspects to specific demographics. They just can't say it bluntly or risk causing offense.

That's a ridiculous statement. It's one thing to be looking for a specific known suspect and searching based on identifying information. There is a world of difference between "A black guy robbed a store, so we're looking for a black male suspect." and "Blacks are more dangerous and likely to commit crime, so assume all blacks are dangerous criminals."

 

[Maxim726X]

That's the whole point, they never respond directly to what he's saying. It's a deliberate tactic. It's far easier to say that Harris wants to profile brown people than to actually deal with the argument.

And I say this while disagreeing with Harris. Or rather, I can understand his reasoning, but I think it's an unnecessary can of worms and impractical.

And that is a fair criticism, in my opinion.

He never seems to discuss the implications and consequences of profiling, but I believe he mainly wants people to see that there is more to this suggestion than boiling this down to 'you're a racist like Fox!!1!!' which is literally what someone did on his show last week.

Maybe that nuance can be explored once people can get past roadblock #1. I don't think he'll ever be able to get there.

 

[aeolist]

As usual, loads of emotive criticism of Harris without actually paying attention to what he says.

what he says

The Israelis are confronting people who will blow themselves up to kill the maximum number of noncombatants and will even use their own children as human shields. They'll launch their missiles from the edge of a hospital or school so that any retaliation will produce the maximum number of innocent casualties. And they do all this secure in the knowledge that their opponents are genuinely worried about killing innocent people. It's the most cynical thing imaginable. And yet within the moral discourse of the liberal West, the Israeli side looks like it's the most egregiously insensitive to the cost of the conflict.

fact

Amnesty International on Thursday accused Israeli forces of war crimes, saying they used children as human shields and conducted wanton attacks on civilians during their offensive in the Gaza Strip.

It could not support Israeli claims that Hamas used human shields. It said it found no evidence Palestinian fighters directed civilians to shield military objectives from attacks, forced them to stay in buildings used by militants, or prevented them from leaving commandeered buildings

http://harpers.org/blog/2009/10/six-questions-for-desmond-travers-on-the-goldstone-report/

We found no evidence that Hamas used civilians as hostages. I had expected to find such evidence but did not. We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion. Gaza is densely populated and has a labyrinth of makeshift shanties and a system of tunnels and bunkers. If I were a Hamas operative the last place I'd store munitions would be in a mosque. It's not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a many better places to store munitions. We investigated two destroyed mosques—one where worshippers were killed—and we found no evidence that either was used as anything but a place of worship.

There is a sinister and foolish notion among certain proponents of insurgency warfare that to fight an insurgency means that civilians will inevitably be killed. But if you give the state authority to be indiscriminate with the lives of civilians in pursuing insurgents, it plays into the hands of the insurgents. Dead bodies are grist to the insurgents' mill: if the dead are on your side they represent insurgent victories and if the dead are on their side then they have martyrs.

 

[aeolist]

what he says

The End of Faith opens with the melodramatic scene of a young man of undetermined nationality boarding a bus with a suicide vest. The bus detonates, innocents die and Harris, with the relish of a schoolmarm passing on the facts of life to her brood, chalks in the question: “Why is it so easy, then, so trivially easy-you-could-almost-bet-your-life-on-it-easy to guess the young man's religion?”

fact

Owing to the narrow focus of his book, written after the 9/11 attacks, Harris wishes the trauma of recent events to yield a Muslim answer. Had it been written on September 10, 2001, the answer would have been the nominally Hindu Tamil Tigers who have racked up almost four hundred suicide attacks; or, in 1945, a Buddhist Kamikaze; or, reflecting the Eastern Front of the same conflict, the German Luftwaffe's suicide squadrons. What the religion of the bomber is depends on at which point of history you begin to start your timeline.

i don't see why it's so difficult to admit that he is especially prejudiced against islam. the evidence is abundant and puts all of this so-called "reasonable" statements in question.

 

[haxamin]

"Think of how awkward it would be to read your writing in front of a critic who had empowered himself to stop, critique, and rebuke you whenever he wanted, with thousands of people listening. "

Sam uses Counter Assertions. Its super effective.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Yeah, the idea that terrorists are going to risk using planes again is just ridiculous. The Boston Marathon bombings, i.e. homemade explosives, are the far likelier risk. Or, conversely, maybe they'll just buy a shit-ton of guns and go on a shooting rampage like happened in Paris, in a country where guns are far more easily obtainable and barely even tracked.

 

[aeolist]

what he says

In our dealings with the Muslim world, we must acknowledge that Muslims have not found anything of substance to say against the actions of the September 11 hijackers, apart from the ubiquitous canard that they were really Jews

this is unequivocally 100% bullshit. the fucking ayatollah khamenei condemned the 9/11 attacks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1549573.stm

meanwhile, in the enlightened west: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

 

[stufte]

i don't see why it's so difficult to admit that he is especially prejudiced against islam. the evidence is abundant and puts all of this so-called "reasonable" statements in question.

Of course he is. He's an atheist ideologue, he thinks islam sucks.

 

[aeolist]

Of course he is. He's an atheist ideologue, he thinks islam sucks.

especially prejudiced

as in, he is far more vitriolic when it comes to islam, to the point where he openly calls for discrimination against muslims

 

[Messofanego]

statistically speaking, how many muslims who fly each year try to commit crimes aboard the plane vs other religious affiliations? what are the numbers for obviously brown people vs not-brown people, since i do believe that's the point he's actually making? how easy is it for airport security to tell who's muslim and who isn't?

it's a garbage argument

Profiling muslims is super easy. Just check our names and skin colour!

I don't have a beard. I'm clean shaven. I wear western clothes. Ok, I'm brown tho! XD It's my first name that has caused me to be interrogated for hours every single time I've entered the USA at the NYC airport. Without fail. I'm likely going to USA this year for a cousin's marriage. I'm expecting to be "random searched" again and am ready to answer bizarre questions about my relations in USA like "What is your uncle's salary?". It's bigotry or racism, whatever semantics you want to use.

 

[devilhawk]

Line by line is actually a common term and way to attack in a formal debate. Not sure how well it plays on a podcast though. I will have to give this a listen.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

what he says



this is unequivocally 100% bullshit. the fucking ayatollah khamenei condemned the 9/11 attacks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1549573.stm

meanwhile, in the enlightened west: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

for your own sanity, don't bother.

 

[haxamin]

what he says

In our dealings with the Muslim world, we must acknowledge that Muslims have not found anything of substance to say against the actions of the September 11 hijackers, apart from the ubiquitous canard that they were really Jews

this is unequivocally 100% bullshit. the fucking ayatollah khamenei condemned the 9/11 attacks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1549573.stm

meanwhile, in the enlightened west: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

The key word here is of substance/

 

[cackhyena]

as in, he is far more vitriolic when it comes to islam, to the point where he openly calls for discrimination against muslims

Link?

 

[BocoDragon]

...there's no speech here. It's action. You're basically saying that anti-discrimination policy is "political correctness".



That's a ridiculous statement. It's one thing to be looking for a specific known suspect and searching based on identifying information. There is a world of difference between "A black guy robbed a store, so we're looking for a black male suspect." and "Blacks are more dangerous and likely to commit crime, so assume all blacks are dangerous criminals."

You can say it's "ridiculous" all you want. It's what they do.

You can't research every person on the globe. So you narrow the list down by demographic criteria. Some of those are ethnic.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it happens.

 

[aeolist]

The key word here is of substance/

six thousand muslim clerics issue fatwa against terrorism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/08/6000-muslim-clerics-endor_n_142415.html

sam harris: muslims have not found anything of substance to say against 9/11

Link?

calling for profiling is discrimination

 

[cackhyena]

six thousand muslim clerics issue fatwa against terrorism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/08/6000-muslim-clerics-endor_n_142415.html

sam harris: muslims have not found anything of substance to say against 9/11



calling for profiling is discrimination

k

 

[injurai]

There is no real nuance in the linked piece. It's pseudo-intellectual nonsense. His first sentence is correct, his second is a bit weird but not really something to object to and then it's sharply down hill from there. The only really valid and useful profiling in this sort of situation would be if it was based on statistics and he fails badly at that. Any action can have costs and benefits associated with it and he seems to entirely ignore the first half of that equation.

The threat posed by any one air passenger is almost nonexistent. The threat posed by a Muslim air passenger is almost equally nonexistent. Perhaps it is ever so slightly higher on the almost nonexistent scale, but it's still almost nothing. So, taking this, you could say that may using this to profile might have value. Except then you need to look at the costs, even ignoring the race and religion aspects. What would this do those people such profiled? Would this increase the chance that someone that is actually dangerous being overlooked because they didn't fit the part? Is it even worth putting any effort into profiling based on this given the minimal value it offers? Harris doesn't seem to care. In his mind it seems that p(m) is greater than p(nm) so there's not doubt about it. It also seems to assume that being any terrorist must be a Muslim jihadist and anyone that doesn't look the part is safe, which is awful security policy.

All of this also ignores the fact that the odds of another attack on an airplane are extremely small since terrorists, shockingly, have the ability to think and come up with new ideas instead of repeating the same thing over and over, especially when said thing mostly succeeded because people reacted to it based on knowledge of how hijackings normally worked. And I'm avoiding any of the other nonsense I could call out here as well.

This basically sounds like what I argued. Profiling is a slippery slope and there is no way around it.

 

[MotionBlue]

Sam Harris is a dick. Salon is biased as fuck.

I understand why he was unwilling to partake in this.

 

[Simply Sarah]

You can say it's "ridiculous" all you want. It's what they do.

You can't research every person on the globe. So you narrow the list down by demographic criteria. Some of those are ethnic.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it happens.

Again, my "ridiculous" was at your conflating profiling with looking for a specific suspect or suspects based on reported features. Those are entirely different things.

This basically sounds like what I argued. Profiling is a slippery slope and there is no way around it.

It's more than just being a slippery slope. This specific method of profiling in this case is just bad policy to start with even ignoring racism, anti-religion, and any slope.

 

[haxamin]

six thousand muslim clerics issue fatwa against terrorism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/08/6000-muslim-clerics-endor_n_142415.html

sam harris: muslims have not found anything of substance to say against 9/11



calling for profiling is discrimination

Fatwah? Do you really think that's enough. A condemnation; give me a break.

I'm from Portsmouth. It has one of the highest number of people fleeing to join ISIS. And amongst the muslim community: radio silence.

Heck, upon hearing news of one of them dying the only thing they said was "it is said he died smiling"

No mention of "so what are the underlying causes of extremism etc etc"

Edit; Heck many muslims I know think the jews did 9/11!!

Double Edit: Im no longer a Junior

 

[Monocle]

As usual, loads of emotive criticism of Harris without actually paying attention to what he says.

This is often the case with all outspoken atheist intellectuals.

 

[aeolist]

Fatwah? Do you really think that's enough. A condemnation; give me a break.

I'm from Portsmouth. It has one of the highest number of people fleeing to join ISIS. And amongst the muslim community: radio silence.

Heck, upon hearing news of one of them dying the only thing they said was "it is said he died smiling"

No mention of "so what are the underlying causes of extremism etc etc"

so are you asking for speech or action? harris is asking for speech, and fatwahs are exactly that. also here: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism

if you want action there are more activist organizations than i can conveniently list: https://www.google.com/search?q=muslims+against+terrorism

 

[BocoDragon]

Again, my "ridiculous" was at your conflating profiling with looking for a specific suspect or suspects based on reported features. Those are entirely different things.

Where did I ever say anything about reported features?

I'll charitably guess you weren't reading carefully.

 

[FairyD]

At least there is still Zizek.

 

[BocoDragon]

Fatwah? Do you really think that's enough. A condemnation; give me a break.

I'm from Portsmouth. It has one of the highest number of people fleeing to join ISIS. And amongst the muslim community: radio silence.

Heck, upon hearing news of one of them dying the only thing they said was "it is said he died smiling"

No mention of "so what are the underlying causes of extremism etc etc"

Edit; Heck many muslims I know think the jews did 9/11!!

Double Edit: Im no longer a Junior

I'm sympathetic... Moderate Muslims are terrified to speak out.

Between being called a bigot by the left, criticized for dissent by other moderates, or being threatened by violence by Islamists.... There's not a lot of incentive for a Muslim to criticize Islamic extremism.

 

[DrGonzo615]

As usual, loads of emotive criticism of Harris without actually paying attention to what he says.

This. Ive seen so many false characterizations of Harris views online that I would personally have to listen to the whole interview. It doesnt help that Salon is a shite rag either.

 

[cackhyena]

This. Ive seen so many false characterizations of Harris views online that I would personally have to listen to the whole interview. It doesnt help that Salon is a shite rag either.

Yeah, this is how I'm looking at it.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Where did I ever say anything about reported features?

I'll charitably guess you weren't reading carefully.

Yes, I did misread. I apologize.

 

[BocoDragon]

This. Ive seen so many false characterizations of Harris views online that I would personally have to listen to the whole interview. It doesnt help that Salon is a shite rag either.

Just look in this thread.

I frequently disagree with Harris. But in each and every one of these threads I see people using crude scarlet letter debate tactics against him that basically amount to people not actually grappling with his arguments.

Yes, I did misread. I apologize.

Thanks.

 

[Breads]

So Sam Hariss wanted to attack someone in person using the youtube pundit line by line dissection style (that is usually one way), made concessions to only include specific issues, but in the end still decided to not to publish a four hour debate?

I don't know who he is but he sounds incredibly disingenuous and self serving.

But that is just coming from the one side. Hopefully the podcast will be released so we can get the full story.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Just look in this thread.

I frequently disagree with Harris. But in each and every one of these threads I see people using crude scarlet letter debate tactics against him that basically amount to people not actually grappling with his arguments.

I'll admit to some of this, even on my part, but I strongly object to everyone acting as if myself and some others haven't directly addressed the contents and logic of some of his positions and statements.

Thanks.

Hey, when I realize that I've screwed up then I admit I screwed up.

 

[Maxim726X]

Just look in this thread.

I frequently disagree with Harris. But in each and every one of these threads I see people using crude scarlet letter debate tactics against him that basically amount to people not actually grappling with his arguments.

I was actively yelling at my car stereo listening to his 'debate' with Miriam, where she literally pulled out the 'not all Muslims are terrorists, Sam' card over and over again.

Again, there are certainly real criticisms people could apply to his position, many of which I've read here. But all we get is weak straw man arguments? Lame.

So Sam Hariss wanted to attack someone in person using the youtube pundit line by line dissection style (that is usually one way), made concessions to only include specific issues, but in the end still decided to not to publish a four hour debate?

I don't know who he is but he sounds incredibly disingenuous and self serving.

He did say that basically the conversation amounted to nothing, and that it would be painful to listen to. I would imagine after this he may just put it up now.

 

[haxamin]

I'm sympathetic... Moderate Muslims are terrified to speak out.

Between being called a bigot by the left, criticized for dissent by other moderates, or being threatened by violence by Islamists.... There's not a lot of incentive for a Muslim to criticize Islamic extremism.

I feel if enough people speak out, including exmuslims such as myself, it may give the regressive left a bit of a wake up call.

 

[EmSeta]

Like him or not, the amount of baseless accusations directed towards Harris never cease to amaze me.

 

[Breads]

He did say that basically the conversation amounted to nothing, and that it would be painful to listen to. I would imagine after this he may just put it up now.

It's possible. I did quickly realize that the information I was basing the assumption on was completely one sided but if it is what he says it is then it couldn't hurt to shut nay saying down a bit by just posting it online anyway.

 

[Senoculum]

Fatwah? Do you really think that's enough. A condemnation; give me a break.

I'm from Portsmouth. It has one of the highest number of people fleeing to join ISIS. And amongst the muslim community: radio silence.

Heck, upon hearing news of one of them dying the only thing they said was "it is said he died smiling"

No mention of "so what are the underlying causes of extremism etc etc"

Edit; Heck many muslims I know think the jews did 9/11!!

Serious question. What do you want the religious leaders to do instead? Vigilantism? Find every parent of every victim and say something? Compare the leaders of every other religion; what do they do in the face of scrutiny? They're clearly trying to spread their teachings against hate and violence. It's all that they can do. What have you done? We should all be chill like Buddhist monks or something, right? Oh wait, they're killing people too. Shall we send Seal Team 6 against them?

And lets be real, Portsmouth is home to some income-deprived families, most of these young supporters are illiterate and last I read there were demonstrators gathered outside a mosque, protesting against a Muslim primary school in the city. By that equation (animosity and economic hardship) is it a real wonder why youths are being seduced to a frontline?

Alienating people is not the answer.