anyone watching that <snip> on prime time

K4t

blacklilly wrote: »

I have no idea, I don't know you but it is absolutely naive to think that if I was speaking from a position of authority to some that my words would have no influence them,

Your lack of faith in humanity is genuinely concerning. Most times I listen to the radio I am incited to hatred of a number of things. But that doesn't mean I go out and murder people.

Anyway, thankfully we live in a society where incitement of hatred is not tolerated

It is tolerated by me.

blacklilly

K4t wrote: »

Your lack of faith in humanity is genuinely concerning. Most times I listen to the radio I am incited to hatred of a number of things. But that doesn't mean I go out and murder people.

It is tolerated by me.

Hold on, I've great faith in humanity ( don't know how you came to the conclusion that I don't) what I don't have faith in is fundamentalists and they are a real, however small threat to our civilised society.

wp_rathead

newmug wrote: »

Go away u fool, 12 people were murdered by a nutcase group who even killed one of their own, now is not the time to pretend you're a victim.

Eh?

WoollyRedHat

Snip this and snip that, the language, unbelievable!

K4t

blacklilly wrote: »

Hold on, I've great faith in humanity ( don't know how you came to the conclusion that I don't) what I don't have faith in is fundamentalists and they are a real, however small threat to our civilised society.

You're letting them win. You're implying that what they have to say is more powerful, more important. Nobody walking on this earth has something more important to say than the right for me to say they're full of sh1t.


I would rather listen to Islamic extremists/terrorists on the radio everyday for a year inciting hatred and violence against me if I knew that they were doing it anyway out of sight and out of the public sphere.

NIMAN

K4t wrote: »

You're letting them win. You're implying that what they have to say is more powerful, more important. Nobody walking on this earth has something more important to say than the right for me to say they're full of sh1t.


I would rather listen to Islamic extremists/terrorists on the radio everyday for a year inciting hatred and violence against me if I knew that they were doing it anyway out of sight and out of the public sphere.

But te worrying thing is that when its known who the potential dangers are, they can still commit murder.

The French authorities knew those 2 brothers had been to Syria, and one was also recently only out of prison, so I am sure they were on their watch list.

The fact that they were still able to do what they did in Paris shows that being on a watch-list isn't always guaranteed to stop you.

AboutaWeekAgo

Is this thread about circumcision?

Timberrrrrrrr

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I wonder how Trinity College feels about his views.

Was thinking this myself, probably not enough reason to fire him but surprised he is allowed talk so openly like that when he is constantly referred to as a Trinity lecturer.

Drakares

Can someone provide a link to said interview?

Timberrrrrrrr

Drakares wrote: »

Can someone provide a link to said interview?

Think this is it

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10362536/

emmetlego

K4t wrote: »

Paisley didn't force people to murder each other, and certainly not by the use of his tongue.

Now we know not to take you seriously!

He inspired decades of hatred and murder.

How big is that rock you've been living under??? Good grief! Troll!

Streetwalker

happysunnydays wrote: »

These people shouldn't be given a platform.

The irony is staggering.

Dan_Solo

Miriam got utterly pasted by a medievalist psycho. She's an embarrassment to whatever profession she claims to be in.

Grayson

K4t wrote: »

Your lack of faith in humanity is genuinely concerning. Most times I listen to the radio I am incited to hatred of a number of things. But that doesn't mean I go out and murder people.

The process of being radicalised is strange. Unless a traumatic event causes it it happens over time.
This happens to any group. take religion in Ireland. If I met someone who had no opinion (and indeed had no previous experience of religion) I could discuss the matter with them. they may agree with me but may not. If however i tried to convince an atheist that god is real or tried to convince a very catholic person that God isn't real, I'd get nowhere.
The human brain goes through a process where people reinforce their strongly held beliefs when they hear information that contradicts them. there was an interesting experiment performed in the US during the Bush/Kerry election. They got people to rate how strong a supporter they were. they gave bot sides information which made their politician look bad. they found that those who were of medium support initially dropped in their support. However those who were at an extreme actually came out as stronger supporters.
That means that if someone really, really believes in something and you tell them something bad, they'll believe even more. Whereas moderates like you and i will actually change our opinions, they can't.

It's the same with radicals. They are at the very extreme and they are unbalanced. they will suck in both positive and negative influences but in their mind it'll all strengthen their opinion.

This goes for all radicals. Christians who scream at abortion doctors or blow up clinics, Israeli settlers, members of ISIS, their brains all work in the same way.

anncoates

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Miriam got utterly pasted by a medievalist psycho. She's an embarrassment to whatever profession she claims to be in.

I know people love this Paxo school of interviewing where it's more about the celebrity aspect of an interviewer 'sorting somebody out' on TV, even if this just often equates to a two-sided shouting match but interviewing a nutcase can also be about giving them enough rope to hang themselves on TV.

Banjo String

Fcuking snip snip snipety snip.....


Is this thread about vasectomies

newport2

Streetwalker wrote: »

happysunnydays wrote: »

These people shouldn't be given a platform.

The irony is staggering.

Not necessarily. You can allow someone free speech without providing them with a prime time platform to trumpet it from.

I'm not opposed to free speech, this guy can say what he wants in his own time. But I'd question as to whether giving him airtime on our national station to suggest that attacks on Ireland might be justified due to the US using Shannon airport is a good thing.

wp_rathead

Streetwalker wrote: »

The irony is staggering.

Not really
Free speech doesn't mean you HAVE to be interviewed on live TV not having a platform does not equate to your freedom of speech being impeached

Lovely Bloke

wprathead wrote: »

Not really
Free speech doesn't mean you HAVE to be interviewed on live TV not having a platform does not equate to your freedom of speech being impeached

Well, for RTE and Iona, that's exaclty what it means.

Those religious bigots have made sure that a bigot HAS to be on TV with a pro-SSM person every time the subject is debated.

Religious fúcknuts of all forms are able to hold the country to these silly standards just because they get "offended".

they should all be told to just go and shíte.

Panrich

fryup wrote: »

my point is... some people were saying during the troubles that gerry adams shouldn't have been given air time because he was seen as a dangerous militant

in short..we can't ban people from the airwaves just because we don't agree with their views

It wasn't just talk about Sinn Fein. There was a ban in place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions

smash

I missed it last night. Hope to catch on the RTE player later.

The_Kew_Tour

If you don't like it here and our way well then you can move along.

Nobody is forcing anybody here.

95% of people are good honest people looking for better living. But those small minority can go on one if they can't take a joke.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

not yet wrote: »

The most popular name 4 years running in Antwerp was Muhammad.

It's reckoned that in 25 years Sweden will be 51% Muslim as will some other European countries in 50 years..

6 million Muslims in France, Every single Muslim on earth is hot wired to convert the plant to Islam...

Run People, run away and don't come back..

Bold for bullshít.

None of my muslim friends, who happen do practice their religion, preach to me in any way shape or form.

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

The most popular name 4 years running in Antwerp was Muhammad.

It's reckoned that in 25 years Sweden will be 51% Muslim as will some other European countries in 50 years..

6 million Muslims in France, Every single Muslim on earth is hot wired to convert the plant to Islam...

Run People, run away and don't come back..

Jaysus there's a Muslim lad sat across from me in work for the last 2 years and he hasn't once tried to convert me. Do you think he is just waiting for the right moment? :rolleyes:

drumswan

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

If you don't like it here and our way well then you can move along.

Nobody is forcing anybody here.

95% of people are good honest people looking for better living. But those small minority can go on one if they can't take a joke.

Its not 95% or anywhere close unfortunately

In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified,[27] in Europe:
64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10 % sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
In mainly Muslim countries:
45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-10/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Polls

goose2005

My name is URL wrote: »

"Freedom of speech is like water, you need it to live but if you drink too much of it you'll end up in hospital"

He couldn't have made that sound more menacing if he tried :pac:

"Sure is a nice city you got here ... be a shame if someone blew it up."

Grayson

drumswan wrote: »

Its not 95% or anywhere close unfortunately


http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-10/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Polls

Now you're defining people according to one question with no context.

take for example the question "Is it ok to kill people?" My general answer would be no. I can however imagine a situation where it would be justified. say if it involved killing a person who was shooting up a school bus. I would think it's something most people would agree with me on.

My thoughts on it are very liberal though. There are plenty who would come up with less stringent criteria. In the US for example a large number of people think it's ok to shoot someone if they are in your house. Even if they are unarmed and not posing a threat, many people think it's ok.

In northern Ireland a large number of paramilitary groups targeted civilian areas. Enniskillen and Warrington for example. These people did at one point enjoy a lot of sympathy in their communities.

A large number of people think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. That's bombing a civilian city with nuclear weapons. Suicide bombings are nothing compared to nuking civilians.

Judging a group of people based on one question is wrong.

drumswan

Grayson wrote: »

Now you're defining people according to one question with no context.

take for example the question "Is it ok to kill people?" My general answer would be no. I can however imagine a situation where it would be justified.

Can you imagine a situation where suicide bombing against civilian targets would be justified?

People, perhaps understandably, simply want to believe the best about Muslims, but the reality is different. We'll get nowhere if we dont start acknowledging the basic reality.

conorhal

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Well, for RTE and Iona, that's exaclty what it means.

Those religious bigots have made sure that a bigot HAS to be on TV with a pro-SSM person every time the subject is debated.

Religious fúcknuts of all forms are able to hold the country to these silly standards just because they get "offended".

they should all be told to just go and shíte.

I'll be voting in favour of SSM but I favour a debate on the subject.
It's something of an irony fail to bleat about the chilling effects for free speach that the past 48 hours have created and then stamp your foot when it's suggested that a debate should actually requires two sides to argue a point, since a single point of view isn't a debate it's propaganda. That's Selim and Chowdry's world, the choosing of who has a right not to be offended by sombody elses opinion.

Personally I'm deighted to see these two numpties on prime time, people need to hear what far too many are unwilling to discuss or confront. Without debate you can't challenge an oponent you can only disenfranchise them from democracy, and that's never worked out too well. So let them debate away by all means, the more they yammer the more people will question their ideology.

drumswan

Heres some more opinion polls on Muslim attitudes

The results are alarming to say the least

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

Akrasia

Grayson wrote: »

The process of being radicalised is strange. Unless a traumatic event causes it it happens over time.
This happens to any group. take religion in Ireland. If I met someone who had no opinion (and indeed had no previous experience of religion) I could discuss the matter with them. they may agree with me but may not. If however i tried to convince an atheist that god is real or tried to convince a very catholic person that God isn't real, I'd get nowhere.
The human brain goes through a process where people reinforce their strongly held beliefs when they hear information that contradicts them. there was an interesting experiment performed in the US during the Bush/Kerry election. They got people to rate how strong a supporter they were. they gave bot sides information which made their politician look bad. they found that those who were of medium support initially dropped in their support. However those who were at an extreme actually came out as stronger supporters.
That means that if someone really, really believes in something and you tell them something bad, they'll believe even more. Whereas moderates like you and i will actually change our opinions, they can't.

It's the same with radicals. They are at the very extreme and they are unbalanced. they will suck in both positive and negative influences but in their mind it'll all strengthen their opinion.

This goes for all radicals. Christians who scream at abortion doctors or blow up clinics, Israeli settlers, members of ISIS, their brains all work in the same way.

Part of the reason for extremist and entrenched positions is because of 'The Availability Heuristic'

The Availability Heuristic is a cognitive process where we give more mental prominance to things which are more commonly encountered and re-inforced in our experience.

Things that we can immediately recall are seen as true, while things that are hard to recall are seen as less true

It's a subconscious process but also easy to manipulate. People who become extremists immerse themselves in one way of thinking, they only read propaganda from one perspective, they repeat and memorise mantras that support one view and oppose all others, they avoid reading material that contradicts their world view unless it is filtered through a source that re-interprets it to fit the agenda.

Music fans, for example can get immersed in a sub culture where the type of music that they like is the only 'good' kind of music. They only listen to this kind of music, they only read magazines and websites that support this kind of music, they judge friendships based on their musical tastes and will hang around other people only if they share their musical tastes, and they are not open to new musical experiences having already pre-judged other kinds of music as 'fake' or 'commercial' or whatever.

A death metal fan will think death metal is the only kind of music worth listening to. if you ask a death metal band to list 10 bands, all of them will be death metal bands, if you ask them to list 10 pop synth bands, they might struggle to name 5. This Availability Heuristic means that the fact that they can immediately recall more death metal bands means that they intuitively believe that death metal music is more important and better than other forms of music.

The same applies to most other sub-cultures, whether it's sporting, art, motor racing, religious etc...

These can become dangerous when there are violent associations with these sub-cultures, for example, the punks vs the mods in the 1980s, or the hells angels and the biker culture in the 80s, or the football hooligan subculture, and now we have an islamic fundamentalist subculture which is sucking in young men and radicalising them

padd b1975

Is Miriam still rocking the "mutton dressed as lamb" look?

Akrasia

In relation to my post above, this is one of the main reasons why 'Faith schools' (of all denominations) should not be allowed.

Children who grow up completely immersed in one community with little or no interaction with wider society are far more at risk of becoming radicalised than children who grow up interacting with others from a variety of other backgrounds.

Panrich

Akrasia wrote: »

In relation to my post above, this is one of the main reasons why 'Faith schools' (of all denominations) should not be allowed.

Children who grow up completely immersed in one community with little or no interaction with wider society are far more at risk of becoming radicalised than children who grow up interacting with others from a variety of other backgrounds.

And you can bet that this fact is not lost on those that champion these types of schools too.

Grayson

drumswan wrote: »

Can you imagine a situation where suicide bombing against civilian targets would be justified?

People, perhaps understandably, simply want to believe the best about Muslims, but the reality is different. We'll get nowhere if we dont start acknowledging the basic reality.

Can you imagine a situation where nuking two civilian cities is ok?

I'm not saying that it's ok to think suicide bombing is ok. I'm saying that Muslims are no different to everyone else. Some muslims think that suicide bombing is ok. Some Irish people thought it was OK when the IRA bombed a civilian target. The majority of US people think it was ok to nuke not one, but two, civilian cities.

blacklilly

Panrich wrote: »

And you can bet that this fact is not lost on those that champion these types of schools too.

Schools are not the only form of social outlet for children.
There are parents of all faiths that wish for their children to go particular school due to it's ethos and that is completely acceptable and should be provided for.

The vast majorirty of religious people of all faiths are normal non fundamentalist, to suggest otherwise is scaremongering.

mullinr2

Here is were the Muslims are wrong. The war on terror in Iraq/Afghanistan etc is exactly that, a war on terrorism. Its not a war against Islam in which Muslims feel it is. They use this to justify the attacks in Paris. This was an attack on Western principles and culture. The war on terrorism is not a cultural or religious war.

Dan_Solo

Akrasia wrote: »

A death metal fan will think death metal is the only kind of music worth listening to

The Bauhaus, Paradise Lost, Carcass and Anna Ternheim albums I just listened to in that order would beg to differ. It's a rubbish theory that if you like something then that's the only thing you like or know about TBH.
How do you know what radical Islamists know if you are not one yourself? You've just invalidated your own theory in the same breath.

Dan_Solo

mullinr2 wrote: »

Here is were the Muslims are wrong. The war on terror in Iraq/Afghanistan etc is exactly that, a war on terrorism. Its not a war against Islam in which Muslims feel it is.

Or option 3: it is neither a war or terror or on Muslims.

Sheep Lover

I think that <snip> made some interesting <snip> but <snip> and <snip> will never <snip>

<snip> <snip> and ultimately <snip>

irish coldplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The Bauhaus, Paradise Lost, Carcass and Anna Ternheim albums I just listened to in that order would beg to differ. It's a rubbish theory that if you like something then that's the only thing you like or know about TBH.

It obviously doesn't apply to ALL the population ALL the time, just in certain situations.
As for it being a "rubbish theory" I presume you can point to several peer reviewed study's in reputable journals that have caused you to conclude that there is no merit in the theory?
Or did you just pluck your opinion out of your arse?
At least google the theory and read about it before dismissing it out of hand.
Here is a few examples to help you on your way.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=The+Availability+Heuristic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=YcWvVNeJEM7e7Aax6oHoBg#q=The+Availability+Heuristic+studies&spell=1

Dan_Solo

irish coldplayer wrote: »

It obviously doesn't apply to ALL the population ALL the time, just in certain situations.
As for it being a "rubbish theory" I presume you can point to several peer reviewed study's in reputable journals that have caused you to conclude that there is no merit in the theory?
Or did you just pluck your opinion out of your arse?
At least google the theory and read about it before dismissing it out of hand.
Here is a few examples to help you on your way.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=The+Availability+Heuristic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=YcWvVNeJEM7e7Aax6oHoBg#q=The+Availability+Heuristic+studies&spell=1

Listen, no point in getting uppity because your theory was instantly flushed down the toilet. All your saying is radicals are radical. Wow. Helpful.
You never did explain how you know what Islamic extremists think when you insist only they can know what they think, did you? Nope.
Wanna try again, this time with logic?

irish coldplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Listen, no point in getting uppity because your theory was instantly flushed down the toilet. All your saying is radicals are radical. Wow. Helpful.
You never did explain how you know what Islamic extremists think when you insist only they can know what they think, did you? Nope.
Wanna try again, this time with logic?

1. I never said I know what Islamic extremists think that would be impossible.
2. I didn't initially present this theory Akrasia did. (although I was previously aware of it). It is a viable argument with a wide range of research, nobody said it was absolute.

You said it was "rubbish" because thats how it initially felt to you but you have still presented no argument as to why it is rubbish other than your opinion.
My point is there are multiple studies that provide evidence that the theory is very real.
My initial 2 questions in my previous post still stand.

Akrasia

blacklilly wrote: »

Schools are not the only form of social outlet for children.
There are parents of all faiths that wish for their children to go particular school due to it's ethos and that is completely acceptable and should be provided for.

The vast majorirty of religious people of all faiths are normal non fundamentalist, to suggest otherwise is scaremongering.

Parents are legally obligated to send their kids to school. (in most cases parents are not capable of educating their children at home to the legal standard required) Education is a human right for all children in Ireland, and education is more than about just learning theorums and poetry. Education is about preparing people to become balanced individuals and productive members of society.

Faith schools exist to indoctrinate and isolate children from wider society. While some of the parents of children who go to faith schools might be liberal or moderates, the faith schools themselves are mandated to be conservative and abide by the 'ethos' of their faith

Dan_Solo

irish coldplayer wrote: »

You said it was "rubbish" because thats how it initially felt to you but you have still presented no argument as to why it is rubbish other than your opinion.

Exactly what you said was:

A death metal fan will think death metal is the only kind of music worth listening to.

Since I am a death metal fan and I think other kinds of music are worth listening to which I do myself, I don't need to read any research you want to cite. I know what you said is provably bull**** instantly.
The real reason why it's a **** theory is that it can make absolutely no prediction as to which people will become radicalized. It's 100% post hoc. Radicals are radical because the were radicalised. If it can't predict jack ****, that's about the value of the theory.

Akrasia

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The Bauhaus, Paradise Lost, Carcass and Anna Ternheim albums I just listened to in that order would beg to differ. It's a rubbish theory that if you like something then that's the only thing you like or know about TBH.
How do you know what radical Islamists know if you are not one yourself? You've just invalidated your own theory in the same breath.

Are you an active member of the death metal sub-culture?

Also, I never said that people only know about the things they like, I said that in extreme cases, people who are fully immersed in one subculture choose to associate almost exclusively with other members of that culture, choose to read books and magazines and websites related to that subculture, dress according to the 'uniform' of that culture etc so in their daily experience, a much larger proportion of their lives revolve around this narrow area, and cognitively, the brain perceives this narrow area of life to be much more important than it actually is.

It's how people get 'sucked in'.

The availability heuristic affects everyone all of the time, it's a mental shortcut, and it allows us to function in the worlds we live in, if we have a normal range of daily experiences then 'our world' is relatively balanced between normal human activities, work, friends, family, recreation, education, travelling, varied hobbies of one sort or another,

but when someones world gets narrowed down so much that their whole lives are dominated by thinking about one thing, then it is difficult to withdraw. The thing you are sucked into seems to be the most important thing in the world, whether it's stamp collecting or jihad.

My name is URL

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Was thinking this myself, probably not enough reason to fire him but surprised he is allowed talk so openly like that when he is constantly referred to as a Trinity lecturer.

What's he supposed to be a lecturer of anyway? I can't find any listing or mention of him on the TCD staff pages.

Dan_Solo

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you an active member of the death metal sub-culture?

Also, I never said that people only know about the things they like, I said that in extreme cases, people who are fully immersed in one subculture choose to associate almost exclusively with other members of that culture, choose to read books and magazines and websites related to that subculture, dress according to the 'uniform' of that culture etc so in their daily experience, a much larger proportion of their lives revolve around this narrow area, and cognitively, the brain perceives this narrow area of life to be much more important than it actually is.

It's how people get 'sucked in'.

The availability heuristic affects everyone all of the time, it's a mental shortcut, and it allows us to function in the worlds we live in, if we have a normal range of daily experiences then 'our world' is relatively balanced between normal human activities, work, friends, family, recreation, education, travelling, varied hobbies of one sort or another,

but when someones world gets narrowed down so much that their whole lives are dominated by thinking about one thing, then it is difficult to withdraw. The thing you are sucked into seems to be the most important thing in the world, whether it's stamp collecting or jihad.

People who do a lot of one thing don't tend to do so much of other things? I don't really get the newsworthiness of that TBH.
Can any of these available heuristics (giggle) theories predict which people will become single issuers? If not then it is an entirely post hoc assessment. He's a radical because he was radicalised. How does that help anyone predict anything, which is the fundamental basis for testing any theory?

Dan_Solo

My name is URL wrote: »

What's he supposed to be a lecturer of anyway? I can't find any listing or mention of him on the TCD staff pages.

You'll find anybody who's given a lecture somehow manages to get "Lecturer" on their CV...

Magico Gonzalez

It's good that we give the salafi muslims a voice, so we can see how antiquated and irrelevant their interpretation of islam is.

Freedom of speech guarantees debate and understanding, I'd have him on every week so people can see what a bitter sectarian fool he is, so people are educated enough to make better choices.

Salafism, wahhabism and other extreme forms of islam are the problem. There are other more peaceful forms of the religion. Sadly in the west we have got into bed with the Saudis, horrible bunch of wahhabi extremists.