It would be interesting to know what the FLA definition of terrorism is. The definition from the a US army manual is quite good "terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." If you apply that to recent history you can see who the terrorists really are.

With regard to your point about a "fear to offend Islamist terrorists." It wasn't long ago that the British and US states were not keen to offend Islamist terrorists either. In fact we loved them and their Jihad so much that we armed them and trained them to help carry it on. Then when they'd stopped fighting the Russians in Afghanistan we helped them get to Bosnia to fight there.

If the FLA were really against terrorism I'd happily join them. But they are generally a bunch of ill-informed people who have no idea of the history behind Islamic Terrorism. This gives them a misplaced view of the west as victims: An idea that doesn't stand up to the simple scrutiny of casualty figures.

Edited by Bert the Head (11 Oct 2017 10.44pm)

It would be interesting to know what the FLA definition of terrorism is. The definition from the a US army manual is quite good "terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." If you apply that to recent history you can see who the terrorists really are.

With regard to your point about a "fear to offend Islamist terrorists." It wasn't long ago that the British and US states were not keen to offend Islamist terrorists either. In fact we loved them and their Jihad so much that we armed them and trained them to help carry it on. Then when they'd stopped fighting the Russians in Afghanistan we helped them get to Bosnia to fight there.

If the FLA were really against terrorism I'd happily join them. But they are generally a bunch of ill-informed people who have no idea of the history behind Islamic Terrorism. This gives them a misplaced view of the west as victims: An idea that doesn't stand up to the simple scrutiny of casualty figures.

Edited by Bert the Head (11 Oct 2017 10.44pm)

It would be interesting to know what the FLA definition of terrorism is. The definition from the a US army manual is quite good "terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." If you apply that to recent history you can see who the terrorists really are.

With regard to your point about a "fear to offend Islamist terrorists." It wasn't long ago that the British and US states were not keen to offend Islamist terrorists either. In fact we loved them and their Jihad so much that we armed them and trained them to help carry it on. Then when they'd stopped fighting the Russians in Afghanistan we helped them get to Bosnia to fight there.

If the FLA were really against terrorism I'd happily join them. But they are generally a bunch of ill-informed people who have no idea of the history behind Islamic Terrorism. This gives them a misplaced view of the west as victims: An idea that doesn't stand up to the simple scrutiny of casualty figures.

Western Liberals and the left are used to searching for external explanations for behaviour that they cannot comprehend; Hitler’s behaviour cannot be explained as a reaction to the Treaty of Versailles or the economic situation in the twenties or thirties. Evil is its own excuse. The Islamic fundamentalists are utopic visionaries who wish to replace Western style -liberal democracies with an Islamic theocracy, a fascist system of thought (that is never challenged by organisations such as “Stand up to racism”)that aims to control every act of every individual. 
They are “Visionaries working for everlasting evil on earth. It’s said their Utopias inspire young mediocre minds (displaced youth shunned by society) a disgust of reality and a contempt for the secular logic of human development.
In reality  modern Islamists are made up of young men from the middle or lower middle class, highly motivated, upwardly mobile, and well-educated, often with science or engineering degrees

Islamic totalitarianism is potentially far more dangerous than either the Nazi or Communist variety, since the latter, despite their exterminating follies, presupposed their own preservation. For the Nazi, the inferior race does not deserve to exist; for the Stalinist, the enemy of the people does not merit to continue living; for the Islamist, it is the world itself that does not deserve to exist

Western policy is not to blame for that!

Edited by Bert the Head (11 Oct 2017 10.44pm)

Blaming the west for Islamic terrorism and calling people Islamophobic is created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

Without the 2003 invasion, its likely that IS would never been able to establish itself as a major force or achieved the kind of successes it did in Syria and Iraq.

If we hadn't fought Hitler then nuclear bombs wouldn't have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Attributing the rights and wrongs of decisions to later rights and wrongs is a biased process....whoever does it, you or me.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Oct 2017 11.54am)