I forgot to add 'power' to my list too. You think people go to full-on war because of cultural differences? Napolean - land/power, Hitler - land/power, Colonial conflicts - land, resources, wealth, any empire-building especially Rome - the same, Milosevic - land, Falklands - land, Iraq and the Gulf land, plus hundreds of the same MO other examples throughout history.

You carry on with your thoughts, though, no matter how irrefutably incorrect and blinkered. Place would be boring without deniers such as yourself.

Whilst its clearly the case, and no one would make it otherwise, its important to note that 'terrorism' doesn't really have a universally shared meaning, even within countries.

For example, the US State Department in the 80s and 90s (possibly even still) didn't consider suicide bombings against the Israeli's in the occupied territory and settlements as terrorism - as it fell within the UN definition of the right to self defence against occupation. Similarly, Hezbollah, a known terrorist group, wasn't considered as a terrorist actor when acting in the Golan Heights or in defence of Lebanon, during Israeli incursions.

Even though the US constantly referred to these actions as terrorist activities, the State Departments definition was different to the White House.

Terrorist really is a political buzzword as well, that's very loaded. The Nazis referred to the SOE, Commandos and Resistance movements as terrorist, which the UN specifically separated out post war under the right of an occupied national to resist by any means.

Also a lot of what is considered 'Islamic terrorism' can often be more about regional politics. Whilst things like White Supremist in the US get a pass on being terrorist, despite being drawn along very religious lines.

Indeed the US didn't even consider domestic terrorism to be terrorism until the late 80s.

That's why she should go - she won't be able to mend things as it means her doing a u-turn.

Indeed. The fact is is that it is a specific type of religious extremist adhering to a specific type of interpretation that carries out the attacks against us and others around the world including muslims. Actually, mostly against muslims. So, going by that fact, we should be focusing on that target group and their paymasters as 100% the main threat and stop bleating on about 'Muslims' per se.

Everyone should know that Kermit completely goes against what the main Islamic reformers say.

He represents how the left and some of the right have approached this issue for many years. Their ideas have led us here.

You can't divorce Islamic extremism from Islam. Islam's particular form of social conservatism breeds a certain amount of these extremists. It allows for violent interpretations easily. The religion needs to undergo reform in this country.

I urge people who don't know to look at the Pew data on the opinions of the majority of Muslims in this country.

Then you will understand why our security services have to watch three thousand people in this country.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jun 2017 12.00pm)