Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blackie wrote:
There are no chinese, brazilians, jews, buddhists, finnish or italians that commit these kind of crimes

About that...

 Mr. Burning wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism

http://www.washingtonreport.me/2001-january-february/extremism-in-israel-is-fueled-by-a-growing-ultra-orthodox-movement-in-the-u.s.html

There really is more out there. Not that I expect you to look but we can try eh?

First link: we're talking about third world there, not in the civilized country. In europe those muslims that commit massacres are people born here, not cavemen.

Second link: jewish terrorism? I only see jewish that want to strike back in their own country against those ones who are their enemy.

Third link: Same as above, it's all about israel. Jewish people are actually at war with palestinians since decades.

A mentality like yours has given us islamic terrorism, and the rise of far-right leaders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
There are no chinese, brazilians, jews, buddhists, finnish or italians that commit these kind of crimes

About that...

Illitterates and cavemen that live in the third world. I'm talking about people that live in civilized countries, no buddhist has given trouble here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:


Not sure how freedom fits into your brave new world.

Freedom is allowing people to have their own religion but not to live their religion like they do in their countries. Laws are more important than religion, if you don't understand that you can't live in the civilized world in 2017. If you want to praise allah, good, if you don't want to eak pork or drank alcohool, good.

But if you pretend that men and women should live separate or with their typical restrictions (for example many swimming pools don't allow men and women at the same time anymore, thanks to muslims), if you pretend that allah can't be offended (we exalt works like jesus christ superstar, they must accept that offend a religion in not an offence, is actually fun), and many other things they can't imagine different but belong to western cultures, well, they won't have a future here. It's only a matter of time (and people slaughered) but this political correctness has destroyed europe, far rights leaders are rising. Do we really want that? I always voted for the lefties, I would hate a militarized country (like israel) or a dictatorship.

Jo Cox wasn't murdered by a Muslim. Anders Behring Breivik wasn't a Muslim. You're a liar, plain and simple. There's no benefit of the doubt, you'd have to have been living under a rock to miss those two events in particular.

 Blackie wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism

http://www.washingtonreport.me/2001-january-february/extremism-in-israel-is-fueled-by-a-growing-ultra-orthodox-movement-in-the-u.s.html

There really is more out there. Not that I expect you to look but we can try eh?

First link: we're talking about third world there, not in the civilized country. In europe those muslims that commit massacres are people born here, not cavemen.

Second link: jewish terrorism? I only see jewish that want to strike back in their own country against those ones who are their enemy.

Third link: Same as above, it's all about israel. Jewish people are actually at war with palestinians since decades.

A mentality like yours has given us islamic terrorism, and the rise of far-right leaders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
There are no chinese, brazilians, jews, buddhists, finnish or italians that commit these kind of crimes

About that...

Illitterates and cavemen that live in the third world. I'm talking about people that live in civilized countries, no buddhist has given trouble here.

Illiterates and cavemen? Really?

So...Do you want me to dig up cases of European terrorism and terrorists for you? Or can you find information contra to your shaky beliefs yourself?
Or maybe you can ignore this?
http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/15/the-number-of-terrorists-who-are-actually-religiously-motivated-will-surprise-you-5023616/ Not sure if the headline has a hint of sarcasm or not.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_modern_day_christian_terrorist_groups_our_media_conveniently_ignores_partner/ It's Salon so not sure of the slant.

You are wilfully ignorant of the issues that face Israel especially regarding ultra conservative Jewish groups who actually want Armageddon. And the Christian Messianic cultists especially in the US who want to achieve the same aim- -hoping that amongst other things settling Palestine will bring about the final battle?

I am very much in favor of Muslims distancing themselves from extremists. I have to assume that the majority that live (in the UK) do.

Spetulhu wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
And a Iowa class can do 30+ knots, a Montana was "slower" at 28. There speed in heavy seas is probbly faster than lighter modern ships. Finaly. With advancements in steel production we could probably make armour lighter than the WW2 steel if we wanted to.

Well, yes, but with aircraft (and missiles) being so good no one needs a battleship right now. It's really only useful for the niche task of bringing in 16-inch bombardment of some island or coast that you for some reason don't want to bomb from the air or use cruise missiles on. The same steel improvements could also be used to upgrade a carrier so why waste it on a battleship?

Battleship shells cost an absolute fraction of a guided missile. So they're infinitely more cost effective. They're also generally more powerful. Battleship guns were, after all, designed to sink other battleships, some of the most heavily armoured targets in existence. When an 18 inch gun starts lighting up on a target, it's a similar effect to being on the receiving end of the Somme barrage. Finally, an 18 inch gun offers the prospect of a more sustained barrage.

Assuming you mechanised large aspects of a modern battleship design (cutting the costs of running the thing), there could easily be a place for one or two in the American Navy. Certainly, it would provide more tactical flexibility than running yet another carrier would at this stage (with the Wasp LHD's on top of the Nimitz class, you've plenty of portable air assets). The Zumwalt has been nothing more than a classic case of Kaldor's Baroque Arsenal concept, and as pointed out, you could have built a couple of battleships for the same cost.

If I were in the US Navy's position though, I'd be more inclined to opt for a cruiser design. Since nobody else is running battleships, a smaller armoured cruiser design armed with heavy guns would offer the same tactical options for less cost, and you could spread the guns out a bit. There's all sorts of tricks naval architects can do when it comes to armour placement that you could probably make it almost as durable. You stick one or two of them in each American carrier fleet, and you've an instant advantage over any potential Chinese or Russian fleet that doesn't have them, and retain the same option of a cheap, effective artillery barrage if you want it.

 Blackie wrote:
Guns don't kill people, other people do.

People? I think you mean MEN do. As in, MALE humans. How many of those terrorists were MALE?
Just look at the fact buddy. THAT is the real link between all those murders, not religion.
The twin towers? It was 19 terrorists, ALL MALES!
Oklahoma City bombing? It was two MALES!
Boston Marathon bombing? It was two MALES!
This idiot? It was a MALE!
Orlando nightclub shooting? It was a MALE!
The Greensboro massacre? MALES MALES MALES!
The Columbine massacre? MALES I tell you, always MALES!
See, I'm not saying we should literally kill or neuter all MALES, I'm no extremist. I'm just saying MALES need to abandon their habit of shooting innocent people, and properly integrate into civilized society. If they continue to show that they can't do that, we need to send them all to protection camps, where they will be kept safe from harming themselves and others at the small cost of a loss of liberty. I mean, if they can't stop killing people for no good reason well it's on them ain't it?

But I guess as a MALE yourself you are too biased and emotional to accept these facts. Or you are just pro-random shooting maybe?


Inconvenient facts are inconvenient .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Guns don't kill people, other people do.

People? I think you mean MEN do. As in, MALE humans. How many of those terrorists were MALE?
Just look at the fact buddy. THAT is the real link between all those murders, not religion.
The twin towers? It was 19 terrorists, ALL MALES!
Oklahoma City bombing? It was two MALES!
Boston Marathon bombing? It was two MALES!
This idiot? It was a MALE!
Orlando nightclub shooting? It was a MALE!
The Greensboro massacre? MALES MALES MALES!
The Columbine massacre? MALES I tell you, always MALES!
See, I'm not saying we should literally kill or neuter all MALES, I'm no extremist. I'm just saying MALES need to abandon their habit of shooting innocent people, and properly integrate into civilized society. If they continue to show that they can't do that, we need to send them all to protection camps, where they will be kept safe from harming themselves and others at the small cost of a loss of liberty. I mean, if they can't stop killing people for no good reason well it's on them ain't it?

But I guess as a MALE yourself you are too biased and emotional to accept these facts. Or you are just pro-random shooting maybe?


Inconvenient facts are inconvenient .

Women in islamic countries are basically slaves, that's why the isis fighters are all male. Males in general are more aggressive, that is true, but there were a lot of women terrorists too, think about nigeria, a lot of kamikaze woman there or just palestinians girls that stabbed soldiers and than they went gunned down.

And that's another problem: over 90% of the illegals are males, they can't create a family or have a future here, that's another reason why many of them turn into criminals before, and into terrorists later.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Jo Cox wasn't murdered by a Muslim. Anders Behring Breivik wasn't a Muslim. You're a liar, plain and simple. There's no benefit of the doubt, you'd have to have been living under a rock to miss those two events in particular.

Yes ONE guy in scandinavian countries in history... how many eritreans murder sweden people for example? I remember mother and son at ikea or that girl killed by a fake minor.... joe cox was murdered because far rights powers are rising, and that's because we're allowing savages to live here as the barbarians they are.

As I always said it's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of cultures. Christians used to burn people alive not that many time ago, did christian religion changed since then? No, societies changed. Why is considered wrong to think that muslims that want to live like they were in their country shouldn't change?

Someone once told me that that Islamic terrorism was just a flash in the pan which would go away soon, whilst right wing terrorism was a cancer eating through society to become a permenant fixture of it. He had it the wrong way round.

 Blackie wrote:
Women in islamic countries are basically slaves, that's why.

That doesn't explain the many examples I gave of MALES from non-Islamic background living in non-Islamic states that ALSO go on shooting spree or other random terror attacks.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Oklahoma City bombing? It was two MALES!
This idiot? It was a MALE!
Orlando nightclub shooting? It was a MALE!
The Greensboro massacre? MALES MALES MALES!
The Columbine massacre? MALES I tell you, always MALES!

We are going to have more massacre until people like you begin to accept that MALES are the problem and that we need to deal with MALES!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
Males in general are more aggressive, that is true, but there were a lot of women terrorists too, think about nigeria, a lot of kamikaze woman there or just palestinians girls that stabbed soldiers and than they went gunned down.

Nonsense. 99% of the terrorists and murderers are MALES and you know it! Anders Breivik was a MALE! The Charlie Hebdo attacks were MALES attackers.
When 4 Japanese people from the Aum Shinrikyo cult released sarin gaz into the Tokyo subway, they were ALL MALES!!!
You can't deny the truth any longer. It's not a culture problem, or a religion problem, it's a sex problem. It's a MALE problem.

[edit]Or maybe it's because women in Japan and in the US and generally in Western countries are basically slaves too? But in this case it's still a MALE problem. I'm not saying kill all MALES but really round them up and send them away maybe?[/edit]

 Ketara wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
And a Iowa class can do 30+ knots, a Montana was "slower" at 28. There speed in heavy seas is probbly faster than lighter modern ships. Finaly. With advancements in steel production we could probably make armour lighter than the WW2 steel if we wanted to.

Well, yes, but with aircraft (and missiles) being so good no one needs a battleship right now. It's really only useful for the niche task of bringing in 16-inch bombardment of some island or coast that you for some reason don't want to bomb from the air or use cruise missiles on. The same steel improvements could also be used to upgrade a carrier so why waste it on a battleship?

Battleship shells cost an absolute fraction of a guided missile. So they're infinitely more cost effective. They're also generally more powerful. Battleship guns were, after all, designed to sink other battleships, some of the most heavily armoured targets in existence. When an 18 inch gun starts lighting up on a target, it's a similar effect to being on the receiving end of the Somme barrage. Finally, an 18 inch gun offers the prospect of a more sustained barrage.

Assuming you mechanised large aspects of a modern battleship design (cutting the costs of running the thing), there could easily be a place for one or two in the American Navy. Certainly, it would provide more tactical flexibility than running yet another carrier would at this stage (with the Wasp LHD's on top of the Nimitz class, you've plenty of portable air assets). The Zumwalt has been nothing more than a classic case of Kaldor's Baroque Arsenal concept, and as pointed out, you could have built a couple of battleships for the same cost.

If I were in the US Navy's position though, I'd be more inclined to opt for a cruiser design. Since nobody else is running battleships, a smaller armoured cruiser design armed with heavy guns would offer the same tactical options for less cost, and you could spread the guns out a bit. There's all sorts of tricks naval architects can do when it comes to armour placement that you could probably make it almost as durable. You stick one or two of them in each American carrier fleet, and you've an instant advantage over any potential Chinese or Russian fleet that doesn't have them, and retain the same option of a cheap, effective artillery barrage if you want it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4338944/US-military-tests-railgun-fires-bullets-4-500-mph.html

they work, 100 miles, impossible to intercept. BAE systems in UK are alaso meant ot bee working on the tech too.

that's triple the speed of a Iowa 16 inch round.

 Compel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Another carnage in europe.... how long do we need to witness events such this one before finally acting?

So we should go off and invade Jamaica then?

Bad idea. They don't call the Jamaica the graveyard of empires* for nothing.




*No one calls Jamaica the graveyard of empires.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Women in islamic countries are basically slaves, that's why.

That doesn't explain the many examples I gave of MALES from non-Islamic background living in non-Islamic states that ALSO go on shooting spree or other random terror attacks.

The difference is you have not shown any causation between the Male gender and violence. Correlation is not causation. And your ridiculous point is easily refuted by pointing out examples of women also committing acts of violence. Palestine is fond of female suicide bombers for instance.

There IS however causation between religion and violence. We KNOW why radical Islamists, (or any other religious radicals) commit violence, its because of their interpretation of their religion however extreme it may be, whether it be Muslims attacking Parliament or Christians bombing abortion clinics.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Someone once told me that that Islamic terrorism was just a flash in the pan which would go away soon, whilst right wing terrorism was a cancer eating through society to become a permenant fixture of it. He had it the wrong way round.

Indeed. Radical Islamism is entrenched and won't be going away any time soon.

http://www.westmonster.com/french-establishment-delay-bombshell-extremism-report-until-after-election/

A report on the links between Islam and radicalisation among youths has been delayed until after the French Presidential election, over fears its conclusions will boost support for Marine Le Pen.

At a press conference in Paris, researchers Olivier Galland and Anne Muxel delivered some shocking headline figures which highlight the clear link between being Muslim and holding radical ideas.

Here is what we know so far:

11% of respondents overall were classed as being religious ‘absolutions’ defined by their beliefs in religion over science. 6% of Christian students believed in religious absolutism, whereas that number rises to 32% of Muslim students.

Regardless of their performance at school and their parents’ profession, a young Muslim is four times more likely than a young Christian to adhere to radical ideas.

24% of those surveyed refused to completely condemn the Charlie Hebdo killings. 21% refused to condemn the Bataclan massacre, which saw 130 people murdered and a further 368 injured.

The rejection of secularism or homosexuality is much more pronounced among Muslims than in other religions.

33% of Muslim students consider it “acceptable” to “participate in violent actions for his ideas.”

20% of Muslim students agreed with the statement that ‘in today’s society, it is acceptable to stand up for your religion with weapons’.

When asked if these attitudes could be due to economic and social factors or a sense of victimisation, the researchers responded that “membership in the Muslim religion is the most predictive factor.”

Left-wing rag, Le Monde, slammed the researchers for ‘opening Pandora’s box’.

Sometimes the truth hurts…

I agree that it is acceptable to stand up for your religion with weapons or to participate in violent actions for your ideas. Those statements, whilst sounding scary on paper, are absolutely meaningless without some measure of when it becomes acceptable, what is the breaking point when violence becomes the only solution. It was an idea that the Nazis must be stopped and that genocide is wrong, does that make everyone who believed that violence was the answer to stop the holocaust an extremist?

It's like when the daily mail (I think it was them, might've been the sun) ran a headline saying that some high percentage of muslims in the UK supported ISIS when the question which they were actually asked was whether they supported islamic groups fighting against Assad, which included every muslim group involved in the civil war, not just ISIS.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The difference is you have not shown any causation between the Male gender and violence.

MALES' penis hormone makes them go mad? MALE brains are inherently evil? Tons of possible causation here.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Correlation is not causation. And your ridiculous point is easily refuted by pointing out examples of women also committing acts of violence. Palestine is fond of female suicide bombers for instance.

Well then I'll just use the same argument Blackie used.
“Yes ONE guy in scandinavian countries in history... how many eritreans murder sweden people for example?”
“A few women terrorists? How does that compensate for the HUGE predominance of MALES among people committing atrocities!
(Well, except for the mine is based on ACTUAL FACTS and his is based on alternative facts .)

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Sometimes the truth hurts…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4342254/ISIS-claims-responsibility-London-terror-attack.html

we have a claim, may not be true,

I know the 70s is like ancient history to most people and I get that. I was born in '79 and it feels like another world to me as well. But even so, to see something like this where someone is just so completely ignorant of the left wing terror groups that operated across Europe still amazes me.

I mean, just know your fething history. fething read.

 sebster wrote:
But even so, to see something like this where someone is just so completely ignorant of the left wing terror groups that operated across Europe still amazes me.

Are you talking about Blackie, or me? Or both?

 sebster wrote:
I know the 70s is like ancient history to most people and I get that. I was born in '79 and it feels like another world to me as well. But even so, to see something like this where someone is just so completely ignorant of the left wing terror groups that operated across Europe still amazes me.

I mean, just know your fething history. fething read.

I DO know my fething history. Just see my comments on Martin McGuinness and the IRA. But the fact is, they ARE history. Things have moved on, they are no longer the same threat that they once were. Yes, that might change one day if the Peace Process falls apart, but they are not currently the greatest terror threat. And I doubt they'll ever return to the levels of violence we saw in the Troubles, as others have said earlier, public opinion post 9/11 has moved on and ensured that political violence is no longer viable for the IRA.

We are talking about the present day, and in the present day the No.1 terror threat is radical Islam. And yet every time an attack happens, we get useful idiots and Quislings trying to downplay the influence of Islam and using What-about-ism comparing modern day terrorism to terrorism from decades ago as though that somehow refutes criticisms of Islam in the modern day. Hell, it probably won't be long until someone brings up the Medieval Crusades as a counter-argument...

The fact is, Islam today has a severe problem with radicalism. Radical Islam is the greatest terror threat we currently face, not matter how much you try to downplay it and pretend Right Wing terrorism or IRA terrorism is a worse threat.

Well said Shadow Captain. I exalt your post.

And in the meantime, we start the countdown to the next one, because nothing will change.

 sebster wrote:
I know the 70s is like ancient history to most people and I get that. I was born in '79 and it feels like another world to me as well. But even so, to see something like this where someone is just so completely ignorant of the left wing terror groups that operated across Europe still amazes me.

I mean, just know your fething history. fething read.

79 eh. That makes me feel old.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I know the 70s is like ancient history to most people and I get that. I was born in '79 and it feels like another world to me as well. But even so, to see something like this where someone is just so completely ignorant of the left wing terror groups that operated across Europe still amazes me.

I mean, just know your fething history. fething read.

I DO know my fething history. Just see my comments on Martin McGuinness and the IRA. But the fact is, they ARE history. Things have moved on, they are no longer the same threat that they once were. Yes, that might change one day if the Peace Process falls apart, but they are not currently the greatest terror threat. And I doubt they'll ever return to the levels of violence we saw in the Troubles, as others have said earlier, public opinion post 9/11 has moved on and ensured that political violence is no longer viable for the IRA.

We are talking about the present day, and in the present day the No.1 terror threat is radical Islam. And yet every time an attack happens, we get useful idiots and Quislings trying to downplay the influence of Islam and using What-about-ism comparing modern day terrorism to terrorism from decades ago as though that somehow refutes criticisms of Islam in the modern day. Hell, it probably won't be long until someone brings up the Medieval Crusades as a counter-argument...

The fact is, Islam today has a severe problem with radicalism. Radical Islam is the greatest terror threat we currently face, not matter how much you try to downplay it and pretend Right Wing terrorism or IRA terrorism is a worse threat.

Can't exalt this hard enough.

If I can quibble a minor part. Maybe instead of simply saying 'Islam' has a severe problem (as this connotes using a wiiiide brush), maybe clarify by saying "wings like the Wahhabism/Salafi of Islam has a severe problem with radicalism". We're talking about the largest religion in the world that is most definitely not monolistic.

I think that'll do much to defray the usual brushbacks.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We are talking about the present day, and in the present day the No.1 terror threat is radical Islam.

It's MALES and you know it. As a matter of fact most IRA terrorists were MALES, weren't they? Remove MALES and you get basically no terror attack. Even the very, very very few women terrorists (likely actually MALES in disguise, or forced by MALES to do it) don't even have a command structure anymore because the leaders are all MALES.

 whembly wrote:

If I can quibble a minor part. Maybe instead of simply saying 'Islam' has a severe problem (as this connotes using a wiiiide brush), maybe clarify by saying "wings like the Wahhabism/Salafi of Islam has a severe problem with radicalism". We're talking about the largest religion in the world that is most definitely not monolistic.

I'll see your quibble with a quibble. Hezbollah and other Shia groups don't fit your narrow parameters.

 whembly wrote:
If I can quibble a minor part. Maybe instead of simply saying 'Islam' has a severe problem (as this connotes using a wiiiide brush), maybe clarify by saying "wings like the Wahhabism/Salafi of Islam has a severe problem with radicalism". We're talking about the largest religion in the world that is most definitely not monolistic.

Oh yeah, I forgot something too. CIS-MALE are the greatest terror threat in the world. There, I fixed it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If I can quibble a minor part. Maybe instead of simply saying 'Islam' has a severe problem (as this connotes using a wiiiide brush), maybe clarify by saying "wings like the Wahhabism/Salafi of Islam has a severe problem with radicalism". We're talking about the largest religion in the world that is most definitely not monolistic.

Oh yeah, I forgot something too. CIS-MALE are the greatest terror threat in the world. There, I fixed it.

Of course they are also the greatest group of folks who join their respective militaries and police forces to fight terror. So you MAY need to narrow it down a bit.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Are you talking about Blackie, or me? Or both?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I DO know my fething history.

Yeah, guys I was talking about blackie. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps I should have quoted him. My bad.

And for what its worth, Shadow Captain Edithae, yes, the biggest source of terror right now is Islam, no argument there. But there is a mistake in thinking of something purely as history and leaving it at that, it means people can lose track of how many radical factions of any group can move in to terrorism, and perhaps more importantly it means people lose track of how they move out of terrorism. I'm not saying you did that, I just think it is a point that is often lost.

 CptJake wrote:
Of course they are also the greatest group of folks who join their respective militaries and police forces to fight terror. So you MAY need to narrow it down a bit.

Sure. They like bombing large group of people, and shooting black children with toy guns! How does that makes it okay for them to do all those terror attacks? By that rate I'd say militant Islamic groups are also the one doing most fighting against other militant Islamic groups .

 Frazzled wrote:
79 eh. That makes me feel old.

Probably because you are old

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If I can quibble a minor part. Maybe instead of simply saying 'Islam' has a severe problem (as this connotes using a wiiiide brush), maybe clarify by saying "wings like the Wahhabism/Salafi of Islam has a severe problem with radicalism". We're talking about the largest religion in the world that is most definitely not monolistic.

I'll see your quibble with a quibble. Hezbollah and other Shia groups don't fit your narrow parameters.

Shia terrorism is rare, and Hezbollah is basically Iranian terrorism to achieve Iranian interests. It is less religious terrorism and more state terrorism.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Someone once told me that that Islamic terrorism was just a flash in the pan which would go away soon, whilst right wing terrorism was a cancer eating through society to become a permenant fixture of it. He had it the wrong way round.

Isn't right wing terrorism and Radical islam basically linked? I mean, they are both "conservative" (I mean the word to represent not wanting to change) reactions to a changing world?