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

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

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

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

All these are fairly recent examples of non-Muslim radicals attempting to effect social change by the same means Muslim radicals use to try and effect such change in Western countries. That they have not succeeded in building a near-nation state out of that terrorism is largely due to the higher stability of “Western” countries compared to the middle east, though, depending on whom you ask, they were quite successful in Ukraine.

I see this line of argumentation regularly, but since those movements were brought down with significant police and military operations, I don't see them as good examples for why Muslim extremism should not be brought down by police and military operations. There are other reasons, but this comparison doesn't qualify.

I remember the centre of my local town being blown to shit when I was a teenager.

1996 is not that long ago. You really shouldn't discard it as 'the past'. What's funny is, large segments in the US actively supported these terrorists. All their rhetoric and they're just as guilty.

There's much less logistical support for various left-wing movements. After 2001, American authorities no longer approved of funding and supporting IRA operations in Britain so any hopes of "military" achievements by Irish nationalists dwindled. Also support for ETA and similar movements in Europe have declined.

RAF (Red Army Fraction) and various Arab groups used to work together; that seems nowadays negligible. But jihadist violence has increased its profile.

Yes, but I would say that the hope of any "military" achievements by IRA (in the sense of aggravating so much violence as to make UK give away North Ireland) was lost as funding and arms dealing was more difficult and surveillance more effective. So it was good sense to stick to the Good Friday agreement.

At which point does 9/11 not matter anymore?

Also, I have reservations including nationalist movements and lone-wolf ops in your rebuttal as the underlying nature of the struggle is completely different than that of the Islamic terrorism. You could reason with a radical nationalist and persuade them to explore other options than an armed struggle to reach political goals but good luck trying that with a faith-driven, theology-loving radical who thinks he's on some divine (read: apocalyptic) mission to cleanse the masses of their imaginary sins.

Though here that's beside the point. The Paris attacks were not because France is a free country, but because France was bombing Daesh. This is more like the Lockerbie bombing than like some sort of "clash of civilizations" that so many are implying

What a disgusting rationalization of the indiscriminate killing of innocent people.

"An online statement said eight militants armed with explosive belts and automatic weapons attacked carefully chosen targets in the "capital of adultery and vice," including a soccer stadium where France was playing Germany, and the Bataclan concert hall, where an American rock band was playing, and "hundreds of apostates were attending an adulterous party.""

Oops, they were actually "carefully chosen targets". That's better.

[1] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/isis-statement-france-to...

I think ISIS is a horrible, horrible movement that should be destroyed. But their strategy has been very consistent: attack countries that attack them.

They left Russia alone until Putin decided to bomb them. It was only a few weeks before they blew up a Russian airliner.

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/kidnapped-frenc...

I'm not arguing ISIS are good people. I'm arguing that, if you don't want to be on the receiving end of terrorist attacks from ISIS, the best way to do that is to stop bombing them.

Otherwise you should assume that they will happen as a matter of routine.

Thus validating the terrorists' approach. They use fear as a means of control and, according to your argument, it is an effective approach. I don't know what the answer is, but I do not think that allowing marauders to wander around the world staking claim to peoples' land is acceptable. Much less when they commit so many atrocities along the way.

If the choice is to: a) stop bombing and be hopeful that the terrorists will go away or b) try to stop the raping, murdering, and other atrocities via violence... I know where I stand.

You may know where you stand, but dollars to donuts you don't know what your government is doing in your name.

I'm not "blaming America first." I'm asking that we behave like adults and take responsibility for the consequences of our behavior.