You really have to go back in time to find these examples. Their dates of terror operation are 1970's, 1980, 1980's, 1995 and for one which doesn't very well compare, 2010. And then they were largely hounded down and imprisoned (or executed, for McVeigh). Islamist terrorism is a newer and also much bigger trend (even in the West, although the vast majority of people killed are in Muslim countries).

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.

> You really have to go back in time to find these examples

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.

Yes, 1996 is not that long ago, but the overall picture is that many brands of terrorism have declined drastically after 1991, the fall of Soviet Union.

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.

The IRA was not bought down by miltiary operations. Various leaders of it are currentling serving in governments in Northern Ireland. (Martin McGuinness is Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Gerry Adams is a TD in Ireland)

> The IRA was not bought down by miltiary operations.

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.

"the 1980s" (picking 1986 since it's the mid-decade) are about as close in time to 9/11 (2001) than 9/11 is to us. Next year that's equidistant.

At which point does 9/11 not matter anymore?

The problem with terrorist attacks conducted by Islamist radicals compared to their non Islamist counterparts is the scope of those attacks as they transcend national borders and are not confined to a certain region or location, it's more of a global worldwide theater of operations for them unlike the usual terrorist organizations in Europe or the US.

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.