I'm not big on the travesty of terrorism and extremist behaviors and beliefs. They're repugnant in all their iterations, without fail. I oppose violence except as a response to immediate threats of it. I'm a pragmatist, and a peace advocate. However, the balance of equities sometimes requires violence; that is to say, that pragmatism can trump peace.
You and I, say, may not agree on anything. I might oppose practically everything for which you advocate, but I unreservedly advocate your right to think it, and to try to convince others (myself included) that your reasoning is superior to any other I've yet entertained. You have the full right and opportunity to convince me, but you may well not have the ability. If your attempts to persuade me you're right have behind them a threat that should you not succeed, it's acceptable for you to kill me (or anyone else for that matter), then you're going to find that I'm extremely hostile to you and your position.
There's a gentleman named Pat Condell whose claim to fame is a youtube series. He's a former (present?) comedian whose opinions I take with that view. I'm sure like many comedians, his views are related to his comedy, but I still take what he says in the comedy way even knowing that he probably on the whole is representing something close to his politics.
Another person whom I follow is named Claire. I've linked to her several times. She's wry and hysterically funny as well. The other day she made a video which I embedded and commented on here. In it, she has a picture of Pat Condell in an SS officer's uniform with the words, translated here for your benefit, Condell on our side. This was written in German and is s parody of what used to appear on German soldiers' belt buckles: god on our side.
She doesn't much care for Pat Condell, which is an issue she and do not agree on. Sometimes heatedly.
I still think she's wrong in her characterization of Condell. One is that she doesn't take him in a comedic sense while I do. After all, why do I really care what a comedian thinks beyond their ability to make something entertaining.
Pat has apparently received enough feedback to make a video about it. On this narrow point, I am marching in goosestep with his opinion: anyone who thinks violence is an acceptable discussion technique is my enemy. It is entirely possible for someone to be completely wrong (and let's say that Pat Condell is just wrong about all of his politics), and still not deserve to be killed for it. It's entirely possible for someone to advocate for a position without it being said that they want others to killed in the name of that political ideology. Pat is in this category. Without passing judgment on his politics, he has always maintained that he's against oppression and violence. I see no reason to think otherwise.
Anyway, divorced from my treating him as a comedian whom I appreciate for comedy's sake, here is his latest contribution. If you're a Pat Condell hater, please point out exactly where in this you think he's wrong.
If you can't divorce what you think of Pat Condell from examining the validity of his claims here, then that's fine. You've just admitted that ideas are less important to you than the people holding them. That is to say, you've demonstrated that an idea that's otherwise notable and worthy of consideration ceases to become as such because you don't like a particular person who espouses it.
I have no such problems. Ideas are more important than people's personalities or likeability. If you fail to parse that, then I suggest you long-reflect on yourself because you've just become an ideologue of the lowest order.
Also, here's a good, funny take on it all from Billy Bob Neck.