<<If only Chirchill could be consulted presently.
<<He had a lot of success blawsteing Facism , I shouldn't suppose that he would understand the threat of Islamo fascism simularly.>>
I think you'd really like Prof. Richard Overy's short book On the Origins of the Second World War. In a nutshell, British concerns (Churchill's included) had a lot to do with maintaining the balance of power in Europe and not allowing any one power to become dominant there, and with the defence and maintenance of a far-flung British Empire which was vulnerable to Japanese and Italian imperialism and really required a tough-guy image to discourage potential enemies from even discussing an attack on it. When Hitler attacked Poland after promising the British and French that Czechoslovakia was his last territorial demand in Europe, they could either ignore the insult, signalling to Japan and Italy that they might not fight for their Empire in the Mediterranean, Africa or Asia, or show some backbone and declare war on Germany, which they finally did.
Militant Islam controls no territories or armies. It's not a threat to any European or American state. Its long-term goal, far as I can see, is to goad the U.S. and Britain into mass killings of Muslims and other atrocities (torture was a bonus that I'm sure they never foresaw) in the hopes of inflaming the citizens of U.S. puppet states in the region and provoking the overthrow of the puppet regimes. So far the chief effect seems to be recruitment of more bodies into so-called "terrorist" activities, which relatively speaking, is a dead-end street. While it keeps the pot boiling, the focus of the movement ought to be revolution and regime change, cutting the strings to Washington, and so far, that ain't happening.
