I always take issue with the "become terrorist" line of thinking. What's saying there's a personal progression with an associated change of state? It might be m

I always take issue with the "become terrorist" line of thinking. What's saying there's a personal progression with an associated change of state? It might be more helpful to view these as events, brought upon by a continuous influence; the specifics of who acts out or why matter little when you consider the consequences, what matters could be to identify what environmental conditions are exploited to influence people towards these positions and affect that. This isn't intended as a defense for the choices or judgements of any party involved, I just wonder why we collectively cling to the notion of 'turning evil'. Pretty much any form of social-building construct is/has been construed as a fascist authoritarian political ideology, so how about abstracting that part of the debate and focusing on who's using which of these ideological tools? Your argument could be made about the US, does that mean you equate both organisations? Their differences may lie more in the intentions of the deciders than in the methods each use to advance their agendas. All parties have different means and unkown goals in so making informed guesses as to the why of it all seems a bit futile.