There used to be terrorist, they were the bad guys. These were then split into good terrorists and bad terrorists, the distinction was somewhat undetermined. The current UKPM has now introduced yet another sub-group of terrorists, the "relatively hardline Islamist groups, not to be confused with the spice girl group.
He failed to inform the UK public whether they were more or less bad than the "moderate terrorists". He also included this new group, RH_ISIS, into the people who would flock to the aid of UK nationals if attacked by the real bad ISIS terrorists groups anywhere in the world, when asking parliament to vote for war in Syria.
The current UKPM himself appears to be confused with that statement in this picture, recently taken in between pig roastings at No 10.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...militants.html
"Mr Cameron published a 36-page dossier last monthdetailing a series of arguments as towhy it was militarily, legally and morally right to launch air strikes against Isil in Syria. He said then that the strikes would relieve pressure on the 70,000-strong Syrian opposition fighters who have shown themselves capable of “retaking and holding Isil territory”and “relieving the suffering of the civilian population” there.
However, questioned about the 70,000 'army', Mr Cameron said on Tuesday: “Are all of these people impeccable democrats who would share the view of democracy that you and I have? “No, some of them do belong to Islamist groups and some of them belong to relatively hardline Islamist groups but nonetheless that’s the best estimate of the peoplethat we have potentially to work with.”
An estimate of the potential numbers, of their morals or both which is it cameroon?It appears once again the UK Parliament have been sold a pup with regards to the reasons to fight yet another war at the behest of their masters.