The argument against the fur trade runs like this ... "I hate people who wear fur because they are paying money into an industry that is cruel to animals".
The argument in favour of international terrorism runs like this ... "I hate people who are British because they are paying money into a nation that is cruel to people".
In essence the argument stated as series of propositions is:
1/ I hate X
2 / BECAUSE they pay money into Y
3/ AND Y is cruel to animals/people.
It is this argument that allows animal rights activists to chuck paint over people who wear fur. It's the same one a terrorist uses when justifying attacks upon civilians.
From my point of view it might be better to cut out X from the equation. If you are inclined to hate I'd direct such inclinations at Y, that way you're hating someone who is actually doing something cruel.
This point of view is not popular because society has deliberately overstated the power of market forces. People have been led to believe that their money has an almost supernatural power to persuade someone to action. Faith in its value makes it possible to easily order huge numbers of citizens. It also gives them a convinient excuse for compromising their own morality: "I was just doing my job".
If your job involves torturing animals for their fur or murdering people perhaps those coins aren't worth it and it's time for you to wake up.
Now PETA slam under-siege Kim Kardashian with billboard condemning her for wearing fur (and her sister Khloe agrees too).