See, this is what I mean. I specifically said “in the United States.” I wasn’t talking about Iraq, in which case the obvious threats come from Islamic extremists. I wasn’t talking about India, where the threat is from Hindu and Islamic extremists. I’m talking about the United States. And you bringing up Iraq here (as well as your dishonest attempt to portray McVeigh as the lone act of white male terrorism in the US) is simply doing what I’ve been saying – giving Christian extremists in the US a pass.
McVeigh wasn’t Christian. He self-identified as an agnostic (although he accepted the last rites just before his executions). And he did not commit his bombing in the name of any religion.
By “a pass” I assume you mean being arrested, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison (or executed).
Regards,
Shodan
He accepted last rites, but he wasn’t a Christian? And I notice that you, like Argent Towers are trying to ignore the other terrorists who did explicitly espouse a religious cause. Not all Muslim extremists espouse a specifically religious cause either–some of them espouse a political cause. Are you going to classify those people not as Muslim extremists? If that’s the case, then I’ll accept that McVeigh wasn’t a Christian terrorist, but he certainly was a white male one.
No, by pass, I mean trying to pretend that Christian extremism isn’t a problem in the US.
Just to add, I find the certainty with which it is being claimed that McVeigh was not a Christian to be out of proportion to his conflicting and obscure statements. To whit:
He was raised a Christian and said he maintained certain “core” beliefs. Perhaps he truly was an agnostic, perhaps he was a non-denominational Christian.
Tim McVeigh was not a practicing Christian and he certainly didn’t blow the building up in the name of religion. This is in stark contrast to Muslims who specifically commit acts of terrorism in the name of God. Do you not understand the difference? Christians and Muslims commit individual crimes all the time (including murder) but the acts of terrorism by Muslim Extremists is specifically driven by religion.
Christian terrorism is not a problem in the US by any fraction of a fraction of a fraction of Islamic terrorism.
Scot, sugar, etc. etc. :rolleyes:
I see a list of countries representing dozens of ethnicities and several different forms of government in your quote. Do they act as a Muslim hive mind that makes the use of the label “The Muslim World” something accurate or even useful? No. Will this imaginary world be able to overwhelm the populations of “The West” such that they can make a significant dent in the traditions favored by those in “The West”? No. The statement is silly and nothing more than an extension of prejudice where people tend to ignore the individual differences of an outgroup.
As far as statment #2 goes, I was in a 99% Muslim country on 9/11 and only so saw sadness, heard dozens of apologies once it was found out that I am an American, and people uncontrollably sobbing because their loved ones were in New York. Thanks to our willingness to allow immigration, people all over the world have a direct connection with the USA. I personally don’t want that to change because of xenophobes.
I’d say that the 90-100% region is pretty well defined.
Who cares, my point is made above, there is a ton of variation in terms of liberal values in what is called the Muslim World and I notice that your site and Magiver’s don’t even point to the same terrain.
It’s not, really. But since you seem to think it is, can you supply why. How many Christian extremists (whatever that means) have committed acts of terrorism in the U.S., in how long a time and resulting in how many deaths.
Also, since you seem to think that the ignorant xenophobes among us unfairly point to Muslim extremists as the main problem, are you prepared to assert that the FBI is expending as much effort in looking into terrorist threats from white Christians are they are Muslim extremists? If not, wouldn’t that mean that the white Christian terrorists should be having a field day, since the FBI is looking elsewhere?
But wouldn’t you grant that he was not a “Christian extremist”?
Your problem is going to be that Islam does not recognize the distinction between religion, and political organization. So it is quite difficult to maintain the distinction between political and religion motivation, in the case of Islamic terrorism.
But let’s try to avoid that by using an objective standard, and then comparing Christian terrorism with Islamic terrorism using that. Let’s choose deaths. That’s measurable.
So, the first attack on the World Trade Center killed six people and wounded another 1.042 others (cite). 9/11 killed another 3,066 (I assume you don’t need a cite on that).
So in the last decade, Islamic terrorists in the US have killed 3,072 people. Could you please come up with a count of all the people killed by Christian terrorists in the US during the same period? I can only think of three, and that’s if you go back further to 1996.
Then we can compare the totals and see which is the greater problem, Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not playing this game, because deaths are not the only measure of extremist activity, and if I were to compile deaths by Christian groups in this country for it’s entire history (such as terrorist acts committed by the KKK), it would certainly add up to far more than the 2800 or so deaths from 9/11.
However, compiling deaths over the entire history of the United States is rather pointless, since nobody is bombing churches over civil rights anymore. Right now, in the US, in the present, we have two groups that pose a threat to national security - Christian and Islamic extremists.
The FBI certainly does spend a lot of time looking at Christian extremists, and they have successfully thwarted several plots over the years (such as this WMD plot). It’s not the FBI that I think gives the pass (fortunately for the rest of us, the FBI understands the threat and is actually concerned about our domestic security). It’s people like you who try to pretend there isn’t a problem with Christian extremists.
Are you trying to imply that Muslims don’t see regions of the world as distinctly Muslim? Are you so full of political correctness that you can’t acknowledge this? Are you really willing to say that there isn’t a problem with Islamic extremism as a distinct anti-Western condition? As we speak the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is threatening some kind of event this week against Western powers.
For discussion purposes what country would that be because I’m willing to bet there was open celebration of 9/11 in the streets by extremists. Do you not understand the term Muslim extremists? It’s a term that accurately describes the fanatical side of the religion. It does not represent the entire religion but it’s an acknowledgment of fact that the fringe element exists and is actively promoting random acts of violence.
Why should I grant that? His statements were conflicting, and it’s just as reasonable to call him a Christian extremist as it is to say he was an agnostic extremist.
The people committing the acts of terror are Muslim extremists. They all belong to a larger group called Muslims. Yes, they are a minority. But given the sheer numbers, there are many, many millions who believe that violence against innocents is justified.
Here is an excellent post by George Kaplin from another thread that sheds some light.
But you’re trying to equate their threat by degree. You can’t just say that they fall into two groups and then assume they’re equal. You must be kidding.
Convince me. You seem to be working from the assumption that both groups are equal threats.
This is utter nonsense, since there’s no shortage of secular-based philosophies that were developed by Muslims (such as Baathism, pan-Arabism, Pakistani secularist philosophy, etc.). But I would also add that there are Christians who also do not distinguish between religion and political organization in the US. There’s not some clear cut line that divides political from religious motivations except in the case of explicitly atheistic political movements.
As I’ve pointed out multiple times in this thread, there is no particular reason to use this as the sole metric, and that over the entire history of the US, the death toll from Christians is much higher.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You want to limit the statistics in such a way so that you can see which is the “greater” problem, not whether or not both of them are a problem. Personally, I think people stockpiling WMDs in Texas is a problem, regardless of how many people do it, but I can see that since it’s not a “greater” problem, it’s not relevant.
Honestly, I never thought I’d see the day when people would so blatantly spit on our national security.
WHAT?! A Christian extremist is not someone who is just 1) Christian and 2) extreme. His extremism must be in hi Christianity, or the degree he wishes to impose or protect it. You seem to be trying really hard to construct a reality that doesn’t exist. The very thing you seem to be arguing against. I think you need to think this through a little more.
I didn’t equate the threat by degree. They are both threats, and neither should get a pass.
Nope, I would never claim that, because it depends on how you want to analyze the statistics. Why don’t you convince me that people blowing up buildings, shooting people and stock piling WMDs doesn’t constitute a significant threat?