# The Third Jihad-recommended viewing **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 16, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953 "2010-07-16T18:28:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/221 "2010-07-21T22:57:55Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > No, what **Magellan** , myself, and others are saying is that if a person is a Muslim and spends a lot of time listening to radical clerics spouting their hateful bullshit, doesn’t seem to have many friends other than the nutjobs s/he meets at the mosque that allows radical fuckwits to preach there, and in no way tries to integrate themselves into the society they are living in, then that person needs to be looked at with some suspicion, because they are far more likely to want to cause public harm than the muslim who doesn’t try to separate themself from society in general. If that’s what he means (and I’ll let him speak for himself. If you told me the sky was blue I’d look outside to doublecheck), then there’s been a communication problem. Because what I’ve been hearing from him is that ALL muslims “spend a lot of time listening to radical clerics…don’t have many friends…and don’t try to integrate themselves into society”. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/222 "2010-07-21T23:51:43Z")
No, that sounds more like what you _want to hear_. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/223 "2010-07-22T00:49:48Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > if that’s what he means (and i’ll let him speak for himself. If you told me the sky was blue i’d look outside to doublecheck), then there’s been a communication problem. Because what i’ve been hearing from him is that all muslims “spend a lot of time listening to radical clerics…don’t have many friends…and don’t try to integrate themselves into society”. YIKES! I don’t how you gleaned that from my words. But this thread has been quite interesting in how much commentary there has been on things I have not said and do not believe, yet have been attributed to me. Equally astounding is the flak I’ve been getting for an exceedingly benign position: that if we’d like to protect ourselves against the threat from radical Islam—and I believe we should, as the threat is real—then it makes perfect sense to be wary of Muslims, _if that is the only information one has._ Others seem to think that we should pay as much attention to Christians or Jews or Quakers. The stupidity of that position is so monumental that it is almost inconceivable. It’s as if you were looking for rabid pit bulls and wouldn’t first narrow down your search to all pit bulls, but include golden retrievers and springer spaniels and toy poodles in your search. But such is what political correctness does to the mind. In this regard (the effects of one having an infatuation with being politically correct) the radio personality Michael Savage is right: liberalism is a mental disease. It’s really quite unbelievable. I suggest that people reread the thread. Yeesh! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/224 "2010-07-22T00:53:11Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Ah, but I’m sure someone will pop in to let you know that he was not a “true Christian”. In the sense that it is intended, he wasn’t. And he did not commit his heinous, murderous act in the name of Christianity. If you didn’t know that, now you do. And hopefully can see how his motivation had nothing to do with religion, which contrasts greatly from the barbarian animals who kill innocents, or try to kill innocents, in the name of Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/225 "2010-07-22T01:14:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > …that if we’d like to protect ourselves against the threat from radical Islam—and I believe we should, as the threat is real—then it makes perfect sense to be wary of Muslims, _if that is the only information one has._ Others seem to think that we should pay as much attention to Christians or Jews or Quakers. The stupidity of that position is so monumental that it is almost inconceivable You are conflating two different positions. You’re right that it doesn’t make sense to be extra-wary of Christians or Jews when searching for radical Muslims. But! Just because we should be wary of Muslims **as opposed to Christians or Jews** concerning the issue of Radical Islam specifically does NOT mean that we should be wary of ALL Muslims just because of the existence of radical Islam. You say “if that is the only information one has”. But that is _never_ going to happen outside a hypothetical situation. There is always more information, and it is almost always more pertinent than religion. One’s religion is typically fairly irrelevant, because people behave in all wildly sorts of different ways despite being the same religion, and because there are countless varieties of almost every religion. The fact that you think everyone should be wary of Muslim people based solely on their religion suggests that you do think that it is an indicator of future behavior, which is, as I explained repeatedly, both stupid and inaccurate. Let’s take an analogy. Say, in Largecity USA there were a rash of robberies, and every eyewitness reported the assailants as being black. Yes, it would be stupid for the police to arrest people of every race equally for this particular crime. But! It would be equally stupid for you to be fearful of every black person in the city because of the rash of robberies. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/226 "2010-07-22T01:27:03Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > You are conflating two different positions. You’re right that it doesn’t make sense to be extra-wary of Christians or Jews when searching for radical Muslims. But! Just because we should be wary of Muslims **as opposed to Christians or Jews** concerning the issue of Radical Islam specifically does NOT mean that we should be wary of ALL Muslims just because of the existence of radical Islam. You say “if that is the only information one has”. But that is _never_ going to happen outside a hypothetical situation. There is always more information, and it is almost always more pertinent than religion. One’s religion is typically fairly irrelevant, because people behave in all wildly sorts of different ways despite being the same religion, and because there are countless varieties of almost every religion. The fact that you think everyone should be wary of Muslim people based solely on their religion suggests that you do think that it is an indicator of future behavior, which is, as I explained repeatedly, both stupid and inaccurate. I’m not sure if you’ve read the whole thread, but I’ve repeatedly said that it makes sense as a first step. Do we want to identify radical Muslims? Assuming “yes”, then you first tighten the scope from 300 million people to about 2.5 by using “Muslim” as the first filter. That’s all I’ve been saying. And that doesn’t necessitate any action at that point, because the pool is still too large. So, next you maybe tighten the scope further by looking at, for instance, gender, age, particular mosque affiliation, travel to Yemen. You apply as many filters as you can. But the first one is the easiest and the most logical—and it will need to be applied at some time in the process anyway. A radical Muslim belongs to the larger set of “Muslims”. > [@pedescribe](#): > > Let’s take an analogy. Say, in Largecity USA there were a rash of robberies, and every eyewitness reported the assailants as being black. Yes, it would be stupid for the police to arrest people of every race equally for this particular crime. But! It would be equally stupid for you to be fearful of every black person in the city because of the rash of robberies. The first question I have to ask is: what percent of Largecity is black. If the answer is 99%, that information will not be nearly as useful as if the population was less than 1% black. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/227 "2010-07-22T02:11:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not sure if you’ve read the whole thread, but I’ve repeatedly said that it makes sense as a first step. Do we want to identify radical Muslims? Assuming “yes”, then you first tighten the scope from 300 million people to about 2.5 by using “Muslim” as the first filter. That’s all I’ve been saying. And that doesn’t necessitate any action at that point, because the pool is still too large. So, next you maybe tighten the scope further by looking at, for instance, gender, age, particular mosque affiliation, travel to Yemen. You apply as many filters as you can. But the first one is the easiest and the most logical—and it will need to be applied at some time in the process anyway. A radical Muslim belongs to the larger set of “Muslims”. If that’s all you’re saying, that’s fine. I agree. But yes I have read the whole thread, and that’s not what it sounded like you were saying, is all. > [@](#): > > The first question I have to ask is: what percent of Largecity is black. If the answer is 99%, that information will not be nearly as useful as if the population was less than 1% black. The national average, seeing as it’s a hypothetical example. 14%. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/228 "2010-07-22T02:27:25Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > If that’s all you’re saying, that’s fine. I agree. But yes I have read the whole thread, and that’s not what it sounded like you were saying, is all. Well, if you’d care to pull out some quotes of mine that might conflict with I just said, I’d be happy to address them. And be curious to see them. > [@pedescribe](#): > > The national average, seeing as it’s a hypothetical example. 14%. Then it would probably be somewhat helpful. The point is that the smaller the percent the more helpful it would be. Obvious if the percent were so small that it defined only five individuals, that would be REALLY helpful. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/229 "2010-07-22T02:53:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It all depends what you mean by “discriminate”. Is taking into account information about religion, or race, gender, nationality, automatically “discrimination” in the sense that we abhor? Or can one use that information to assess different levels of threats, etc.? The PC line some want to take would mean that if one were to look at religion as a factor, that you’d have to assume the level of threat coming from Muslims and Quakers is the same. Lets say that we have statistical proof that vegetarian are more likely to become genocidal tyrants than omnivores. Should we be wary of electing vegetarians? > [@](#): > > And I’ll pose the question another way, as well. Let’s say a car bomb is driven into a mall in New Jersey, killing 100 innocent people, including children. You have to bet $10,000 of your own money on the religion of the person responsible. Which religion do you choose? Christian. The odds are overwhelmingly in my favor. > [@magellan01](#): > > Okay. So you simply look to the the fact that there are many more Christians in the U.S., the same way you would guess the religion if the question was: a man won the lottery in NJ Yeah, pretty much. I don’t disagree (i don’t think ANYONE disagrees) that there is a threat from radical Islam. I disagree that we cast a “wary” eye towards ALL muslims because I am so fucking afraid one of them is going to be wearing a suicide vest. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t it be wise to make your be be a smarter one by having it be based on additional information? I think I’d like evidence that a muslim did it before I started rounding them up. > [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > No, what **Magellan** , myself, and others are saying is that if a person is a Muslim and spends a lot of time listening to radical clerics spouting their hateful bullshit, doesn’t seem to have many friends other than the nutjobs s/he meets at the mosque that allows radical fuckwits to preach there, and in no way tries to integrate themselves into the society they are living in, then that person needs to be looked at with some suspicion, because they are far more likely to want to cause public harm than the muslim who doesn’t try to separate themself from society in general. It sounds like you have a LOT of other factors you can use for your filter before you cast a broad net over all muslims. If you guys want to refine your wariness to religious radicals that spout hateful bullshit that don’t seem to have many friends other than the other radicals they meet at the church/mosque/temple/shrine that allows radical fuckwits to preach there, then fine. If there is a history of violence from members of that congregation then I’ve got no problem with what you are saying but when you say, “lets watch out for those muslims” thats just bigotry. Especially when the exhortation is to be “wary” (wink wink nudge nudge) > [@pedescribe](#): > > Yes, it would be stupid for the police to arrest people of every race equally for this particular crime. But! It would be equally stupid for you to be fearful of every black person in the city because of the rash of robberies. Yes ^ this > [@magellan01](#): > > A radical Muslim belongs to the larger set of “Muslims”. Or radical muslims belong to the larger set of radicals. Why not just keep an eye on all radicals, why cast the net as muslims and filter out the radicals why not just cast the net at radicals? > [@](#): > > If the answer is 99%, that information will not be nearly as useful as if the population was less than 1% black. OK lets say its NYC with a population of 20 million. 1% would be about 200,000 blacks. You are casting a net that is unnecessarily racist/bigoted. My instinct would be to cast the net at radicals of all flavors, white supremecists, christian identity, pro-lifers, the weather underground, skinheads, teabaggers, American Patriots for Freedom Foundation, Central Texas Militia, Texas Well Regulated Militia, vegetarians, American Armenian Militia, Freedom Force International, and all manner of other radical groups. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/230 "2010-07-22T02:55:48Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > If that’s all you’re saying, that’s fine. I agree. But yes I have read the whole thread, and that’s not what it sounded like you were saying, is all. The thing is that he is only suggesting we be “wary” of muslims based on their muslimness because there are some radicals among them. Why not just target radicals (e.g. militais and radical muslim groups)? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/231 "2010-07-22T03:16:45Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Lets say that we have statistical proof that vegetarian are more likely to become genocidal tyrants than omnivores. Should we be wary of electing vegetarians? Depends on the numbers. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t disagree (i don’t think ANYONE disagrees) that there is a threat from radical Islam. I disagree that we cast a “wary” eye towards ALL muslims because I am so fucking afraid one of them is going to be wearing a suicide vest. And I don’t disagree either. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It sounds like you have a LOT of other factors you can use for your filter before you cast a broad net over all muslims. If you guys want to refine your wariness to religious radicals that spout hateful bullshit that don’t seem to have many friends other than the other radicals they meet at the church/mosque/temple/shrine that allows radical fuckwits to preach there, then fine. If there is a history of violence from members of that congregation then I’ve got no problem with what you are saying but when you say, “lets watch out for those muslims” thats just bigotry. Nope. It’s common sense. If you’re looking for rabid pit bulls, looking for pit bulls is a pretty good start. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Or radical muslims belong to the larger set of radicals. Why not just keep an eye on all radicals, why cast the net as muslims and filter out the radicals why not just cast the net at radicals? I think that’s fine, too. I’d look at it both ways. It’s my guess that there is a greater likeliood that a Muslim radical could fly under the radar as a “radical”, so I’d start with “Muslim”. But even if you start with “Radical”, isn’t “Muslim” the next sieve? I hope so, because otherwise you’re wasting a lot of time looking at people that, by definition, you know are not Muslim radicals. But for some strange reason you are INTENT on ignoring Muslimness as a qualifying factor. That’s just dumb when the people you are looking for are 1) Muslim, of the 2) radical strain. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > OK lets say its NYC with a population of 20 million. 1% would be about 200,000 blacks. You are casting a net that is unnecessarily racist/bigoted. My instinct would be to cast the net at radicals of all flavors, white supremecists, christian identity, pro-lifers, the weather underground, skinheads, teabaggers, American Patriots for Freedom Foundation, Central Texas Militia, Texas Well Regulated Militia, vegetarians, American Armenian Militia, Freedom Force International, and all manner of other radical groups. Well, this is just insane, and shows where your priorities are. You have a crime that you know to be committed by a black person, yet you would waste time and resources looking at skinheads and white supremacists? Please tell me you made a mistake. Because that is just plain counterproductive. Not to mention just plain dumb. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/232 "2010-07-22T04:39:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It’s as if you were looking for rabid pit bulls and wouldn’t first narrow down your search to all pit bulls, but include golden retrievers and springer spaniels and toy poodles in your search. You really felch at analogies. It’s actually as if one were looking for a rabid dog, but focused on pit bulls because a few of them are rabid. If I’m looking for a rabid dog, I’m looking for loss of memory, mood changes, motor control issues, and drooling in any breed of dog. You would be looking for dogs that have genetic features that matched the last dog you saw with rabies. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/233 "2010-07-22T05:21:50Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > You really felch at analogies. It’s actually as if one were looking for a rabid dog, but focused on pit bulls because a few of them are rabid. If I’m looking for a rabid dog, I’m looking for loss of memory, mood changes, motor control issues, and drooling in any breed of dog. You would be looking for dogs that have genetic features that matched the last dog you saw with rabies. You are, unsurprisingly, wrong. In my example we are trying to find “rabid pit bulls”—that was the danger we’ve identified. Not just rabid dogs, but rabid pit bulls. we have that much information, not less. THAT much is a given in the exercise. In which case my analogy works perfectly: starting set… Americans… Dogs smaller benign subset… Muslims…Pit bulls smaller still dangerous subset…Radical Muslim… Rabid pit bulls Or… Americans : Muslims : Radical Muslims :: Dogs : Pit Bulls : Rabid Pit Bulls If you want to redefine the task, that’s different. But my analogy works perfectly. If not, feel free to point out where the flaw is. But you don’t get to redefine the problem in the process. Or don’t you know what an analogy is? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/234 "2010-07-22T09:59:39Z")
I don’t think he knows what an analogy is. Still, at least **Damuri** has kept quiet since that ridiculous paragraph upthread. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/235 "2010-07-22T10:24:24Z")
Help, I’ve been savaged by a poodle. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/236 "2010-07-22T12:05:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are, unsurprisingly, wrong. In my example we are trying to find “rabid pit bulls”—that was the danger we’ve identified. Then your example sucks. We’re looking for terrorists, not Muslim terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/237 "2010-07-22T12:13:50Z")
It’s only muslim terrorists that are talking about waging a Holy War - I’m fucked if I know how one of them works, but still - against The Infidel West And All Its Allies. Just sayin’, like. IOW… you muslims do what you can to expose the haters among your crowd, and right-thinking people across the divide will do their best to limit the hateful elements among our kind. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/238 "2010-07-22T12:24:41Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Then your example sucks. We’re looking for terrorists, not Muslim terrorists. Let’s, for a minute, say you’re correct and that terrorism defined more broadly is a threat we need to be concerned with. Wouldn’t the next step be to try to define that terrorism more narrowly so we can address it. Maybe say, “Okay, we have three strains of terrorists that we need to try to stop before they kill: Skinheads, Christian anti-abortionists, and Muslim extremists.” Notice that we are allowing the groups themselves to narrow down who they are. And it needn’t be religious. But it can be religious. Would you agree that that makes sense so far? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/239 "2010-07-22T13:04:27Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > No, because the evidence suggests that this act was done by a local crazy person (why else would it be in New Jersey? There are plenty of better targets). To quote the New York Post of April 20, 1995: “Knowing that the car bomb indicates Middle Eastern terrorists at work, it’s safe to assume that their goal is to promote free-floating fear and a measure of anarchy thereby disrupting American life.” Granted, the event of April 19, 1995, they were editorializing about turned out to have been perpetrated by non-Muslim Timothy McVeigh, but that’s just one of those minor technicalities. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953/240 "2010-07-23T01:04:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are, unsurprisingly, wrong. In my example we are trying to find “rabid pit bulls”—that was the danger we’ve identified. Not just rabid dogs, but rabid pit bulls. we have that much information, not less. THAT much is a given in the exercise. In which case my analogy works perfectly: > > starting set… Americans… Dogs > smaller benign subset… Muslims…Pit bulls > smaller still dangerous subset…Radical Muslim… Rabid pit bulls > > Or… > > Americans : Muslims : Radical Muslims :: Dogs : Pit Bulls : Rabid Pit Bulls Therefore: starting set… Americans… Dogs smaller benign subset… Right Wingers…Pit bulls smaller still dangerous subset…Radical Right Wingers… Rabid pit bulls Or… Americans : Right Wingers : Radical Right Wingers :: Dogs : Pit Bulls : Rabid Pit Bulls Gotta be wary of them Right Wingers. Failing that, we get more occurrences of the Alfred P. Murrah building, Atlanta Olympics bombing, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-third-jihad-recommended-viewing/546953.md?page=13)