I already answered that thread. Now I am waiting on you to answer this one. Once again though please keep the threads topics separate so that each thread may stay on topic.

I guess what my question to you would be how do you discount quantity and frequency of attacks and call it the same? Both a grenade and a hydrogen bomb are bombs, but I think we can agree there is a difference.

I am sorry you can't stay on topic for this thread.

Let me ask again since you are avoiding the question; I guess what my question to you would be how do you discount quantity and frequency of attacks and call it the same? Both a grenade and a hydrogen bomb are bombs, but I think we can agree there is a difference.

The question you have not answered or if you have please do so again so that I may understand, is how can you discount the frequency and quantity?

Yes there is a time limit or statue of limitations. I do know about Ira bombs, been a while even fir that.
I get it now, you are sympathetic towards them. Some how in your mind something that happened hundreds of years ago make the action of extremest today ok. In your eyes how can you ratify the subjugation of so many people by this religion? Christians are not perfect but we have evolved, not so much in some Islamic countries. Just imagine living in a country where you could not even Mae fun of religion without death threats to your life.

The only thing you seem confused about is who and what the biggest foreign active threat to US citizens is. My only rationale for it would be you are a sympathizer for them.

That may be the topic you want but is not the topic of the thread.

Seems to me you assume to much without asking for clarification.

I speak of current event and you speak of something 500 years ago. P,ease try and stay up to date on the world topics.

First of all, we both know that was unnecessary. You can repeatedly deny prejudice all you want, but it can still be present.

I will concede that, from a purely national and defense perspective, muslim extremists are more physically dangerous than most christian extremists. That is why, as you stated, the FBI lists many muslim terrorist groups as nationally threatening.

However, my point, which I will concede I failed to accurately make in lieu of focusing on what I perceived (and still perceive) as a consistent prejudice, is that all religions breed extremists. However, those extremists act out in different ways (which I failed to point out before). Muslim extremists happen to be localized in an impoverished area where they have access to weapons that can cause extreme damage. Christian extremists are not. However, Christian extremists fuel the anti-gay movement, fuel the still-existent KKK, ban books (Harry Potter), run Hell Houses that destroy the psychology of little children, murder abortion doctors, engage in terrorist activity (generally in countries other than the US, admittedly), and much more.

What I am trying to get at is that I find the actual "crazy" level of the extremists of every religion to be about the same, and I just see a difference in resource that fuels greater threat to the US (on the defense front). Extremist Muslims protest a video, extremist Christians ban, burn, and picket Harry Potter. Both react completely irrationally to anything they deem is any kind of offensive. I think we both can admit that. But, as I said, we can agree that Muslims are more a threat, physically and in a defense perspective, to the US, than Christian extremists.

Tell me when you go to christian heaven how many sex slaves will you have? NONE.0. NADA. You think that the Christians who had were part of the crusades are the same ones today? You don't think they have have changed? Well I bet female or homosexual preachers would disagree with you. Gays used to be put to death in the time of the crusades. Today they have can be the head of their own church. Though I do agree with you on one point, the terrorist today have a lot more in common with the Christians of old than modern Christians do. Go look at the typical life of a female or gay in one of these religious countries and their life has not changed since the age of the crusades. On the other hand, the quality of life and respect from the community has changed for women and gays in modern Christian life. Thats a fact.

That is not a fact when you take into account all sects of Christianity. And yes, I believe the Christian concept of the afterlife to be abhorrent, but that's another discussion.

I am going to leave this discussion until you respond to the other thread, where you continue to condescend and subsequently ignore. However, I will leave with this:

It is amusing that below you openly promote religious war, yet you can't see how all religion breeds undue violence.

I am sorry you can't accept facts. When that happens your emotion is driving you and I am not here to change how you feel. This is the place for that talk. Please tell me what Christians have that is comparable and applicable to the conversation that Muslim extremest want to have sex slaves in heaven. In no version of Christian heaven I have been show has sex slaves in it.

I am not sure what thread you are talking about but I would advise you post on that thread and I will reply.

I have not promoted war on any religion. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have said nothing about anyone other than Middle Eastern Muslim Extremest. I said nothing about Muslims as a whole. American, European and Asian Muslims have not acted out like these asses have, so I have no problem with them. Please learn to read, and ask questions about things and not just assume.

Ill leave you with this. You feel the actions of one Christian in 93 is the same as state religious terrorism that has been going on for 2000 years. I say lets play a game. Ill give you a terrorist attack and you give me what you think is a comparable attack. Lets see if your list is as recent, long, or has as much loss of life.

1. So lets start. There was a derogatory picture from the onion showing all the other major religions being lampooned. How many died from that compared to how many people died from this "movie" that came out?
2. Now state officials have placed bounties on the head of the movie producers, how many bounties did all the other religions place on the Onion for its distasteful pic?
3. Next how many jets have the Christians flown into buildings?
4. Next how many warships have the other religions used suicide bombers to blow up?

Please try and keep your answers up to date. All of my examples are from the last 10 years, and most from the last week. As a man who is 1/2 black and 1/2 native american I can tell you this country has changed in my life time to be more accepting of everyone. We are not the same country that we were 60 years ago, let alone 600 years ago.

I will respond to this after you address the thread involving "New evidence" of Jesus having a wife. I feel as if I won't have a balanced discussion with you until that is rectified.

Also, I am not near my laptop at the moment, so this will have to wait.

You have not answered that thread, and at the moment your actions in that thread don't make me inclined to continue any discussion with you.

All of those questions are obviously loaded. That's a no-brainer. What isn't as obvious is your unwillingness to spell out why recent actions matter more in discussions here than older actions.

I am staying exactly on topic. Your entire argument relies on the idea that recent events matter more than past events. I don't see why, and you haven't addressed that in the entire discussion. Despite repeated queries.

I am not avoiding the question. I have answered this a couple times, and your response is always that my examples aren't recent enough. Hence, my question for the fourth time: why this emphasis on recent events? How does being in the past negate an event's relevance?

By demonstrating that the Christian religion equals that frequency/quantity, if not surpassing it. The crusades, the inquisition, the KKK, Neo-Nazis, much of the ideal behind slavery, etc. etc. etc.

You have not demonstrated it at all. So what you are saying is people don't change? By that logic am I to assume you don't trust Germany, Japan, or Brittion or the South? You think the Christians are the same and have not changed since the cursaides? Yet we can see the changes. Just ask a gay or female preacher, is Christians the same as they were during the time of the cursades. Your theory is not very consistant and full of holes. Nazis are not Christians and the comments about slavery is just confusing and makes me question your understanding of history, but not any more than your other comments do.

For the fifth time, you are making a critical assumption that you have not proven. That past actions of a group are somehow invalid in a discussion about that group's affect on the world. How is this true?

Nazis often (not always) consider themselves devout Christians. The Bible was used as the ultimate defense of slavery in the US for quite some time. Many pastors were loud advocates of slavery being morally justified. Please cease attempting to make this discussion about my personal qualifications. It in no way furthers your argument.

I am not saying I distrust any of those groups... you are clearly not understanding my main point. All religious ideologies lead to violence and irrationality, almost equally, over the course of history. I can look at a country, for isntance Germany, and say... "Hey, that country was bad for a while." That doesn't mean I distrust them, it just means I can qualitatively recognize that , in the past, that country has been deleterious.

So your are argument is there is no diffrence between the past and present? You seem to think that how things are they will always be. That nothing changes. Well it has changed. The frequency of attacks made in the name of Islam is only increasing. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm If you feel that what happened 500 years ago makes it the same, well it was but then we stoped. 500 years ago your agument would had been very persuading, but today it just does not hold water. That was then and this is now. Germany has changed. The middle east is just getting worse. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/protests-in-pakistan-over-anti-islam-film.html?pagewanted=2&_r=moc.semityn.www Learn from the past, don't live in it. Today I am more likely to be killed in the name of Islam than I am to be killed in the name of any other relegion. I am more likely to see terrorist attacks in my life time by muslims than i am by any other relegion. That may not had been true a long time ago, and it might not be true in the distant future, but as of today and the world WE live in not, Islamis terrorist are the number one relegious threat the life and libertly for people world wide. I am sorry you are taking it personal but this, beleive it or not, is not about you.

So, you are simply engaging in a discussion in which you define evidences as having value only if they are extremely recent, at a cut off arbitrarily defined by you to fit your argument?

I'll briefly play along. Recent events of explicitly Christian terrorism:
-Religious conflict in Ireland is a very recent example of multiple deaths and small-scale conflicts fueled by the Christian religion.
-The National Liberation Front of Tripura is currently classified as one of the ten most active terrorists groups currently in existence by The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. This includes forcible conversion, often involving rape-until-conversion as a method. There are multiple other organizations related to this group, all which essentially do the same thing.
-Anders Behring Breivik

The list absolutely goes on.

Before I respond you will need to clarify some things. Namely pronoun confusion, the misuse of "ratify," and the failure to recognize my statement of recent examples invalidating your point.

This discussion is not about who the "biggest active threat" is to the US. At all. It is about whether all religions breed violence equally.

You still suffer from pronoun confusion.

OP:
"Why is it that all it takes is one 15 min independent"movie" about Muslims sends them into a berserk-er death rage.
But make a movie mocking Christianity. . . and we all laugh and smile. What happened there? Any thoughts?"

Seems to me like you are specifically asking for thoughts on the two religions and their reactions to things they find offensive. Nothing mentioned about threats to the US, everything pertaining to religions and a comparison between their capacities for violence. Don't try changing the topic, now.

So, what exactly am I inaccurately assuming? The post title is "Muslims vs Christians," and I treat it as a comparative post. The post literally asks if there are "any thoughts" on why muslims and Christians have been reacting differently to offensive stimuli. So I'm providing my thoughts.

Your retort has been to accuse me of being "sympathetic" towards "them." I still don't know who "them" refers to, and my entire argument hinges on treating all religious violence as similarly fueled and essentially indistinguishable, while yours that somehow the Christian violence that has occurred is not relevant, despite its clear existence. How is that not sympathizing with a specific side, here?

If I may quote myself:
"So, you are simply engaging in a discussion in which you define evidences as having value only if they are extremely recent, at a cut off arbitrarily defined by you to fit your argument?

I'll briefly play along. Recent events of explicitly Christian terrorism:
-Religious conflict in Ireland is a very recent example of multiple deaths and small-scale conflicts fueled by the Christian religion.
-The National Liberation Front of Tripura is currently classified as one of the ten most active terrorists groups currently in existence by The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. This includes forcible conversion, often involving rape-until-conversion as a method. There are multiple other organizations related to this group, all which essentially do the same thing.
-Anders Behring Breivik

The list absolutely goes on."

So did these people freak out over The Onion picture that was making fun of every religion other than islam? No. You don't know how to compare apples to apples do you? Though you are very good at comparing apples to oranges. As we all know to compare apples to oranges is a fool's errand.
But I will play along with your game. It would seem the FBI has an opinion on who the biggest terrorist threat is. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists
/> It would appear that no one on your list shows up.
Ok lets be fair, that was the FBI top ten terrorist people. So lets see what the state department has to say about the top terrorist organisations around the world, I wonder if your list shows up.
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
/> Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Date Designated

Name

10/8/1997

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

10/8/1997

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

10/8/1997

Aum Shinrikyo (AUM)

10/8/1997

Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

10/8/1997

Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) (IG)

10/8/1997

HAMAS

10/8/1997

Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)

10/8/1997

Hizballah

10/8/1997

Kahane Chai (Kach)

10/8/1997

Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (Kongra-Gel)

10/8/1997

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

10/8/1997

National Liberation Army (ELN)

10/8/1997

Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)

10/8/1997

Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

10/8/1997

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)

10/8/1997

PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)

10/8/1997

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

10/8/1997

Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17N)

10/8/1997

Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)

10/8/1997

Shining Path (SL)

10/8/1999

al-Qa’ida (AQ)

9/25/2000

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)

5/16/2001

Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA)

9/10/2001

United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

12/26/2001

Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM)

12/26/2001

Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LeT)

3/27/2002

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB)

3/27/2002

Asbat al-Ansar (AAA)

3/27/2002

al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

8/9/2002

Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)

10/23/2002

Jemaah Islamiya (JI)

1/30/2003

Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ)

3/22/2004

Ansar al-Islam (AAI)

7/13/2004

Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)

12/17/2004

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)

12/17/2004

al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI)

6/17/2005

Islamic Jihad Union (IJU)

10/11/2005

Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)

3/5/2008

Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)

3/18/2008

al-Shabaab

5/18/2009

Revolutionary Struggle (RS)

7/2/2009

Kata'ib Hizballah (KH)

1/19/2010

al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

8/6/2010

Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI)

9/1/2010

Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP)

11/4/2010

Jundallah

5/23/2011

Army of Islam (AOI)

9/19/2011

Indian Mujahedeen (IM)

3/13/2012

Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT)

5/30/2012

Abdallah Azzam Brigades (AAB)

9/19/2012

Haqqani Network (HQN)


Didn't see your list again. It looks as like the people you are worried about are not on the FBI or State Department list.
So I ask, why is it a 15 min video lampooning Muhammad sends people into a death rage but a picture lampooning all other religions has not caused any death?
The onion was trying to prove a point, and they did. The rest of the world can take a joke, just not the middle east.

The US is not the only country. And are you saying that it is somehow more rational/more acceptable to react to a voice in your head rather than an offensive video...?

No matter the motivation, the act of violence is generally the same (with standard exception for self-defense, etc). Furthermore, that list is not an example of terrorist organizations reacting to a video, it is a list of extremists in existence currently.

You are failing to prove your thesis because it is internally separated. Are you trying to say:
1. That the Muslim religion is more harmful to the world than the Christian religion, or,
2. That because the muslim religion reacts strongly to images, they are somehow less rational than others acting on "god's will," or,
3. That the US is most threatened my Muslim extremists?

If you could narrow that down, I think we could focus the discussion a little more. I am being honest here, and no sarcasm or negative tone is meant in this post: we just seem to keep moving away from main points. Focusing the discussion will hopefully help us both make our points more solidly.

Not all violence is the same Rape is not the same as murder. Child abuse is not the same as self inflicted abuse. I am sure we can agree that verbal and physical violence is different. Even the court system makes a distinction between murder 1 and manslaughter, due to the fact that not all violence is the same.
When it comes to embassy attacks in the name of god, Islam has the market cornered. I am sorry that you seem to think a country where in the name of God you will be killed if you are gay, or if you are a female you must have the permission of your male guardian to leave the house, own property or do just about anything, you think that is the same as living here in the US. As the topic of the post says, one can take a joke, the other will attack people who had nothing to do with the joke just because they are from the same country. I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD. None the less to answer your concerns in order;
1. Yes Islamic terrorist are more harmful to the US than ANY other religion. in the US there are thousands of murders done every year, but not in the name of GOD. once again, only islam terrorist caused 911 unless you forgot.
2. Anyone who kills in the name of god is not rational.
3. the biggest terrorist threat to the US is from Islamic terrorist, according to the FBI and State Department and anyone who reads the news.
I am not sure why you think the Middle East is on par with the civilized world. While the US is far from perfect, we (the state) do not kill over freedom of speech. Even if that includes some one being gay ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran )
Once women are allowed to dress how they like and not like sand ninja's, once people are able to live the life they want even if its not Muslim, then they will have taken a big step to being not part of the problem.

I never said that I agreed with any part of any religion. Now, before I respond, one last explanatory question: why do you focus only on the US in an international discussion?

This is about US citizens being killed over a movie they probably never saw. This is a discussion about why these people can't control them self. One of my favorite examples of that is women in these countries must dress like sand ninja's because a man can not control himself and will rape a woman who shows skin. These people can't control them self.

So, unlike the OP, the discussion is now supposed to just be Muslim hate from an exclusively American perspective?

When you learn to read, let alone read the parts that ARE ALL IN CAPS, then we may continue.

Sigh. I am reading every post you make, and every post has a consistent thread of anti-muslim sentiment. I'll post on this again later tonight, have to go for now.

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

CAN YOU READ THIS?

You are correct. Also note that Christian extremist have issues with people, Muslim extremist have problems with countries and people.

Generally true, although I believe many Christian extremists have issues with middle eastern countries. For example.

You are correct about that but the differences are not so big that they fly jets into towers or kill diplomats.

When you say/make something for the sole purpose of offending people and then they get offended I see no reason to defend the maker. You have right to free speech but the responsibility to own the consequences. Dump gasoline on a fire and I won't pity you if you get burned.

So people are not responsable for what do after reading something? I am not sure if you know this, but a keystone for the US is we may not like what you have to say, but we will fight for your right to say it. Why do we feel so strong about it? As Larry Flynt said in "The People vs Larry Flynt"; "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you." You are always responsable for you, there is no blaming it on what you read. That is a very liberal point of view that puts the burden on the author to be able to predect what every end user of his speech is going to do.

Hmm, you mean an issue the Vatican has that required/requires the use of the military to rectify?

Well, many issues have required the intervention of law enforcement. The pedophilia/molestation/rape... issue... As well as issues with unsafe exorcism. The Vatican is also extreme enough to have denied those in Africa who are Catholic contraception, contributing dramatically to the AIDS epidemic.

There is no denying that the Catholics, not all Christians, but the Catholics screw with their own people. The only thing worse they could do is screw with people that disagree with them, like the Muslim terrorist.

I can't answer hypothetical questions. But I do get what you are saying. Just imagine if Christianity in the west was like Islam in the east. You also helped prove my point, they are different. Christianity does not run the state here, not so much for the Middle East. I never thought I would get as much sympathy for extremest Muslims as some on this site show. Though I do have one off topic tangent/question. If Allah Akbar means god is good, does admiral Akbar mean good admiral in aromatic? Just wondering if anyone could shed some light on this.

Maybe state sponsored, but there is plenty of Christian violence and crazy to be thrown around.

Obama, who I think you implied is too soft, is simply not. Orchestrated the killing of Osama Bin Laden, assassinated Anwar Al Awlaki, continues wars, threatens the entirety of Egypt to get police intervention... What about that is just "pulling relief money?"

Finally, you already agreed multiple times that it s small, extremist groups enacting violence. Why is that deserved of carpet-bombing a region?!

I in now way support censorship. I in no way support the muslim religion. I in no way support the Christian religion. That is our difference. You separate the two in your head, and believe that Christian extremists are much less of a problem than Muslim extremists. I believe that this is wrong.

Sure, that picture may not have caused any deaths. However, there are other pictures that have at Christian hands. Pictures of gay couples, pictures of aborted fetuses, pictures of interracial marriage just a few years ago. Are you aware that the KKK considers themselves a Christian organization and still operates? Are you really trying to tell me that if we had a KKK state, it wouldn't be this bad? Or that the KKK is somehow more tame than the organized muslim militia that attacked the embassy?

All religions foster extremists, violent extremists, and they are all as bad as from any other religion. It's often just hard to see from inside.

if i may correct you, i live in a muslim country but its rich
we are all educated and have many degrees usually from international universities and civilised
however, when the movie came out.. Everybody went to the streets and started protesting and shouting and fighting
it has nothing to do with education or level of civilization. Muslims are NOT allowed to question or think out of the box. it is in their book and they have to follow their book word by word. They are strict stubborn limited people. I do not mean to insult or stereotype. I have muslim friends and they are amazing and they can think for themselves, however, the majority is just like i said.
YOur point is valid, however, it does not mean that every educated muslim will be more civilized. however, every civilized muslim is VERY educated.

More trying to say we have the same laws they do.

What do you mean by that?

The 3 major religions are more similar than people think the rules Christians are supposed to live by are similar to the Muslims. I would argue the more educated the person, regardless of religion, the more civilized they are. And those who only have relegion as their teacher act mor literal to the book of their reading. Ps m drunk so if you don't get it let me know and I'll repost when sober...ish.

No, I get it. I just am confused as to how that aligns with what you have been posting on this thread: you keep separating muslim and christian extremists. I think you can't do that.

If that's how I came across it is not my intention. In this case they are middle eastern first and Muslim 2nd. An example would be American and other first world Muslims did not go crazy. It's these extremest that do.

So then you agree that both Muslim and Christian extremists are prone to unreasonable, violent action?

Yes I do, just as I will concede for every Christian and Jew extremest attack there about 100 Muslim extremest attacks. Or better yet I should say a middle eastern extremest attack that happen to be Muslim but middle eastern first

.....So Christians and Jews are more reasonable than Muslims now?

I would rather deal with an extremest christian group (westborow babtsit church) that a Muslim extremest group. As of today, not 50, 100, or 1,000 years ago, the Muslims have the market cornered on crazy over the top state sponcered religious murder and oppression. When stuff like this happens I miss Ronald Reagan. Pull this stunt on his watch and he will bomb you back to the stone age, not just pull your relief money.

I would rather deal with an extremest christian group (westborow babtsit church) that a Muslim extremest group. As of today, not 50, 100, or 1,000 years ago, the Muslims have the market cornered on crazy over the top state sponcered religious murder and oppression. When stuff like this happens I miss Ronald Reagan. Pull this stunt on his watch and he will bomb you back to the stone age, not just pull your relief money.

To compare the two is silly. When was the last time the other religions flew jets into buildings, killed ambassadorial over movies, and don't get me started on the oppression of women. A wonderful example of the difference between Muslim extremest and others will be this pic. ( *** WARNING WARNING WARNING THIS PIC CONTAINS CARTOON NUDITY OF RELEGIOS FIGURES AND MAY NOT BE SAFE FOR WORK. OPEN AT OWN RISK. THIS LINK LEADS TO THE ONION. http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/) The name of the pic in question is, "NO ONE DIED BECAUSE OF THIS PIC." Its true, no one died and as the Onion put it, "Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day." Thats what normal people do. These extremest are not normal. They care more about a name than a human life. Violence is the only thing they understand. Just today our "allies" put a $100,000 bounty on the filmmakers head. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9563183/Pakistan-minister-refuses-to-step-down-over-bounty.html Countries we spends millions on to help, shit on us every chance they get. The region has not changed in 2,000 years. I don't think it will change on the next 2,000. Some times in life when an old forest gets too big, no new life may grow. its only when a fire comes may the forest start new growth. If these nut jobs keep on the course they are, fire is coming.

Thee KKK does not have the power the Muslim religion has over there. In the past they were something to be feared but not today. How many embassy have the KKK attacked? NONE. How many jets have they flown into towers? NONE. The most current example of how they differ would be the Onion pic. Muslims freak out over a movie, the other religions get over it an move on.

Have you seen recent reports about there organization? Are you aware they trade in white garb for military combat attire?

And why the focus on uber-recent events? I don't see how being in the past invalidates a point.

I am not sure how educated a country can be when a movie stops an entire city to the point where everybody went to the streets and started protesting, shouting and fighting. Educated people don't have time for that sort of thing. They have roads to build, children to feed and jobs to do. Just look at the Onion picture called "No one died from this picture." It insults all the other major religions and no one has died over it, no has protested in the street, hell no one even missed work over it. As the Onion put it, the other major religions just looked at the pic, rolled their eyes and went about their day.