Juan Williams: I'm not a bigot. NPR: Yes you are

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Williams didn't just apologetically admit his fear of Muslims, he provided a justification for it.

I believe it is fairer to state that he admitted his uneasiness with Muslims who wear traditional Muslim dress (self identifying as Muslim) on an airplane. You get fired for admitting you think something these days? No actions - he didn't DO anything, encourage anyone else the DO anything, he simply had a thought. This was in the context of OReilly's Muslim comment on the View. While it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is equally true that all 911 terrorists who hijacked and ran planes full of our family, neighbors, coworkers and friends into buildings were Muslim.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but let's look at the facts on the ground. As Samuel Huntington noted, "Islam has bloody borders."

Let's take the example of Iran, since you raise it -- Iran is a threat, and it is one because it is run by *Islamic* revolutionaries. It is an actual Muslim theocracy, and there is no disputing that point -- how can you then claim that Islam has nothing to do with the threat posed by Iran? Yes, Iran is an even bigger threat to its own (Muslim) people and its own (Muslim) neighbors than it is to us, but that is a function of proximity and relative power.

The same is true for Pakistan -- we're not talking about 1000 radicals in a cave somewhere, we're talking about a state where radical Islam has many sympathizers in the military and security services of a nuclear-armed state.

Obviously, most Muslims are not violent or terrorist-sympathizers, but why is everyone so invested in pretending Islam has nothing to do with the threats we face?

We've had this argument before, I guess, and I'm never going to persuade you, but if you really think that Christianity is similarly situated to Islam in terms of the overall risks of violence today, you're ignoring reality -- and this can be true even if the large majority of Muslims are not violent or in sympathy with violence.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Williams didn't just apologetically admit his fear of Muslims, he provided a justification for it.

I believe it is fairer to state that he admitted his uneasiness with Muslims who wear traditional Muslim dress (self identifying as Muslim) on an airplane. You get fired for admitting you think something these days? No actions - he didn't DO anything, encourage anyone else the DO anything, he simply had a thought. This was in the context of OReilly's Muslim comment on the View. While it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is equally true that all 911 terrorists who hijacked and ran planes full of our family, neighbors, coworkers and friends into buildings were Muslim.

It's always amazing to see the lengths to which people will go to justify bigotry. I might agree with you if Williams had said, "I feel uncomfortable about Muslims in traditional dress and I know that feeling is wrong." But, that's not what he said. He stated his fear and then provided a justification for his fear. At no time did he suggest that his prejudice against Muslims in certain attire was wrong. By justifying that prejudice, he encourages it among others.

Also, I don't know where you have been, but people get fired every day for things that they think. CNN fired Rick Sanchez and Octavia Nasr for exactly that reason. Helen Thomas was fired for saying what she thought. I will agree with you that it shouldn't be that way. But, if those are the rules, the rules should be consistently applied. There should not be one set of rules that get applied when you say something prejudiced against Muslims, but a second set of rule for when you say things about other groups.

[Anonymous]

"Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." Williams said.

This is the best he could come up with? I'm not a racist, buuuuuuut.... Well some of my best friends are Jewish, and they say they control the media sooooo.... I have nothing against [gays, Catholics, Mormons, gun owners, Tea Partiers, atheists], I just disagree with their lifestyle choice...

Hope Williams doesn't sit next to me when I'm in a scarf on a bad hair day. He'll probably call an air marshal! lol Yeah, those people in Muslim garb sure are scary with their praying all the time. And the not drinking. What's up with that? I don't trust sober people on airplanes.

Williams, O'Reilly, Beck, Dr. Laura, Sanchez, there's always someone willing to fall on the sword of the first amendment for ratings. (Let me guess, does Juan have another book coming out?)

It turns my stomach as a minority and child of front-line activists in the 60s. So called civil rights movement "experts" exploit their association for the antithesis of the civil rights that make this country great.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Let's take the example of Iran, since you raise it -- Iran is a threat, and it is one because it is run by *Islamic* revolutionaries. It is an actual Muslim theocracy, and there is no disputing that point -- how can you then claim that Islam has nothing to do with the threat posed by Iran? Yes, Iran is an even bigger threat to its own (Muslim) people and its own (Muslim) neighbors than it is to us, but that is a function of proximity and relative power.

The same is true for Pakistan -- we're not talking about 1000 radicals in a cave somewhere, we're talking about a state where radical Islam has many sympathizers in the military and security services of a nuclear-armed state.

This is reductive thinking. Iran is "Muslim" only in the broadest sense. More specifically, it is primarily "Shia Muslim". The vast majority of Muslims, including the majority in Pakistan, are not Shia. Bin Laden and his ilk would not even consider Shias to be Muslim. Moreover, the religion of the Iranian leaders is only one factor of their ideology. Would truly devote Muslims really have made deals with the Reagan administration or worked repeatedly with the Israelis? The Iranian leadership may talk a lot about Islam, but when push comes to shove they are as pragmatic as the next bunch. I don't say that Islam has nothing to do with the situation in Iran, but simply describing it as a "Muslim problem" completely misses reality.

Similarly, how is Pakistan a "Muslim problem"? There are Muslims on both sides of the conflict. There is a problem there with people who have an extremist ideology. But, your suggestion is that all the Muslims are a problem. That's not the case. Muslims currently control the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. Is that a problem? It doesn't seem to be. The problem is the threat posed by extremists. Statements like those by O'Reilly and Williams only help strengthen those extremists and weaken those Muslims that would prefer good relations with the US.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's take the example of Iran, since you raise it -- Iran is a threat, and it is one because it is run by *Islamic* revolutionaries. It is an actual Muslim theocracy, and there is no disputing that point -- how can you then claim that Islam has nothing to do with the threat posed by Iran? Yes, Iran is an even bigger threat to its own (Muslim) people and its own (Muslim) neighbors than it is to us, but that is a function of proximity and relative power.

The same is true for Pakistan -- we're not talking about 1000 radicals in a cave somewhere, we're talking about a state where radical Islam has many sympathizers in the military and security services of a nuclear-armed state.

This is reductive thinking. Iran is "Muslim" only in the broadest sense. More specifically, it is primarily "Shia Muslim". The vast majority of Muslims, including the majority in Pakistan, are not Shia. Bin Laden and his ilk would not even consider Shias to be Muslim. Moreover, the religion of the Iranian leaders is only one factor of their ideology. Would truly devote Muslims really have made deals with the Reagan administration or worked repeatedly with the Israelis? The Iranian leadership may talk a lot about Islam, but when push comes to shove they are as pragmatic as the next bunch. I don't say that Islam has nothing to do with the situation in Iran, but simply describing it as a "Muslim problem" completely misses reality.

Similarly, how is Pakistan a "Muslim problem"? There are Muslims on both sides of the conflict. There is a problem there with people who have an extremist ideology. But, your suggestion is that all the Muslims are a problem. That's not the case. Muslims currently control the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. Is that a problem? It doesn't seem to be. The problem is the threat posed by extremists. Statements like those by O'Reilly and Williams only help strengthen those extremists and weaken those Muslims that would prefer good relations with the US.

You're really reaching here on Iran -- if the religious nature of the Iranian regime is "only one factor" of their ideology, what are the others? The simple fact is that revolutionary Islamic religious leaders are the supreme authority in Iran, and have the muscle to make that stick. As to your question whether "truly devote[d] Muslims" have dealt with the Reagan Administration or the Israelies, the answer is of course yes -- why would they not make such deals, if they thought it was in their interest? They have a radical ideology; that doesn't mean they are stupid or irrational in how they attempt to advance that ideology. My guess is that, on average, Iranian political leaders are probably smarter and more capable than average American politicians because they have to advance through a much more rigorous sorting process and the consequences of failure are much higher.

As for Pakistan, I think their nuclear weapons are very much a problem -- don't you? For two reasons -- one to the extent that non-radical elements have "control" of those weapons, it is a tenuous control; two, is it really at all unlikely that radical elements might come to power there? We probably wouldn't still be in Afganistan at all anymore if we weren't so desperately concerned about ensuring stability in Pakistan.

You argue that the problem is "extremists" -- as if that could be divorced from the specific extremist ideology at issue when assessing potential threats. I don't agree. Compare, for example, radical Islamic extremists to the radical Israeli settler movement. Both may well be equally "extremist" in views, but only one is a threat to *us* because of its goals, capabilities, and situation in the world today. (I'm sure you will quibble about backlash, but that is a second-order effect that I'm leaving aside for the moment).

I don't think Muslims abroad are paying much, if any, attention to the likes of O'Reilly and Williams -- I'm not so sure why you think that is the case. (I think O'Reilly is a blowhard and that most people of all religions probably agree.) My guess is they pay much more attention to, you know, actual Islamic scholars and authorities on such issues, and there is a radical strain of anti-American/anti-Western views among those thinkers that is far more prevalent than you care to admit, and has very real consequences for where the world is going.

In many ways, I think your views are based on a failure of imagination -- you really don't seem open to the possibility that different cultures really do have different values and preferences, or that it is possible that people could literally believe what Islamic doctrine teaches (e.g. jihad). That is a misjudgment of Western thought that is going to come back to bite us, I fear.

[Anonymous]

"The Iranian leadership may talk a lot about Islam, but when push comes to shove they are as pragmatic as the next bunch. "



http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm

It is hard to believe that you think the Iranian leadership is being pragmatic when their leader is calling for the destruction of Israel and thinks the killing of 6 million jews was a myt.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You're really reaching here on Iran -- if the religious nature of the Iranian regime is "only one factor" of their ideology, what are the others? The simple fact is that revolutionary Islamic religious leaders are the supreme authority in Iran, and have the muscle to make that stick.

Other factors are the same factors that influence the leaders of other countries -- a desire to remain in power, an interest in preserving national strength, eagerness to expand influence. Take any Iranian action and ask, "Is this being done for Islam, for Iran, or for the current leadership?" I would guess that the vast majority would fall in the last category, the next largest amount in the second category, with very few actions that are clearly being done for the sake of Islam. And, this ignores the fact that the "Islam" at question is a minority sect of Islam.

Anonymous wrote:As for Pakistan, I think their nuclear weapons are very much a problem -- don't you? For two reasons -- one to the extent that non-radical elements have "control" of those weapons, it is a tenuous control; two, is it really at all unlikely that radical elements might come to power there? We probably wouldn't still be in Afganistan at all anymore if we weren't so desperately concerned about ensuring stability in Pakistan.

Notice how your entire vocabulary changed? You recognize that problem in Pakistan is not one of Islam, but one of extremism. Pakistan is not a "Muslim problem." Control of the nuclear weapons by the current Muslim leadership is not a problem. The threat to that control is a problem. You initially cited Pakistan as being an example of a "Muslim problem", but to intelligently discuss it, you have to adopt a new vocabulary. I think that proves my point.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
"The Iranian leadership may talk a lot about Islam, but when push comes to shove they are as pragmatic as the next bunch. "

http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm

It is hard to believe that you think the Iranian leadership is being pragmatic when their leader is calling for the destruction of Israel and thinks the killing of 6 million jews was a myt.

I am not sure what denying the Holocaust has to do with pragmatism. It's totally unrelated. In fact, the Iranian leadership is probably intelligent enough to know that the Holocaust is a fact and have adopted denial as a pragmatic means of appealing to their less intelligent followers (much in the manner in which Republican leaders adopt feigned ignorance to appeal to Tea Partiers).

As for calling for the destruction of Israel, that's pretty much the same thing. If Ahmadinejad believed that God was on his side and the Israelis were destined to be destroyed, he would do more than talk. He is pragmatic to stick to words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's take the example of Iran, since you raise it -- Iran is a threat, and it is one because it is run by *Islamic* revolutionaries. It is an actual Muslim theocracy, and there is no disputing that point -- how can you then claim that Islam has nothing to do with the threat posed by Iran? Yes, Iran is an even bigger threat to its own (Muslim) people and its own (Muslim) neighbors than it is to us, but that is a function of proximity and relative power.

The same is true for Pakistan -- we're not talking about 1000 radicals in a cave somewhere, we're talking about a state where radical Islam has many sympathizers in the military and security services of a nuclear-armed state.

This is reductive thinking. Iran is "Muslim" only in the broadest sense. More specifically, it is primarily "Shia Muslim". The vast majority of Muslims, including the majority in Pakistan, are not Shia. Bin Laden and his ilk would not even consider Shias to be Muslim. Moreover, the religion of the Iranian leaders is only one factor of their ideology. Would truly devote Muslims really have made deals with the Reagan administration or worked repeatedly with the Israelis? The Iranian leadership may talk a lot about Islam, but when push comes to shove they are as pragmatic as the next bunch. I don't say that Islam has nothing to do with the situation in Iran, but simply describing it as a "Muslim problem" completely misses reality.

Similarly, how is Pakistan a "Muslim problem"? There are Muslims on both sides of the conflict. There is a problem there with people who have an extremist ideology. But, your suggestion is that all the Muslims are a problem. That's not the case. Muslims currently control the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. Is that a problem? It doesn't seem to be. The problem is the threat posed by extremists. Statements like those by O'Reilly and Williams only help strengthen those extremists and weaken those Muslims that would prefer good relations with the US.

You're really reaching here on Iran -- if the religious nature of the Iranian regime is "only one factor" of their ideology, what are the others? The simple fact is that revolutionary Islamic religious leaders are the supreme authority in Iran, and have the muscle to make that stick. As to your question whether "truly devote[d] Muslims" have dealt with the Reagan Administration or the Israelies, the answer is of course yes -- why would they not make such deals, if they thought it was in their interest? They have a radical ideology; that doesn't mean they are stupid or irrational in how they attempt to advance that ideology. My guess is that, on average, Iranian political leaders are probably smarter and more capable than average American politicians because they have to advance through a much more rigorous sorting process and the consequences of failure are much higher.

As for Pakistan, I think their nuclear weapons are very much a problem -- don't you? For two reasons -- one to the extent that non-radical elements have "control" of those weapons, it is a tenuous control; two, is it really at all unlikely that radical elements might come to power there? We probably wouldn't still be in Afganistan at all anymore if we weren't so desperately concerned about ensuring stability in Pakistan.

You argue that the problem is "extremists" -- as if that could be divorced from the specific extremist ideology at issue when assessing potential threats. I don't agree. Compare, for example, radical Islamic extremists to the radical Israeli settler movement. Both may well be equally "extremist" in views, but only one is a threat to *us* because of its goals, capabilities, and situation in the world today. (I'm sure you will quibble about backlash, but that is a second-order effect that I'm leaving aside for the moment).

I don't think Muslims abroad are paying much, if any, attention to the likes of O'Reilly and Williams -- I'm not so sure why you think that is the case. (I think O'Reilly is a blowhard and that most people of all religions probably agree.) My guess is they pay much more attention to, you know, actual Islamic scholars and authorities on such issues, and there is a radical strain of anti-American/anti-Western views among those thinkers that is far more prevalent than you care to admit, and has very real consequences for where the world is going.

In many ways, I think your views are based on a failure of imagination -- you really don't seem open to the possibility that different cultures really do have different values and preferences, or that it is possible that people could literally believe what Islamic doctrine teaches (e.g. jihad). That is a misjudgment of Western thought that is going to come back to bite us, I fear.

We used to say the same thing about the Soviets - that everything was run out of the Kremlin, and that Marxism could explain their behavior. I had a professor whose thesis was that Sovietologists were ignoring powerful social trends that would be their undoing. Other Sovietologists laughed at him, right up until the fall of the Soviet Union.

When we supported the Shah, we believed that his iron rule was permanent. He controlled the military, the secret police. He was ruthless and he had no challengers in sight. But there were some analysts who said "I think these clerics in exile are really getting the college students up in arms, and the Shah might not be forever". The U.S. government failed to recognize this, and we were quite surprised to see the Shah fall.

I could go on and on (china, the saudis, etc.), but the point is this: if you simplify the behavior of a nation into the embodiment of an ideology or basic principle, you fail to recognize change when it is about to happen. And you frequently misinterpret the regime's behavior when it is still standing. If you want to see examples of this latter point, read Graham Allison's "Essence of Decision", about the Cuban Missile Crisis, to see how an oversimplified understanding of the forces that govern a country can lead to big problems.

Most people who study Iran realize that half of the regime's foreign policy is directed toward the domestic audience, who is in a pretty bad economic situation.

[Anonymous]

My problem with Williams is that what he said isn't news and isn't political analysis. It's just verbal diarrhea about how Muslims are scary. More than enough to say "thanks and goodbye."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's take the example of Iran, since you raise it -- Iran is a threat, and it is one because it is run by *Islamic* revolutionaries. It is an actual Muslim theocracy, and there is no disputing that point -- how can you then claim that Islam has nothing to do with the threat posed by Iran? Yes, Iran is an even bigger threat to its own (Muslim) people and its own (Muslim) neighbors than it is to us, but that is a function of proximity and relative power.

The same is true for Pakistan -- we're not talking about 1000 radicals in a cave somewhere, we're talking about a state where radical Islam has many sympathizers in the military and security services of a nuclear-armed state.

This is reductive thinking. Iran is "Muslim" only in the broadest sense. More specifically, it is primarily "Shia Muslim". The vast majority of Muslims, including the majority in Pakistan, are not Shia. Bin Laden and his ilk would not even consider Shias to be Muslim. Moreover, the religion of the Iranian leaders is only one factor of their ideology. Would truly devote Muslims really have made deals with the Reagan administration or worked repeatedly with the Israelis? The Iranian leadership may talk a lot about Islam, but when push comes to shove they are as pragmatic as the next bunch. I don't say that Islam has nothing to do with the situation in Iran, but simply describing it as a "Muslim problem" completely misses reality.

Similarly, how is Pakistan a "Muslim problem"? There are Muslims on both sides of the conflict. There is a problem there with people who have an extremist ideology. But, your suggestion is that all the Muslims are a problem. That's not the case. Muslims currently control the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. Is that a problem? It doesn't seem to be. The problem is the threat posed by extremists. Statements like those by O'Reilly and Williams only help strengthen those extremists and weaken those Muslims that would prefer good relations with the US.

You're really reaching here on Iran -- if the religious nature of the Iranian regime is "only one factor" of their ideology, what are the others? The simple fact is that revolutionary Islamic religious leaders are the supreme authority in Iran, and have the muscle to make that stick. As to your question whether "truly devote[d] Muslims" have dealt with the Reagan Administration or the Israelies, the answer is of course yes -- why would they not make such deals, if they thought it was in their interest? They have a radical ideology; that doesn't mean they are stupid or irrational in how they attempt to advance that ideology. My guess is that, on average, Iranian political leaders are probably smarter and more capable than average American politicians because they have to advance through a much more rigorous sorting process and the consequences of failure are much higher.

As for Pakistan, I think their nuclear weapons are very much a problem -- don't you? For two reasons -- one to the extent that non-radical elements have "control" of those weapons, it is a tenuous control; two, is it really at all unlikely that radical elements might come to power there? We probably wouldn't still be in Afganistan at all anymore if we weren't so desperately concerned about ensuring stability in Pakistan.

You argue that the problem is "extremists" -- as if that could be divorced from the specific extremist ideology at issue when assessing potential threats. I don't agree. Compare, for example, radical Islamic extremists to the radical Israeli settler movement. Both may well be equally "extremist" in views, but only one is a threat to *us* because of its goals, capabilities, and situation in the world today. (I'm sure you will quibble about backlash, but that is a second-order effect that I'm leaving aside for the moment).

I don't think Muslims abroad are paying much, if any, attention to the likes of O'Reilly and Williams -- I'm not so sure why you think that is the case. (I think O'Reilly is a blowhard and that most people of all religions probably agree.) My guess is they pay much more attention to, you know, actual Islamic scholars and authorities on such issues, and there is a radical strain of anti-American/anti-Western views among those thinkers that is far more prevalent than you care to admit, and has very real consequences for where the world is going.

In many ways, I think your views are based on a failure of imagination -- you really don't seem open to the possibility that different cultures really do have different values and preferences, or that it is possible that people could literally believe what Islamic doctrine teaches (e.g. jihad). That is a misjudgment of Western thought that is going to come back to bite us, I fear.

We used to say the same thing about the Soviets - that everything was run out of the Kremlin, and that Marxism could explain their behavior. I had a professor whose thesis was that Sovietologists were ignoring powerful social trends that would be their undoing. Other Sovietologists laughed at him, right up until the fall of the Soviet Union.

When we supported the Shah, we believed that his iron rule was permanent. He controlled the military, the secret police. He was ruthless and he had no challengers in sight. But there were some analysts who said "I think these clerics in exile are really getting the college students up in arms, and the Shah might not be forever". The U.S. government failed to recognize this, and we were quite surprised to see the Shah fall.

I could go on and on (china, the saudis, etc.), but the point is this: if you simplify the behavior of a nation into the embodiment of an ideology or basic principle, you fail to recognize change when it is about to happen. And you frequently misinterpret the regime's behavior when it is still standing. If you want to see examples of this latter point, read Graham Allison's "Essence of Decision", about the Cuban Missile Crisis, to see how an oversimplified understanding of the forces that govern a country can lead to big problems.

Most people who study Iran realize that half of the regime's foreign policy is directed toward the domestic audience, who is in a pretty bad economic situation.

I'm not sure that we actually disagree. Are you saying that Marxism was irrelevant to the behavior of the Soviet leadership, that it was an insignificant factor, or that it was one among many factors? Or that it merely changed over time? I'd disagree with the first two, but not the last two. Probably Marxism had a much larger impact on Soviet policy in 1950 than it did in 1980; but I'm not sure that is inconsistent with anything I've said. I'm certainly not saying that Islamic revolutionary ideology is the only factor in play in Iran, of course; oil prices, for instance, probably have a significant impact as well. Nor am I saying that any particular country or movement should be oversimplified based on its ideology; but I do strongly disagree with the view, espoused by so many, that Islam is strictly irrelevant to the threats we face from countries like Iran or Pakistan or from transnational terrorist groups. It seems to me to make a difference to the intentions of such nations and groups, and we should not pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Williams didn't just apologetically admit his fear of Muslims, he provided a justification for it.

I believe it is fairer to state that he admitted his uneasiness with Muslims who wear traditional Muslim dress (self identifying as Muslim) on an airplane. You get fired for admitting you think something these days? No actions - he didn't DO anything, encourage anyone else the DO anything, he simply had a thought. This was in the context of OReilly's Muslim comment on the View. While it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is equally true that all 911 terrorists who hijacked and ran planes full of our family, neighbors, coworkers and friends into buildings were Muslim.

Yes, and all Oklahomians should be fearful of white christan males. All jews should be fearful of all catholics. the entire african population should be fearful of christian missionaries. Your ability to lump a religion that is practiced on almost every continent, of varying races, cultures and ethnicities is dumbfounding.

[Anonymous]

To answer your question, Marxism was a factor, but not the only one.

It sounded like you were saying that religion is the only factor that matters. That was what I took from the quote

if the religious nature of the Iranian regime is "only one factor" of their ideology, what are the others?

My perspective on Iranian foreign policy, which I think is often true elsewhere, is that ideology is the justification for pre-existing political ambitions. It legitimizes the ambitions and motivates the population to support them. It may influence those ambitions somewhat. But it does not create them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but let's look at the facts on the ground. As Samuel Huntington noted, "Islam has bloody borders."

Let's take the example of Iran, since you raise it -- Iran is a threat, and it is one because it is run by *Islamic* revolutionaries. It is an actual Muslim theocracy, and there is no disputing that point -- how can you then claim that Islam has nothing to do with the threat posed by Iran? Yes, Iran is an even bigger threat to its own (Muslim) people and its own (Muslim) neighbors than it is to us, but that is a function of proximity and relative power.

The same is true for Pakistan -- we're not talking about 1000 radicals in a cave somewhere, we're talking about a state where radical Islam has many sympathizers in the military and security services of a nuclear-armed state.

Obviously, most Muslims are not violent or terrorist-sympathizers, but why is everyone so invested in pretending Islam has nothing to do with the threats we face?

We've had this argument before, I guess, and I'm never going to persuade you, but if you really think that Christianity is similarly situated to Islam in terms of the overall risks of violence today, you're ignoring reality -- and this can be true even if the large majority of Muslims are not violent or in sympathy with violence.

Christians were the only ones to drop two atomic bombs on a naiton of people. How frightening are the christians.