Good question, however my query is how many Christian extremists engage in terrorist activities out of supposed religious reasons in comparison to the Muslim crowd.

 

I guess the hayday of Christian Extremiests were during the Civil Rights Era, in which people hid under the guise of religion to suit their own agenda. I suspect that some Muslim Extremiests hide under the guise of Islam to carry out their hate.

Actually, I would consider the hayday of Christian Extremists to have occurred first during the Crusades, with a resurgance during the Inquisition. There have been plenty of atrocities committed in the name of Jesus Christ, and many at the hands of the Catholic Church.

 

The point isn't whether the Catholic Relgion, or the Islamic has more extremists than any other. The question is what inspires the extremists.

I would say 25-35%.

 

So about 500 million are terrorists?

Could it be that predominantly Catholic countries (European, in particular) have seen their birthrate flatline, if not dip, in the last twenty years?

So about 500 million are terrorists?

Only if you classify people who believe that suicide bombings are sometimes justified in advancing Islam as terrorists. I would classify them as a combination of terrorists and terrorist supporters myself.

Only if you classify people who believe that suicide bombings are sometimes justified in advancing Islam as terrorists. I would classify them as a combination of terrorists and terrorist supporters myself.

 

So 500 million are terrorist supporters? Again

That's like saying 500 million Christians supported the Nazis

So 500 million are terrorist supporters? Again

That's like saying 500 million Christians supported the Nazis

See the Pew survey results that I already posted and do the math.

 

Note that the percentages of Muslims who say that they support suicide bombings in the nations with the larger Muslim populations such as Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Indonesia are much higher than it is in the European countries.

 

If you do not believe that the support of suicide bombings is an appropriate place to draw the line between terrorist sympathizers and civilized human beings, where would you draw the line?

The question is what inspires the extremists.

 

Allah. God. Religion. Any other name for a higher power.

I wonder how many extremeist Christians there are?

 

I don't think there are any that are as bad as the Muslim extremists of today. They are ruthless and are not afraid to kill anyone who does not agree with their jihad. They don't even care to kill other Muslims who support the U.S.

Steadily falling birthrates in the Western, predominantly Christian countires... it was bound to happen sooner or later. Heaven help us.

See the Pew survey results that I already posted and do the math.

 

Note that the percentages of Muslims who say that they support suicide bombings in the nations with the larger Muslim populations such as Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Indonesia are much higher than it is in the European countries.

 

If you do not believe that the support of suicide bombings is an appropriate place to draw the line between terrorist sympathizers and civilized human beings, where would you draw the line?

 

I don’t think that could possibly produce an accurate assessment. Considering your definition of a terrorist relies on a positive answer to a question asking whether civilian deaths can be justified, there should be a similar question posed to non-Muslims as a source of comparison. For instance, what would the results of a question posed to Americans worded like this produce “Violence against civilian targets in order to win the war on terror can be justified…?”

 

Any estimate on the percentage of Muslims who are extremists is going to be a conjecture at best. I’m not particularly sure what the purpose of such a conjecture would be anyhow. I think most would agree that many parts of the Arab world are decades, if not centuries, behind the modern world.

I don’t think that could possibly produce an accurate assessment. Considering your definition of a terrorist relies on a positive answer to a question asking whether civilian deaths can be justified, there should be a similar question posed to non-Muslims as a source of comparison. For instance, what would the results of a question posed to Americans worded like this produce “Violence against civilian targets in order to win the war on terror can be justified…?”

 

Any estimate on the percentage of Muslims who are extremists is going to be a conjecture at best. I’m not particularly sure what the purpose of such a conjecture would be anyhow. I think most would agree that many parts of the Arab world are decades, if not centuries, behind the modern world.

As I said above, my definition of an extremist is consistent with somebody who condones suicide bombings. Of course, not all who cheer "successful" suicide bombings would actually pull their own pin, but the Pew survey does indicate that "seat of the pants" estimates of potential Islamic terrorists consitituting less than one-percent of the Muslim population are probably on the low side.

As I said above, my definition of an extremist is consistent with somebody who condones suicide bombings. Of course, not all who cheer "successful" suicide bombings would actually pull their own pin, but the Pew survey does indicate that "seat of the pants" estimates of potential Islamic terrorists consitituting less than one-percent of the Muslim population are probably on the low side.

 

But how do you feel about Habib's question? He raises a good point. Would it be comparable to say a Christian to be asked if he/she approves of civillian casualties if the result is that Terror is thwarted.

 

Are they comparable questions?

I don’t think that could possibly produce an accurate assessment. Considering your definition of a terrorist relies on a positive answer to a question asking whether civilian deaths can be justified, there should be a similar question posed to non-Muslims as a source of comparison. For instance, what would the results of a question posed to Americans worded like this produce “Violence against civilian targets in order to win the war on terror can be justified…?”

 

Any estimate on the percentage of Muslims who are extremists is going to be a conjecture at best. I’m not particularly sure what the purpose of such a conjecture would be anyhow. I think most would agree that many parts of the Arab world are decades, if not centuries, behind the modern world.

 

While I can see your point, I disagree.

 

The Americans are attacking for one reason. To stop terrorists from murdering innocent people.

 

The terrorists are attacking for one reason. To murder innocent people. Their goal is to kill innocent people. The goal of the United States is not. I would say that most Americans would answer that question by saying that they do not want innocent people to die.

But how do you feel about Habib's question? He raises a good point. Would it be comparable to say a Christian to be asked if he/she approves of civillian casualties if the result is that Terror is thwarted.

 

Are they comparable questions?

Apples to oranges. How can anybody make the case for moral equivalence between the innocent victims of a deliberate suicide bombing and civilian casualties resulting from targeting terrorists? Granted, in both circumstances the victims are just as dead, but intent has to be considered, IMO. There are also good reasons for being skeptical about the number of "civilians" killed in anti-terror operations. (Recall the discredited Soros-funded estimate of civilian casualities in the Iraq War.) I have a feeling that terrorists usually hide among people who support their agendas and those are the civilians most likely to be caught in the crossfire.

 

An equivalent question for Christians would be whether the deliberate killing of innocent civilians (men, women, and children) is sometimes a justifiable response to the enemies of Christianity.