I guess that's insignificant. All radicals being equally dangerous, and all. 
Religious leaders advocating the murder of westerners, and the violent overthrow of our governments, that's insignificant too. I just have the feeling that little things like that make Islamic terrorists kinda different.
A random mindless nut is pretty much alone. Once that nut is killed after a shooting, that's the end of the threat from that nut. But a percentage of a rather huge religious group being geared up in a very well funded death-cult to come murder us in the furtherance of their actual takeover of geographic territory, which they are increasing rather rapidly... that's a bit more of a threat in my book than the random nut. See, I have this odd idea that the organization and numbers involved in a whole death-cult MOVEMENT might be a significant difference. After one or two of this type of nuts are dead, as in this case in San Bernadino, numerous others are still coming and the threat is undiminished.
In case no one's noticed, this particular kind of Islamic nut is VIRAL, it SPREADS rather quickly and to previously seemingly unreceptive people. The mentally ill don't really have the ability to talk sane people into being mentally ill. it's TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, WHICH ARE UNEQUAL in nature, and unequal in danger to us.
A death-cult spreading virally through one of the world's largest religions, yes, that's a problem! It's a different kind of problem than has existed before, and we'd better get honest and recognize that.
At this point, ISIS is near the size and status of a nation-state. You think that's the same level of threat as a Planned Parenthood bomber, or any other sort we have?
I wonder why you're so interested in creating the false equivalency. It's a rhetorical wondering, as the answer isn't likely to acknowledge reality any more than the OP did. Besides, I think I know why.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read