You have got to be kidding.

Not really. Where do you think that 10 million went?

And "Islamic" terrorist bombers are no Muslims, either.

Please refer to my post a couple posts after the one you quoted in response to GD's similar question (#217 in the thread).

Sheesh. All I got was a DJ. I think I'll sue my parents or something now.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=19444

What do I win?

I find it appalling that there are people that immediately associate “Islamic” with “Terrorist”; people who condemn all of Islam for the actions of a fanatical and deranged few. And before some says “But mainstream Islam is evil because it does not condemn the fanatics!”, stop and think about the resounding silence of mainstream Christianity in this country when it comes to fanatical Christians – not just the Fred Phelps and the Pat Robertsons, but the Scalitos, and the Wildmons, and the Reeds, too. Where is the Christian outrage at the hate these people spew? When mainstream Christianity starts chastising people like this for their un-Christian behavior, then they can condemn mainstream Islam, and only then.

I suppose that for some it is far easier to live in hate and fear than it is to think for themselves – far easier to reduce the world to “us” vs. “them” than to try and gain understanding of those who are different. I just can not understand the mindset that says we must fear and hate that which is different, simply because it is different. It shocks me that, in this day and age, with our ever shrinking global community, there are still those who consider everything that is “foreign” to be a threat; something to be contained and destroyed lest it attack us in our sleep. How sad.

And I find it sad (and quite inexcusable, frankly) that you equate political processes and words with the daily bombings in Isreal.

Deranged "few"? Just how small do you think Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Qaida and Al Aqsa Matryrs Brigade and (insert the other numerous Islamic terror organizations here) are?

Edited to add: I just want to reinforce that I have not said that all Islamic people are radical Islamists who support bombing and/or terrorism.

I'd respond, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

The extremists may have large numbers, but they are in the minority. I suspect that the majority of Muslims privately do not condone the bombings, but remain silent publicly out of misguided loyalty to their religion (or fear of being labled heritics) - much like Christians here at home.

So the motivation comes down to "hatred" (Nephythys) and "insanity" (scaeagles).

One is a dangerous motive without capability, and the other is capability without a credible motive.

I'm talking INVASION, not a mere attack. An endangerment of our nation, not the slaughter of some of our people. Sheesh, more people die in traffic accidents everyday than died in 9/11. And the vast majority of "terror cells" in the United States are comprised of Americans.

Does anyone want to either take over our country or wipe it off the face of the earth, with the ability to do so? If someone with their hand on the button is so crazy that they want to wipe out a billion people, what kind of threat is their own retaliatory destruction?

In other words - if suicide bombers start using nuclear bombs, how is there any way to stop them? Why waste the money on trying?

It's quite simple, really. I am expressing disgust with the violence performed by Islamic radicals. You said:

The "fanatical Christians" as you put it, by and large, aren't out killing people they disagree. Radical Islamists are. Daily. And they want more of it. You are making a comparison between non-violent Christian "radicals" and ultra-violent Islamic terrorists by saying that equal comdemnation should exist of words and of killing people.

Edited to add:
Another quote:

I would agree with that sentiment, but again you have compared a lack of vigorous opposition to spoken word as equivalent to lack of opposition to blowing up restaurants.