Tim,
you need to broaden your mind and stop basing you informationonly on dishounest sources that have clear baises aginst Islam.This would be like garbbage in, garbbage out.

By the way,Do you have a choice between paying taxes or not?

let’s say that 90% of Muslims are peaceful, loving and decent people. What about the other 10%? Do the math. A small percentage of a large number is in itself a large number. 10% of 1.2 billion is 120 million. That means by conservative estimates there are about 120 million radical violent, Bin Laden loving, Muslims running around.

I realize it’s a hypothetical. But you’re using it to support the view that the threat posed by… who? All Muslims? Clearly not. The religion of Islam? The remains to be seen. Muslim terrorists? That’s not a controversial point. Let’s do the math. Consider another hypothetical.

Suppose, contrary to fact, that 1 million acts of terrorism are committed every year (that would be about 2800 per day, which is insanely high, but I’m inflating the numbers to make your argument even stronger than it would otherwise be). Suppose, also contrary to fact, but in line with your assertion, that 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. This would mean that on average, every single one of those acts of terror would involve at least 120 Muslims who were not also involved in other attacks.

In reality, the number of terrorist attacks is much smaller, which means that in order to make anything like the claims that you are, you’d need either to posit that each act is carried out by separate consipiracies comprised of hundreds of Muslims, or you need to reduce the percentage of all Muslims you think are involved in terrorism.

The numbers turn out to be only slightly less ridiculous, by the way, if you assume that even 1% of all Muslims are involved in terrorism. More likely–to the point of certainty–given the actual number of attempted and successful terrorist attacks that happen, and given that many terrorists probably participate in multiple attacks, the percentage of Muslims involved in terrorism is vanishingly small. Certainly nothing like the number you’d need to support your “pretty significant threat.”

The point is this. Nobody denies that there are Islamic terrorists. Few deny that there are more Islamic terrorists than other kinds of terrorists. But to generalize from that to the idea that Islam, as it is actually practiced by actual Muslims, is a violent religion is simply false.

Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolf, the Unibomber, the KKK, the Army of God, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, the SLA, the IRA, the Contradoras, the Shining Path, FARC, Irgun, Stern Gang, Haganah, the Bush-Cheney cabal, etc. None of the above are Muslim terrorist groups. There are many more non-Muslim terrorist groups, but I think I’ve made my point.

Do you deny that according to strict Sharia law, a non-Muslim has three options: Convert, be subjugated to Islam as a “Dhimmi” and pay tribute, or die. Do you deny that?

After receiving criticism, Spencer said he disavowed all neo-Nazis and racists present at the conference, and claimed he was unaware of their presence,[31] although sponsors and speakers at the conference were clearly identified.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960415.html

And by the way, let’s say that 90% of Muslims are peaceful, loving and decent people. What about the other 10%? Do the math. A small percentage of a large number is in itself a large number. 10% of 1.2 billion is 120 million. That means by conservative estimates there are about 120 million radical violent, Bin Laden loving, Muslims running around. To give you some perspective: That is twice the entire population of France, four times the poplulation of Canada, or six times the population of Australia. A pretty signifcant threat if you ask me!

This also explains what is “politically incorrect” about your screed. No one, at least no one here, believes that you shouldn’t “inquire” into whatever correlation you so desire. But your foolish inference from the claim that “Muslims are responsible for most terrorism” to the claim that “most Muslims are violent,” coupled with your failure to recognize other possible causes for the alleged correlation, alongside your refusal acknowledge present and historical Christian violence, indicates, among other things, that you are less interested in discovering actual correlations than you are in attacking a particular ethnic group.

Sorry if the definition of the word “bigot” hurts your feelings.