Originally posted by long pig
You're pathetic.
1. Christianity doesn't support terrorism.
Nor does Islam, on the whole. Smaller groups of either may do so.
Remember North Ireland? Christian religious fighting that went on for about 40 years with lots of terrorism, ended in '98? That's not exactly long ago.
3. Whites outnumber Arab Muslims 100 to 1, yet non whites Muslims commit 90+ % of terrorism here.
And the reasons are a heck of a lot more complex than 'they're Muslim,' and the solutions that are likely to work similarly not so one dimensional.
Also, no, the numbers are not nearly that slanted, either in ratio (there's around 25 million Arab Muslims in Algeria, 20 million Arab Muslims in Morocco and Yemen each, around 10 million more in Tunisia- 100x just those four countries is 7.5 billion, more than the population of the Earth, and those countries aren't exactly known for terrorism), or percentage of terrorist attacks (page on terrorist attacks in the US).
4. Identifying an anomaly doesn't disprove white Christians are unlikely terrorists here and now.
There was a white Christian terrorist attack this year, it hit a Church in Charleston.
There's the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting not long before.
The Oklahoma City bombing wasn't *that* long ago, and was as mentioned the second biggest in US history.
While they are not the most likely group to hit the US, they are the second most likely group to hit the US.
You know what you're doing, and its pathetic.
Repeating the word 'pathetic' doesn't change that the actual meaning ends up being, 'Q doesn't agree with your overly-simplistic take which doesn't actually help deal with attacks, and you want to dismiss that.'