3 ms·
It's not that confusing. We don't see radical Buddhist bombing things?
by gamechangr 9y ago
It's not that confusing.
We don't see radical Buddhist bombing things?
- Cyph0n 9y agoYou are missing the point entirely. It's not about the "why", but rather the precedent it sets. > We DON"T have Radical Christians, Radical Hindus, Radicial Buddhist trying to blow up civilians. Ehh there are in fact radical Christians who kill innocents in the US. Radical Hindus and Buddhists also exist, but in other countries. > It does mean however that more specific attention should be paid to muslims, as they are most likely to contain the threat. So I assume you think it's OK to profile people of other religions and/or ethnicities (e.g., African Americans)?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gamechangr 9y ago" there are in FACT radical christians who kill innocents in the Us?" Where? That doesn't sound credible, but let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Don't get 1 nut job...show me what you mean?
- Cyph0n 9y ago> Don't get 1 nut job...show me what you mean? I would argue that all terrorists are nutjobs, so... Look up the history of attacks on abortion clinics.
- gamechangr 9y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-violence.html?mcubz=3 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion... It's not representative - only 9 people are mentioned. edit: I corrected the caps...thank you. I didn't know.
- Cyph0n 9y agoWhat are you talking about? The link you added supports my claim: there are in fact radical Christian terrorist attacks in the US.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- grzm 9y agoAs the guidelines request, please don't use uppercase for emphasis on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html To everyone in this thread: This entire topic is incredibly contentious and as such requires even more care and benefit of the doubt when engaging in discussion. Please ask yourself, what is your goal in discussion here? To understand the others you're talking with? To express your opinion? To convince the "other side"? If you're not here for useful, constructive, civil, and respectful discussion, please just refrain from commenting. Shouting louder than every one else is not helpful, and as the mods repeatedly point out, HN is not the place for ideological flamewars.
- yokaze 9y agoRead the United States Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf "Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent)."
- jopython 9y agoSo according to US Govt. Accountability Office, the 1% Muslim demography committed 27% of the terror attacks. That alone should speak volumes.
- tptacek 9y agoIt speaks the volume that the clear majority of terrorist attacks in the US aren't perpetrated by Muslims, if that's what you mean. Recall the context of the thread: the parent commenter is responding to a challenge that there are no American Christian terrorists.
- foota 9y agoWhat about the guy that plowed through a crowd of protesters last week?
- Fgapd 9y agoCompletely different level to someone who plows through people and then attacks others with machetes.
- DanBC 9y agoYes we do. Look up the 969 movement, or Bodu Bala Sena, or the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army.