RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Cole writes: "Contrary to what is alleged by bigots like Bill Maher, Muslims are not more violent than people of other religions."

Juan Cole; public intellectual, prominent blogger, essayist and professor of history. (photo: Informed Comment)
Juan Cole; public intellectual, prominent blogger, essayist and professor of history. (photo: Informed Comment)



Terrorism and the Other Religions

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

24 April 13

 

ontrary to what is alleged by bigots like Bill Maher, Muslims are not more violent than people of other religions. Murder rates in most of the Muslim world are very low compared to the United States.

As for political violence, people of Christian heritage in the twentieth century polished off tens of millions of people in the two world wars and colonial repression. This massive carnage did not occur because European Christians are worse than or different from other human beings, but because they were the first to industrialize war and pursue a national model. Sometimes it is argued that they did not act in the name of religion but of nationalism. But, really, how naive. Religion and nationalism are closely intertwined. The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that still meant something in the first half of the twentieth century, at least. The Swedish church is a national church. Spain? Was it really unconnected to Catholicism? Did the Church and Francisco Franco's feelings toward it play no role in the Civil War? And what's sauce for the goose: much Muslim violence is driven by forms of modern nationalism, too.

I don't figure that Muslims killed more than a 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame.

Compare that to the Christian European tally of, oh, lets say 100 million (16 million in WW I, 60 million in WW II - though some of those were attributable to Buddhists in Asia - and millions more in colonial wars.)

Belgium - yes, the Belgium of strawberry beer and quaint Gravensteen castle - conquered the Congo and is estimated to have killed off half of its inhabitants over time, some 8 million people at least.

Or, between 1916-1930 Tsarist Russian and then Soviet forces - facing the revolt of Central Asians trying to throw off Christian (and then Marxist), European rule - Russian forces killed an estimated 1.5 million people. Two boys brought up in or born in one of those territories (Kyrgyzstan) just killed 4 people and wounded others critically. That is horrible, but no one, whether in Russia or in Europe or in North America has the slightest idea that Central Asians were mass-murdered during WW I and before and after, and looted of much of their wealth. Russia when it brutally conquered and ruled the Caucasus and Central Asia was an Eastern Orthodox, Christian empire (and seems to be reemerging as one!).

Then, between half a million and a million Algerians died in that country's war of independence from France, 1954-1962, at a time when the population was only 11 million!

I could go on and on. Everywhere you dig in European colonialism in Afro-Asia, there are bodies. Lots of bodies.

Now that I think of it, maybe 100 million people killed by people of European Christian heritage in the twentieth century is an underestimate.

As for religious terrorism, that too is universal. Admittedly, some groups deploy terrorism as a tactic more at some times than others. Zionists in British Mandate Palestine were active terrorists in the 1940s, from a British point of view, and in the period 1965-1980, the FBI considered the Jewish Defense League among the most active US terrorist groups. (Members at one point plotted to assassinate Rep. Dareell Issa (R-CA) because of his Lebanese heritage.) Now that Jewish nationalsts are largely getting their way, terrorism has declined among them. But it would likely reemerge if they stopped getting their way. In fact, one of the arguments Israeli politicians give for allowing Israeli squatters to keep the Palestinian land in the West Bank that they have usurped is that attempting to move them back out would produce violence. I.e., the settlers not only actually terrorize the Palestinians, but they form a terrorism threat for Israel proper (as the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin discovered).

Even more recently, it is difficult for me to see much of a difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the Hebron massacre.

Or there was the cold-blooded bombing of the Ajmer shrine in India by Bhavesh Patel and a gang of Hindu nationalists. Chillingly, they were disturbed when a second bomb they had set did not go off, so that they did not wreak as much havoc as they would have liked. Ajmer is an ecumenical Sufi shrine also visited by Hindus, and these bigots wanted to stop such open-minded sharing of spiritual spaces because they hate Muslims.

Buddhists have committed a lot of terrorism and other violence as well. Many in the Zen orders in Japan supported militarism in the first half of the twentieth century, for which their leaders later apologized. And, you had Inoue Shiro's assassination campaign in 1930s Japan. Nowadays militant Buddhist monks in Burma/ Myanmar are urging on an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya.

As for Christianity, the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda initiated hostilities that displaced two million people. Although it is an African cult, it is Christian in origin and the result of Western Christian missionaries preaching in Africa. If Saudi Wahhabi preachers can be in part blamed for the Taliban, why do Christian missionaries skate when we consider the blowback from their pupils?

Despite the very large number of European Muslims, in 2007-2009 less than 1 percent of terrorist acts in that continent were committed by people from that community.

Terrorism is a tactic of extremists within each religion, and within secular religions of Marxism or nationalism. No religion, including Islam, preaches indiscriminate violence against innocents.

It takes a peculiar sort of blindness to see Christians of European heritage as "nice" and Muslims and inherently violent, given the twentieth century death toll I mentioned above. Human beings are human beings and the species is too young and too interconnected to have differentiated much from group to group. People resort to violence out of ambition or grievance, and the more powerful they are, the more violence they seem to commit. The good news is that the number of wars is declining over time, and World War II, the biggest charnel house in history, hasn't been repeated.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+6 # toast 2013-04-24 08:58
"Two boys brought up in or born in one of those territories (Kyrgyzstan) just killed 4 people and wounded others critically. "

Did I miss the due process? Or is this more Trial By Media?
 
 
+18 # JSRaleigh 2013-04-24 12:54
Quoting toast:
"Two boys brought up in or born in one of those territories (Kyrgyzstan) just killed 4 people and wounded others critically. "

Did I miss the due process? Or is this more Trial By Media?


Under the law, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is entitled to the presumption of innocence in court. When he goes to trial he deserves all the same protections of the Constitution any other accused is entitled to.

But, out here in the real world I don't think we need to twist ourselves into a pretzel pretending we don't know what they did.

Must we pretend Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold or Adam Lanza didn't murder anyone because they were never convicted in a court of law?
 
 
+41 # Edwina 2013-04-24 09:38
We need this survey to remind us that some people's use of religion does not define that religion. I prefer to think the U.S. civil rights movement, and Revolution Theology in Central America are more true to the ideals of Christianity. That does not negate the bloody history of people calling themselves Christian, which we have to own up to before we can call another religion "inherently violent".
 
 
-45 # hd70642 2013-04-24 09:41
Religions are only as dangerous as to their access to cash !!, How much oil funds the Muslims which only has two or three major denominations plus no separation of church and state !!!. The religious right while rich does not access to the unimaginable cash flow IE petroleum cash and has separate denominations
 
 
+42 # dkonstruction 2013-04-24 10:25
Quoting hd70642:
Religions are only as dangerous as to their access to cash !!, How much oil funds the Muslims which only has two or three major denominations plus no separation of church and state !!!. The religious right while rich does not access to the unimaginable cash flow IE petroleum cash and has separate denominations


Right....the poor US religious right such as Pat Robertson's TV network or Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1970s/1980s or Ralph Reed's Christian Coalition or his more recent Faith and Freedom Coalition or James Dobson's Family Research Council...none of these have access to "unimaginable cash flow"...they are but poor, humble, organizations.. .
 
 
-19 # hd70642 2013-04-24 12:35
I never said I supported Anti literate thugs like Robertson nor did I say he was a pauper . He is well too well off but he is no Sheik and there is no leader of US fundamentalist evangelical protestant Christians they have limits to how big a particular denomination can grow and of course their influence is way too much but Christianity is kept in check because of all the various denominations
 
 
+47 # baldeagleretired 2013-04-24 09:44
Bill Maher is a comedian NOT a bigot.
 
 
+17 # dkonstruction 2013-04-24 11:07
Quoting baldeagleretired:
Bill Maher is a comedian NOT a bigot.


So one cannot be both a comedian and a bigot? That's like saying one can't be a racist because they are a comedian. I'm not saying that Maher is a bigot but it simply does not follow logically that one cannot be both a comedian and a bigot.
 
 
-8 # edge 2013-04-24 11:12
Quoting baldeagleretired:
Bill Maher is a comedian NOT a bigot.


WRONG, he is a comedian AND a bigot!
 
 
+59 # engelbach 2013-04-24 09:46
Cole's comment calling Bill Maher a bigot is way off base.

He didn't say that Muslims as a whole are inherently violent. He said that today, in 2013, Muslim extremists are likely to kill you for insulting the Prophet, which is hardly news.

He also said that Muslims react to insults to their spiritual symbols more strongly than people of other religions — also not news. He did not say that they woud automatically turn to violence.

You can disagree with Maher, but his comments were based on his observations, not prejudice.
 
 
-4 # edge 2013-04-24 12:53
Quoting engelbach:

You can disagree with Maher, but his comments were based on his observations, not prejudice.


Since many blacks of slave heritage come from the south, and watermelons and fried chicken are particularly noted as southern food, then saying that blacks like watermelon and fried chicken would be bigoted or observational?
 
 
+5 # dkonstruction 2013-04-25 12:52
Quoting edge:
Quoting engelbach:

You can disagree with Maher, but his comments were based on his observations, not prejudice.


Since many blacks of slave heritage come from the south, and watermelons and fried chicken are particularly noted as southern food, then saying that blacks like watermelon and fried chicken would be bigoted or observational?


someone's "observations" can be either bigoted or not; they are not mutually exclusive.

While I more often than not disagree with your comments you strike me as smart enough to know that words are often used as code for other things e.g., when "inner city" is being used as a code for "minority" (which itself is more often than not used as a code to mean either black or Hispanic since it is usually not used to refer to say Japanese Americans who are also a minority).

As for the blacks and watermelon stereotype have a look at the images provided in the link and you tell me whether this is either "bigoted or observational" though somehow I suspect that even without seeing the images you know the answer and know better.

http://www.google.com/search?q=blacks+and+watermelon&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9nl5UbuyMsTS0gGL5YCIAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=754
 
 
-54 # The Voice of Reason 2013-04-24 09:46
Here again is the 'not all Muslim terrorists are terrorists' with the implied 'so they're not dangerous' tag. The question you must ask yourselves is, are you being deceived?

Juan Cole of all people should know that the Muslim leaders murdered the Prophet of God in 1850, and their doom has been sealed by their own actions. They went on to join Hitler when the Gland Mufti of Palestine joined Hitler's war cabinet and employed an entire division of Muslim soldiers known as the most brutal of all of Hitler's murderers. Their goal was to keep Jews from returning to their Holy Land, as promised by many ancient Biblical prophecies, and even their own Qur'an, which apparently they have stopped reading.

But you want to support them and ignore the 'death to America / Israel' chants that still fill the air.

Go ahead and do as you wish, but know that you are standing in line at the gates of hell. Can you guess whose Book this is from:

14:22 And after doom hath been given, Satan shall say, “Verily, God promised you a promise of truth. I, too, made you a promise, but I deceived you. Yet I had no power over you. But I only called you and ye answered me. Blame not me then, but blame yourselves. I cannot aid you, neither can ye aid me. I never believed that I was His equal with Whom ye joined me.” As for the evildoers, a grievous torment doth await them.
 
 
+41 # dkonstruction 2013-04-24 10:11
Cole's point is that all "terrorists" are dangerous but they are dangerous not because they are Muslims or Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus, etc.

As for the Grand Mufti supporting Hitler; well, there are many historical examples of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" aren't there? To just take one example, what about all of the right-wing Latin American dictatorships (including their death squads) that the US supported because they were "anti-communist "?

I don't agree with the Iranian chant but you make it sound like the US 1953 US led overthrow of the democratically elected President of Iran never happened or that we didn't then impose the dictator Shah of Iran for decades....but, now they have no reason to be pissed at us (which again doesn't excuse the current chant but at least it's placed in it's proper historical context so that perhaps one can understand where it comes from and thus perhaps how to prevent it from happening in the future i.e., it's about our foreign policy and actions.

And, your last paragraph just goes to prove Cole's point....those that quote the bible to justify US policies abroad are no better than those that quote the Koran or any other "holy" book.
 
 
-24 # The Voice of Reason 2013-04-24 14:53
Cole is covering for the Muslim terrorists, just as you did when you sided with the Hitler-Mufti alliance. And the Iranian chant is out of the mouths of Satan worshipers, something that you don't seem to be to concerned about.

If you can write a better holy book of truth, the produce a chapter and summon your own witnesses. Cole is not true to his convictions. I don't trust him.
 
 
+16 # Selwick 2013-04-24 16:34
Say now more, Voice
You have now proved all what has been said about the danger of religion:
Illiterate fanatism, close minded, holding their conviction for the only truth. If it's not getting their way, they like toting a gun.
 
 
+9 # dkonstruction 2013-04-25 09:27
Quoting The Voice of Reason:
Cole is covering for the Muslim terrorists, just as you did when you sided with the Hitler-Mufti alliance. And the Iranian chant is out of the mouths of Satan worshipers, something that you don't seem to be to concerned about.


As a Jew and someone who majored in German History and specifically studied the rise of the Nazis your characterizatio n of my comment as showing that I "sided with the Hitler-Mufti alliance" is simply wrong if not out and out offensive (but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant no offense).

I am not the first to analyze the "support" Hitler and the Nazis got from the Mufti and other Arabs as being more of an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing than an embracing of Nazi ideology (it's not like Hitler had and the Nazis had any more respect for Arabs than they had for Jews but it was Jews and not Arabs that were a sizable population in Germany otherwise they would have went after German Arabs as well).

And, once again by referring to Muslims as "Satan worshipers" (sic) you have proven Cole's (and others) point about the dangers of religious "fundamentalist s" (using this in the broadest sense about those who believe their "book" is the one, the only and the final "holy book of truth."

Finally, I am indeed concerned about people that call for the death of others, particularly civilians, whether they come out of the mouths of Iranian or American fanatics of whatever stripe.
 
 
-7 # The Voice of Reason 2013-04-25 23:52
Hitler went after Jews to keep them from returning to the Holy Land, and the Muslim leaders joined in because they had already murdered the Messiah in 1850 and want to keep it secret.

You're a Jew? Wow. I am stunned
 
 
+3 # dkonstruction 2013-04-26 08:24
Quoting The Voice of Reason:
Hitler went after Jews to keep them from returning to the Holy Land, and the Muslim leaders joined in because they had already murdered the Messiah in 1850 and want to keep it secret.

You're a Jew? Wow. I am stunned


First, Hitler did not go after Jews to keep them from returning to the "Holy Land." In fact, some of the Zionists of the day were willing to negotiate with the Nazis to ensure Jews that were going to be sent out of Germany would be sent to or allowed to go to Palestine (i'm not judging this at this point...that's a separate discussion...i' m just pointing this out as a matter of historical fact).

The Arabs in Palestine at the time were enemies of the British and the British were fighting the Germans...that is why I said that this was an issue of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and not one principally of the Arabs agreeing with or adopting Nazi ideology (for as I also said, the Nazis had no more regard or respect for Arabs than they did for Jews but Arabs were not yet a significant population in Germany or the rest of Europe for that matter). Again, I am not saying that this was something they "should" have done (I don't accept this as an acceptable political line from anyone) but I think it at least explains why they formed this "alliance."

And, yes, I'm a (secular) Jew. My folks were born here but my grandparents are Eastern European Jews (Russia and what is now Poland).
 
 
+4 # hd70642 2013-04-24 14:54
I have a link that has a picture that illustrates your point No religion has a monopoly on violence or anti literate behavior
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=33325
 
 
+16 # Billy Bob 2013-04-24 18:59
I read that link and it's simply frightening. We live in the most powerful country on Earth, but it's also the most overtly ignorant about the rest of the world. That's a terrifying combination.

I used to think people were just pretending to be stupid because they were arguing in bad faith to further an agenda. Now I know it's not an act. We are reaping the rewards of undermining our public schools for the past 40 years.

And, these people vote.
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2013-04-24 19:06
Sorry, what I meant to say is that I followed a link from your link that showed Tweets by people who thought the U.S. was now at war with Czechoslavakia. Apparently, millions of Americans don't know that the Czech Republic and Chechnya are not the same thing, and that many of these same people also don't realize that Czechoslavakia hasn't even existed for over 20 years.

I once lived in Texas and visited friends in Michigan. I was asked by some Texans if I had fun in Missouri. I told them Michigan was an entirely different state and they said, "Well, they boarder, don't they?"

I was also asked if I planned to stop in Las Vegas on the way. I told them I didn't have enough money to circumnavigate the globe and was met with dumbfounded silence.
 
 
-8 # The Voice of Reason 2013-04-25 07:43
Except, your 'friend' is Satan, Hitler, the worst mass murderer in centuries. How you can blithely suggest that this was just a matter of course shows a lot about you.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-04-25 12:15
huh?
 
 
-6 # RobertMStahl 2013-04-24 11:01
And, why did Jesus grab Thomas's ear and leave the other apostles to go into a private discussion about the general ignorance? Christianity had a purpose, also, as time proceeds. What does Gregory Bateson say about ignorance and religious versus religion? How can one be closed and hope for a 'temple?'
 
 
+15 # Trueblue Democrat 2013-04-24 11:55
Hey, Voice, can you guess whose book this is from?

"Whosoever doeth work therein [on the Sabbath] shall be put to death.

"When he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

"If a man take a wife and her mother, they shall be burnt with fire."

I'll give you a hint. It's from the same book that condones a man selling his daughter into slavery and himself taking people into slavery, while forbidding such excesses as trimming one's hair or beard.
 
 
-4 # The Voice of Reason 2013-04-24 14:53
These are social laws from 3,000 years ago for a people you have no idea what they were like. A lot has changed since then, socially, and none of these laws are enforced for obvious reasons.

So what's your point? that we need a more modern book? I happen to agree with you.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2013-04-24 19:09
Are you suggesting that God's word is not eternal and unchanging?

If we ever got a "more modern book" it would have to be a lot more tolerant than you appear to be.
 
 
-8 # The Voice of Reason 2013-04-25 07:38
You guys like to tolerate Nazis and Muslim terrorists. I can't figure that one out. And you call me intolerant. Maybe you should look up the definition.

God's word has changed several times from Moses to Jesus to Muhammad. It is long overdue for another messenger. Don't you think? or do you just like disputing the inapplicability of Biblical laws without producing laws that would work.
 
 
+3 # dkonstruction 2013-04-25 10:35
Quoting The Voice of Reason:
You guys like to tolerate Nazis and Muslim terrorists. I can't figure that one out. And you call me intolerant. Maybe you should look up the definition.

God's word has changed several times from Moses to Jesus to Muhammad. It is long overdue for another messenger. Don't you think? or do you just like disputing the inapplicability of Biblical laws without producing laws that would work.


There are many Biblical laws that no one follows anymore so who is to decide which ones "we" are supposed to follow and which ones we are not? They are either ALL god's law or they aren't and if not who appointed you or anyone else as "the decider"? For Example:

1. THE RULE: "...she shall put the rainment of her capitivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that thou shalt go in unto her and be her husband..." (from Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

THE TRANSLATION: If you capture a beautiful woman during war, and you want to marry her, you must first have her shave her head and trim her nails. Then you must live with her for a month without touching her. After that, she's all yours.

to be continued....
 
 
+3 # dkonstruction 2013-04-25 10:36
2. THE RULE: "Even these of them ye may eat: the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. / But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." (Leviticus 11:22-23)

THE TRANSLATION: You can't eat bugs. Well, except for locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers-th ose you can eat all you want.

3. THE RULE: "...thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed; neither shall a garment of mingled linen and woolen come upon thee." (Leviticus 19:19)

THE TRANSLATION: Don't wear clothes made of mixed fibers. Wool-and-linen blends are particularly bad. Polycotton is probably OK.

4. THE RULE: "And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days; and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even." (Leviticus 15: 19)

THE TRANSLATION: Stay away from a woman if she's menstruating. She's impure, and if you touch her, you'll become impure, too.

5. THE RULE: "A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. He winketh with his eyes..." (Proverbs 6: 12-13)

THE TRANSLATION: No winking. This is just one example, but the Bible contains no less than four anti-winking passages.


then of course there are the ones that give me 3 of your goats if you insult my sister and things of that nature....

So, which Biblical laws?
 
 
0 # The Voice of Reason 2013-04-29 12:16
Only a Messenger can change these laws with authority. If you look closely enough in the internet, you can find that there has been a new Messenger in the last 200 years who has changed many laws and brought many more new ones that challenge humanity to rise above greed and avarice and become united as one family. Until people start to look into it, all you will do is fight and quibble while terrorists make their move.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-04-25 12:27
Was God wrong several thousand years ago? If not, then why would he need to change his mind? Isn't God BY DEFINITION omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent? Doesn't that mean that God knows everything? Why would He need to change his mind?

Is it just possible that what is often presented as the "will of God", is really just the will of human beings who are so self-righteousl y arrogant that they think they have the exclusive right to dictate to the rest of us what God is thinking?

Do you believe in the Bible? The Bible itself says:

"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you."

Deuteronomy 4:2

__________________

If you think I'm the one not taking this seriously, why are you the one changing what you read (or not bothering to read it) to fit your agenda?
 
 
0 # The Voice of Reason 2013-04-29 00:09
The Bible is telling people, like you and me, not to add to it or leave things out. But the Lord has appeared several times since then and brought other Books, and is the purview of the Lord. But we think we know it all, understand it all, and don't need another messenger to guide us. "Trust in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not on your own understanding."
 
 
+4 # ER444 2013-04-24 14:30
"14:22 And after doom hath been given, Satan shall say, “Verily, God promised you a promise of truth. I, too, made you a promise, but I deceived you. Yet I had no power over you. But I only called you and ye answered me. Blame not me then, but blame yourselves. I cannot aid you, neither can ye aid me. I never believed that I was His equal with Whom ye joined me.” As for the evildoers, a grievous torment doth await them.

Get me a bucket !!!
 
 
0 # The Voice of Reason 2013-04-29 12:11
How about a handbasket ???
 
 
+17 # MordecaiMpls 2013-04-24 10:37
Juan Cole wrote: "The Swedish church is a national church."

No, it's not. Since Jan. 1, 2000, the Church of Sweden has been separate from the secular state. Swedes mainly belong to the national Lutheran Church of Sweden — and stay away from church in droves.
 
 
+32 # Moefwn 2013-04-24 10:39
Very well said, Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
At the risk of sounding like a wacko conspiracy theorist, I'd like to add that as long as we have a single small group of people who are noticeably more powerful than the rest of the population, we will probably continue to be encouraged to identify an "enemy of the day". Sometimes it's Muslims, sometimes it's Hispanics, or blacks, or gays; not very long ago it was the Viet Namese; before that it was Germans, etc. People in power regularly use our prejudices against us by helping us to inflate them, making us more fearful. This is a very useful tool by which to control and distract a population, keeping it united against and closely watching some easily identifiable "type" of person rather than those in power, while they do as they please with the country. Their game is racist/religion ist sleight-of-hand , pure and simple, and we sucker for it every time.
The great thing about this is that we have given them this power over us by our own bigotry, and we can take it back. If each of us refuses to participate in group hatred of any kind - race, religion, gender, whatever - and insists upon treating every individual as just that - regardless of color, religion, gender, or personal antipathies - we could utterly destroy a powerful weapon that rulers (whether recognized or in the background) have been using to enslave entire populations for hundreds of years.
 
 
+9 # Dhimmi 2013-04-24 10:42
I don't mean to quibble, but weren't the Ottomans mostly Muslim and the victims of the Armenian genocide mostly Christian? Including that should push your estimate of two million over three million. Absolute quantities are, however, not that important: ANY deadly violence against the innocent is wrong.
 
 
-14 # moafu@yahoo.com 2013-04-24 10:43
WELL NOW, JUAN.

You need to see the article by the respected Journalist, Diana West:
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1817/Sunlight-on-the-American-Mosque.aspx#.UXfajb4ISDg.twitter

Winston Churchill (not religious) said it best about Islam. Google it !
 
 
+18 # dkonstruction 2013-04-24 11:21
Quoting moafu@yahoo.com:
WELL NOW, JUAN.

You need to see the article by the respected Journalist, Diana West:
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1817/Sunlight-on-the-American-Mosque.aspx#.UXfajb4ISDg.twitter

Winston Churchill (not religious) said it best about Islam. Google it !


Respected by whom? It's a rag owned by Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, through its company News World Communication. That's your idea of a "respected journalist" and credible news source?
 
 
+14 # Trueblue Democrat 2013-04-24 12:14
Well, now, moafu, Churchill also called Mohandas K Gandhi a "naked little fakir."

It is arguable that if post-WWII leaders had been more attuned to the philosophy of Gandhi and less to that of Churchill, the world might be in better shape today.
 
 
-1 # Dion Giles 2013-04-24 23:51
If the 1939-45 Allied WWII leaders had been more attuned to the philosophy of Gandhi and less to that of Churchill, the world would have been a pig's breakfast and Gandhi would have long since been hunted down and executed by the victorious Third Reich.
 
 
+14 # Citizen Mike 2013-04-24 10:53
Well, Homo Is A Sap and human history has been a great panorama of violence, brutality greed, arrogance and atrocity. No ethnicity is immune to this criticism.

Most horrid of course are the atrocities performed in the name of various religions, which has convinced me to adopt atheism.
 
 
+1 # hd70642 2013-04-24 16:10
Well as long as the humanist will value humanity over money they will better than most religions ever established. Although i do not agree with libertarain penn Juilett on most issues he did say do not value things or ideas over people
 
 
-14 # charsjcca 2013-04-24 10:58
This is a meaningless debate. Humankind has suffered from a variety of conditions imposed by externals. Human responsibility, not rights, ought to be the discussion. Join my Heavenly Brother, Pope Francis One, in crafting a new tomorrow. If Tea Baggers and Progressives joined hands there would be no debate. So-called best and brightest would be left to argue their case with their relatives in the KKK. End the debate, now!!!
 
 
+1 # Dion Giles 2013-04-25 00:00
Unlike the leaders of the Roman church in neighbouring Chile, the Argentinean cleric who is now Pope Francis One allowed his authority to be linked with that of the thugs who murdered their countrymen in droves to "end the debate".
 
 
+8 # Alternative 2013-04-24 10:59
I love watching Bill Maher and I have for years but let's be real, when it comes to international politics, his knowledge is weak and he can't always get past his own Jewish filter. He can be Religulous.
 
 
+15 # dickbd 2013-04-24 12:49
I like Bill Maher, too, and I agree that his knowledge of international politics is weak--but he joins the crowd on that one!

It is difficult to stay informed because we get lied to so much. However, I am mostly appalled that he seems to think the drone strikes are all right--or even that they are useful! (To me, it seems obvious that they simply inspire more terrorism.)

I really like this article, as I think it does a good job of putting things in perspective. I remember, myself, feeling quite outraged when a fatwa was put out on Salmon Rushdie. So it's easy to jump to conclusions.

As for Maher's Jewish filter, my wife was Jewish, and I have a particular empathy for Jews; however, the Orthodox variety are just as big a pain as right wing Christians. And so are those who feel Israel can do no wrong.
 
 
+3 # Timaloha 2013-04-24 13:02
Quoting Alternative:
I love watching Bill Maher and I have for years but let's be real, when it comes to international politics, his knowledge is weak and he can't always get past his own Jewish filter. He can be Religulous.

Maher was raised catholic by his Irish American father. His mother was Jewish, but his religious "filter" was Catholicism and atheism.
 
 
+1 # Alternative 2013-04-25 14:09
You can base your response on how he may have been raised all you want, I base mine on what he says and how he reacts in his shows.
 
 
+16 # roger paul 2013-04-24 10:59
There is an old saying: there are no atheists in foxholes...whic h means that only god fearing people are killing other god fearing people. How loving is that?
 
 
+14 # dickbd 2013-04-24 15:08
As a long-time atheist, I recall that saying during the second World War. The idea was that even atheists would call out for God when they were scared enough. I've lived long enough and been scared enough times to know that isn't true, but I can understand why religious people think that way.

It's funny: people who have never been religious can't believe that anyone truly believes in their religion. Conversely, religious people can't believe that anyone would doubt their convictions about the supernatural aspect of the world.

But your point is a good one. "God and country" has always been a great rallying cry for inciting people to war. I think it is interesting that it has always been the atheists, from Mark Twain to Bertrand Russell who have been the peace proponents.
 
 
+2 # Moefwn 2013-04-25 11:44
I myself call out for God on many occasions. It's a habit learned in childhood. Writing "OMG" is in this culture is about the same as writing :extreme astonishment: (and requires less time to type) but I suppose it does muddy the waters somewhat.

In as objective a view as I can muster, the idea that a primary force that could have created the universe would for some reason desire certain tiny motes within it to destroy other tiny motes seems utterly incomprehensibl e.
 
 
+15 # Adoregon 2013-04-24 11:07
Somehow Juan Cole is myopic when it comes to the terrorism visited upon the native Americans. Perhaps a little too close to home?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLe1SqHtihA

Christians have always been good at killing in the name of their "god."
 
 
+10 # giraffee2012 2013-04-24 11:19
Leave Bill Mahar out of the equation and the article says a lot about killing in the name of Religion - but go one step further - The "Religious" Right (i.e. baggers/GOP) are killing the rights of U.S. women, poor, middle - all but the top 1% with stupid laws like abortion rights and earned Social Security "benefits" --- and people will die because they cannot afford health care - i.e. the Sequester (which is controlled by the GOP) has already denied many the cancer treatments needed to stay alive.

BUT the lame-street- media fills the airways with bombings (etc) of the Muslims while those "old white men" are killing us by other means than BOMBS.

As long as we allow $$ to buy our government - we will go DOWN the tubes (and die as a free nation ....)

Time to overturn Citizens United and more than overdue is for Scalia/Thomas/A lito/Robers to get kicked out of the Supreme Court - these RATS will continue to give away our rights to the 1% and laugh themselves to the bank along the way.

Scalia is public enemy number "uno"
 
 
-1 # lnason@umassd.edu 2013-04-24 11:26
Sensible people cannot agree with Cole on this point. Consider the mandatory punishments under Sharia law for minor offenses, the death penalty for "blasphemy" (which would be perfectly legal in every Christian country), the death penalty for a woman who was raped while her rapists walk free or incur a small monetary fine, honor killings, cutting off limbs and cutting out eyes and noses and ears for what might be misdemeanors in the Christian world.

One might also point out that the relatively few deaths committed by Muslims in the 20th century were largely motivated by their religion beliefs whereas the many deaths committed by Christians in the 20th century were motivated by money or politics and were carried out largely in contravention of Christian religious beliefs.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+8 # dkonstruction 2013-04-24 13:43
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Adolph Hitler

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2013-04-24 19:16
Yeah, but that right-wing Christian was only directly responsible for the deaths of about 80,000,000 people. I guess that doesn't count.
 
 
-4 # SMoonz 2013-04-25 12:44
Hitler and his people were occultists. Their use of Christianity was used as a cover to gain acceptance and approval.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2013-04-25 14:06
Quoting SMoonz:
Hitler and his people were occultists. Their use of Christianity was used as a cover to gain acceptance and approval.


And, the younger Chechen brother is reported to both smoke pot and drink alcohol so then would that mean that he is using Islam as a cover (perhaps to gain acceptance and approval of some others)?
 
 
0 # SMoonz 2013-04-25 17:22
I don't know what their motives were. I don't even know if they were really part of this Boston incident. Let's have him go through a court first.
However,it is possible that these guys are being pitched as Muslims because it is convenient for the media and the government.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-04-25 15:50
I see. So when people claiming to be "Muslims" commit murder they're speaking for all of Islam and all other Muslims should hang their heads in shame and apologize.

Whereas, when people claim to commit the same acts (or even worse in the case of Hitler), they don't speak for the rest of us and they aren't "real" Christians.

Very convenient double-standard you've concocted there.
 
 
0 # SMoonz 2013-04-25 17:19
It isn't a double standard. Let me explain.
Hitler and his people were devout occultists.Ther e is too much info to cover in a simple RSN comment. Here is a quick link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_the_Occult

I'm not bringing up Muslim exremists into the conversation. I won't and never paint them in a broad stroke. I will say that those who are part of terror plots are not adherents of their faith.
If we look at 9/11 as an example I firmly believe it was an inside job. Most of these "plots" have zero to do with religion.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2013-04-25 19:48
I partially agree with you. The only thing I don't agree with is about Hitler. Many Christians have been looking to point the finger elsewhere ever since the death camp attrocities became to real to avoid dealing with. The "occult" thing has always been a cop out.

Also, "Occult" and "cult" do not mean the same thing. Hitler's "occult" leanings were just referring to ancient Germanic mythology. It's no different than right-wing Americans draping themselves in the flag while committing heinous acts. Hitler did anything he could to reinforce his brand (like the euphemisms we have used in the past 2 oil wars such as "Patriot" Act, Operation Iraqi Freedom, "shock and awe", "Homeland" Security, etc.) These things have a ring to them that sounds suspiciously Nazi and there's a very good reason for that. It doesn't involve the occult, or Freemasons, Leonardo DaVinci either. It involves mass psychology - and has been used and scientifically tested for decades in the realm of advertising.

Thank you for not furthing the right-wing agenda of treating all Muslims as suspects until proven innocent. Still, the point of the article is that this IS occurring and that the people engaged in it are applying an obvious double-standard.

I think that point is still a very valid one.
 
 
+5 # Regina 2013-04-24 11:37
Juan Cole isn't counting the "honor killings" and other slaughter of women in Islamic countries. And those societies don't count women as human.
 
 
+6 # bmiluski 2013-04-24 11:49
I have noticed over and over again that men use their man-made religions as just another excuse for control and violence. Is it that whole incomplete chromosomal thing?
 
 
+5 # marjb 2013-04-24 12:00
People are misunderstandin g Bill Maher, what he is saying is that RELIGION (not a people) is turning followers into killers. Right now it is the Muslim religion - or a faction thereof - that is saying "Go out and kill in the name of our God." Ask him and he'll tell you it's just a matter of timing. Head back a century or two and Christianity - a RELIGION not a people - was also busy turning followers into killers.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-04-24 19:20
I think the argument is that he seems to have blinders on about Christians who are currently doing the same thing. If our country was no longer "secular" at all and was completely run by the Southern Baptist Convention, we'd have our own "Sharia Law" and would be fighting wars for the sole purpose of religious fanaticism.

We still wouldn't be "terrorists" however, because terrorism is a tactic of people without a military. We HAVE a military.
 
 
0 # wiz1952 2013-04-24 12:07
Bill Maher tells jokes so lets face it this country is turning into the worlds laughing stock.
 
 
+4 # happycamper690 2013-04-24 13:20
Seems to me the only conclusion here is that all religion is destructive. When was the last time you heard of antheists murdering millions?
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2013-04-24 19:21
Does Stalin count?
 
 
+5 # PABLO DIABLO 2013-04-24 14:13
And, what was Henry Kissinger's excuse for killing so many people?
 
 
+6 # Wordslinger 2013-04-24 17:04
Strident religious folks, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, or NRA followers, all frighten the hell out of me. They all figure their way is the only way and their always ready to condemn and punish anyone who believes otherwise. Always. Reality.
 
 
-7 # Mannstein 2013-04-24 17:09
The Communists who had nothing to do with religion, indeed they prided themselves to be atheists, murdered 100 million according to "The Black Book of Communism" by Stephane Courtois et al. Courtois is an ex French Communist hardly someone who would write anti communist propaganda. As for Bill Maher he is a remarkable ass hole nevertheless a darling in certain liberal left wing circles.
 
 
+5 # Timaloha 2013-04-24 19:15
Quoting Mannstein:
The Communists who had nothing to do with religion, indeed they prided themselves to be atheists, murdered 100 million according to "The Black Book of Communism" by Stephane Courtois et al. Courtois is an ex French Communist hardly someone who would write anti communist propaganda. As for Bill Maher he is a remarkable ass hole nevertheless a darling in certain liberal left wing circles.

Courtois' figures are very much in dispute. But regardless of whether they're accurate or not, they have nothing to do with atheism. People love to point out that certain murderous, dictatorial, rat bastards were atheist, (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) usually in some sort of counter to the claim that their religion has a violent history, but those murderous dictatorial rat bastards did not kill in the name of atheism. They killed in the pursuit of power, and they repressed religion to solidify that power.
 
 
+2 # Martha Luehrmann 2013-04-24 18:37
I think it is clear that the problem is not only Islam, but all religions. I think it is that religion is based on faith, not reason, so it cannot be "reasonable". It cannot be reasoned with. And different religions have, at different times, been more strident in exhorting their followers to kill for religious glory and salvation.

Some point to Communist atrocities, to show that it is not religion to blame, but I agree with Cole that holocaustic violence is usually religion-based. After all, eternal heavenly bliss can be a strong to kill others, and you can even salve your conscience by saying that by killing them you may be saving their souls.

Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it comes close. Should I say, "damn close".
 
 
-1 # Dion Giles 2013-04-24 23:35
Note that Stalin's ideology, and its suppression of dissent, was also based on faith. Faith is the common anti-human thread. Religion is merely one of its manifestations. Faith is a weapon deployed by the 1% against the exploited 99% wherever the 1% is a class imposing its will in its own power interests. This point is made eloquently in LH's post below(18:23 April 23).
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-04-25 07:08
I don't think it's faith. I think it's self-righteous arrogance. Whether it's from:

1. a deity-based religion (e.g. "Muslim" terrorists, Israeli treatment of Palestinians, Bible-thumping "Christians", etc.),

2. an atheistic religion (e.g. Stalin, Mow, etc.),

3. absolute greed and corruption (e.g. American neo-cons),

4. or revenge (e.g. Columbine),

without incoherant insanity (e.g. Lanza), it's always based on self-righteous arrogance (with some incoherant insanity mixed in).
 
 
-7 # Rick Levy 2013-04-24 18:58
Name one religion other than Islam whose adherents run amok and commit murder over such "insults" as the publishing of cartoons depicting its founder.
 
 
+7 # Timaloha 2013-04-24 20:04
Quoting Rick Levy:
Name one religion other than Islam whose adherents run amok and commit murder over such "insults" as the publishing of cartoons depicting its founder.

Christianity had no problem killing and torturing for blasphemy or atheism for much of its history. They'd likely be at it still if it weren't for the generalized separation of church and state in the developed nations. Don't believe me? Read up on Christianity in Uganda today.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2013-04-25 07:18
There are millions of American "Christians" who want to rebuild the Temple from ancient Israel because they believe it's the last thing needed to induce the end of the world. The spot where it would be built is on top of one of the holiest sights in all of Islam. It would certainly cause the biggest war the Middle-East has ever seen, but that's ok with them. In fact, it's kind of the point.

These same "Christians" harp on and on and on endlessly about Islam (and Catholicism, and the U.N.) being veiled attempts by Satan to take over the Universe.

These same "Christians" vote for neo-cons BECAUSE they want to bring about the end of the world, since they believe they themselves will be "raptured" away from the Tribulation predicted in the very Bible they refuse to actually read.

They are hoping to end the world because it's become so corrupt (what with all the women's rights, gay rights, tolerance of "mixed" marriages, and "secular humanism" - a.k.a. the Enlightenment). They've decided that, unless all the Earth's nations are brought back to living like Europe in the Dark Ages, God will be angry and it's their job to carry out his mission of punishing the rest of us.

Fortunately for us, our country still has a Separation of Church and State (at least on paper)!!!
 
 
+1 # Cassandra2012 2013-04-25 16:34
Salem witch trials?
 
 
-1 # Rick Levy 2013-04-25 19:17
Um, that was over 300 years ago. I rest my case.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2013-04-26 09:31
Um, you didn't respond to my comment that proves it's still happening right now. I rest my case.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-04-26 09:46
You know, after reading your post to another article saying that you actually hoped a person arguing with you would be maimed in the next terrorist attack, I think the "case" you're trying to make "about Muslims running amok" is pretty paper thin and hypocritical.
 
 
+8 # L H 2013-04-24 20:23
Amen! Religions, under the guise of a higher authority and a pretense of morality, have interfered with the human potential to evolve. Nature evolves, even viruses evolve, but humans?

Religions have been murderous of Mind and body! Religions have trained people to be murderers as if they have the right to play God!

What people hunger for is spiritual experiences, and no religion is the owner of anyone's spiritual experience! It lives within every individual!

Being in Nature is more spiritual than any religion. I think we've had enough of this judgmental control over people. No more religion and no more war!
 
 
0 # hd70642 2013-04-25 03:45
Well religion does provide a means of acquiring money with out working for it and to be fair most of the economy has and always will be a swindle! What amount of physical labor or actual expertise does real estate banking insurance and investing really involve excepting talking in circles and blowing smoke and gambling !!.Then you have the small business owner with out empathy for the less fortunate who claim they never got any help from anybody and of course if would be high heresy and treason to doubt their self congratulatory claims in anyway !
Religion has and always be a money game . Also all that positive mental attitude is really based on Buddhist mysticism and really should have never been adopted my the society the mental health profession or educators and has dummed the society down and eroded both the intellectual and ethical foundation of society
eligious atrocities:
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=90_41&products_id=930
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=35_6&products_id=1958
Christain terrorist :
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=32276&Disp=3#C3
Mystic swindles debunked :
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=90_7&products_id=67
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-04-15/
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30334&Disp=1#C1
 
 
+1 # tomr 2013-04-24 23:23
Really? Bill Maher is the bigot you want to single out? That's just what we need - an internal war among progressives so we can be more like the Republicans.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-04-25 07:21
Actually, I watch his show every week, and Maher called the idea that Islam isn't the source of terror, "just more liberal bullshit". If the idea is to fan the flames of intolerance, then I don't think we can call him a "progressive" on this issue...

...even though he wants to legalize weed.
 
 
+2 # handskhan 2013-04-25 03:17
By nature all human beings are born innocent. What happen later are where they are born and brought up and the environment prevailing at that time? This will determine their future actions or re-actions.
History is full of incidents narrated in the article where very sane people have acted as terrorists and later became leaders of nations.
Middle East has been simmering since 1947 and after the end of the cold war most of the areas with violence are Muslim areas. Without going into details and starting a blame game we must try to understand the re-action of some of the people living in these troubled areas who were born innocent as I said earlier.
Most of us including our leaders have got into the habit of going after Effect without considering the Cause. Until and unless we try to remove the Causes of such terrorism this will keep on happening. The world has become small and the war industry is prospering. Where will it stop only time will tell?
 
 
+4 # bmiluski 2013-04-25 07:59
SPIRITUALITY = the search for knowledge/enlightenment.


RELIGION = The search for reward.
 
 
-2 # Astral 2013-04-25 08:10
I signed up with RSN today just to weigh in on this article.

It's poorly written and illogical . . . an amazingly scattered & grasping example of apologetics.

The title of the article is "Terrorism and the other religions" yet it conflates murder with terrorism. The one paragraph that actually is about religious terrorism cites mostly Jewish acts in Palestine. Atrocities committed in the name of Islam aren't even listed.

WWII deaths compared to the Boston bombing terrorism against innocent non-combatants?

I recommend you read Richard Altick's "Preface to Critical Reading" or some other primer. You need remedial help.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-04-25 15:58
Welcome.

Do you think Islamic terrorism needed to be mentioned to "even out the discourse"? I think the entire point of the article is that Islam is not solely responsible for acts of terrorism. Including terrorist acts by Muslims is extraneous to that point.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you suggesting that the 80,000,000 people who were killed because of WWII were all soldiers in uniform?

I don't think it's necessary to point out how many innocent non-combatants were killed in that war.

Critical thinking requires you to make counter arguments that acknowledge the original argument. If you take, as a starting point, an attitude that nothing said in the article can have any merit because it disagrees with your pre-disposition s, are you really using "critical thinking"?
 
 
0 # Astral 2013-04-25 22:54
A balanced treatment would compare and contrast -- not be one-sided. It's obvious that Islamists are not the only perpetrators of violence.

I don't mind correcting you, if you don't mind correction. 80,000,000 people did not die in the same fashion as in Boston; in Iraq; in Afghanistan; in the WT Bldg; on Israeli busses; in the Olympics. Do you understand the difference between random killing of non-combatants and war casualties? Granted there is overlap in war, but try to see the big picture if you can.

The article begins with an ad hominem attack on Maher. Is someone a bigot because he sees patterns in groups? Are sociologist bigots? Are physicians? Scholarly this article was NOT.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-04-26 09:39
This article IS THE BALANCE. If you want an accounting of Muslim terrorists look at the rest of the news media. The point of the article is that this is NOT balanced. The article doesn't need to repeat what has already been said millions of times in other articles to do that.

Of the 80,000,000 people who died in WWII MOST of them were non-combatant civilians. Do you think Russia had an army of 20,000,000? Do you think China had one of 10,000,000? Do you think Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London, and Dresden were filled with nothing but soldiers? What about those 8,000,000 killed in Nazi death camps? Do you think Hitler and Hirohito didn't directly target civilians?

Yes, I do understand the difference between non-combatants and war casualties. Do you? If you want to focus on the "big picture", try focusing on the thousands of people who've been tortured by our own government. Try focusing on the hundreds of thousands of civilians who've been killed (and even specifically targeted) by our weapons over the past 10 years.

Someone is not a bigot for seeing patterns. But, when that person is intentionally putting blinders on that avoid seeing that same pattern occurring in all of humanity - HE IS.

I don't mind correcting you either.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2013-04-26 09:43
By the way, you'll notice that this article is entitled:

"Terrorism and the OTHER Religions"

It is a reaction to the media-made link between all of Islam and terrorism. If you want representation of what the media has had to say about it, the "ad hominem" attack on Maher is the starting point.
 
 
0 # frederico 2013-04-25 08:35
Bill Maher has ZERO credibility. He is not a progressive. He gave a million dollars to get Obama the lying murderer elected. BM used to be a funny political satirist, when he wasn't so transparent. But now, he's proven himself to be just another chicken shit wine and cheese liberal, and a disgusting enabler and funder of the genocides, the drone bombing, the police state, etc. A spoiled Hollywood pervert with a hedonistic, semi-hip attitude. Mort Sahl, George Carlin and Mark Twain were political satirists. Bill Maher doesn't measure up because he worships at the feet of the Evil Empire.
 
 
0 # ckosuda 2013-04-27 20:49
Bill Maher is definitely a bigot, and an elitist, and a sexist, and an arrogant snob - convinced he is correct - what is more annoying is how his guests cower and back off before this little jerk and his overblown ego. this is not conversation -it's bullying.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN