I'm not sure where you are going with this, almost sounds like you are playing both sides of the fence now.

From my perspective I am talking about where they get the motivation from?

some might argue that violent video games or violent movies are the cause for teen violence

If you support the freedom of religion yet do not support violent movies or violent video games, then you are a hypocrite.

Is it being white that causes nazi extremists? What is the catalyst for them being prejudice?

I'm open-minded -- which means that you're not going to force me into a corner or expect that I force the world into convenient categories.

Why don't you first ask why Muslims in Palestine are a lot more militant than Muslims in Tunisia, and why Muslims in Somalia are a lot more militant than Muslims in Gambia, and why poor Muslim teenagers in Paris are a lot more militant than poor Muslim teenagers in Niamey.

Seems that the uniting thread is NOT their religion, but rather their socioeconomic and political marginalization. Angry, disaffected young men rise up in every society and they look for fiery leaders to follow. It happens that in the current world militant Islam speaks loudly to disaffected young Muslims. But that was manifestly NOT the case in Turkey for the angry young men who followed Ataturk, who was a SECULAR Muslim ruler with great appeal.

Well, the evidence basis supports an associative relationship between exposure to violent media and violent behavior. However the evidence is insufficient to discriminate whether there is an a priori self-selection by which latently violent kids choose more exposure to violent media; or whether kids with more heavy exposure to violent media lack social and familial support systems (which is why they spend more time playing video games); or whether there is a two-hit effect of inadequate social/family support PLUS exposure to violent media. Furthermore, the developmental stage of a child has a lot to do with their impressions of media exposure -- and this may be far more important than the nature of the exposure. Furthermore, there is a well-documented psychological effect of desensitization -- and you CANNOT compare the visual exposure in Doom to the teachings in any religious group. Furthermore, you cannot compare indoctrination by extremists to religious practice in general.

Two sides of the fence still? What fence? We're talking about humans, we're more complicated than yes/no answers.

And if you think either is reducible to just a yes/no causal relationship then you are ignorant. Are we done trading insults now?

Considering that virtually 100% of their roughly 15 million victims were white, I fail to understand the question.

No force to it, I am simply pointing out the contradiction.

I understand it varies and it is much easier to influence the less affluent than the highly educated. Which only goes to show that if they target a particular group for recruiting Islamic Extremists that the fuel for the hatred or anger is a religious one while using a social or economic basis for blaming rival groups.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Victims? Victims of what?

I never made a contradiction --

Right, but the Michigan Militia and the Branch Davidians and the KKK also target particular groups.

You brought up the Nazis, I assume you're aware of the victims of the SS.

If we judge religions by their most ugly and extreme believers, then none of them deserves anything but condemnation by mankind.

Right, but are there any NON religious extremist groups that spark violence or hatred? That openly protest civil rights or use extreme tactics to remove another group using violence?

Riiiiiiiiight. Can you please illuminate for me the authority behind the child slavery on coffee plantations in Cote d'Ivoire, which is a Christian and animist country?

And if you took about 2 minutes to read about Mauritania you'd realize that the slaves held in Mauritania are ALSO Muslim. The difference is that the slaveholders were (are) Moors and the slaves were (are) black. The problem with slavery in Mauritania is RACIAL, not religious. In 1989-1991 there were massive riots in both Senegal (ALSO a Muslim country, but without slavery) and Mauritania because of the RACIAL problems, in which blacks were expelled from Mauritania and Moorish shops in Dakar were destroyed and looted (it was nominally a border war over grazing, but that was just the catalyst). And while you're apparently scrambling on Google to find something to support your arguments, take note that I've lived and worked in Dakar, Senegal and Fajara / Serekunda, Gambia (a country completely surrounded by Senegal), and I've been to the Mauritanian border area north of Saint-Louis; I've known many people from both countries, so I'm not basing this on the first website to show up on my browser.

These countries are not in Africa!!!!!!!! :brickwall:

Please point out where it is "condemned" in the Christian bible or in the Torah.

---------- Post added 09-08-2009 at 12:39 PM ----------

Are you really asking about the crimes of modern-day Christians? How about the Serbian Christians who literally tried to exterminate Bosnian Muslims just 16 years ago?? How about the Hutu Christians who tried to exterminate the Tutsi Christians just 15 years ago, including luring them into churches to be slaughtered?

The difference is that you know better than to blame it on some fundamental characteristic of the Christian religion, despite the perpetrators being Christian -- but you DON'T know better than to blame it on Islam.

Most fundamentalist Islam is political and social violence that finds its rationalization in religious doctrine, just as fascist violence in the 1930s was political and social unrest that found its own rationalization in nationalist parties. It's the exact same phenomenon.

You fail to recognise the significance of Mohamed holding slaves and allowing their ownership. Its this authority that permits muslims to continue this trade.

it was relative to the time frame of how muslims where only recently convinced of the horrors of slavery.

The KKK and neo-Nazis are not religious extremists.

If we judge religions by their most ugly and extreme believers, then none of them deserves anything but condemnation by mankind.

Many people in this thread are judging Islam not by the monsters who call themselves Muslims, but by the systematic sicknesses practiced by the vast majority of it's adherents.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing Westerners apologize for the ignorance of Islam