> Radical Christians are no different from radical Muslims who are no different than radical Jews.
Be that as it may, by examining the frequency of terror attacks the percentage of what you call "radical Muslims" is high enough that they do not need to be termed "extremist Muslims". Whereas Jewish and Christian terrorist attacks are attested to such a small percentage of the population that the terms "radical Christian" and "extremist Christian" are effectively synonyms.
Pretty sure Palestinians would take issue with your opinion on that. And that’s not even considering historical records and precedent of any of those religions.
Bashing one monotheistic religion while trying to contort logic around supporting the others is a fruitless endeavor.
So you choose a group who has been murdering our people for over a century, and hold them as an example of a group that would take issue with Jewish radicals?
Let's take your argument at face value - let's assume that Jewish radicals are as common among the Jews as Muslim radicals are among the Muslims. We disagree about the cause and the effect in the holy land, so let's disregard it. Please list for me all terror attacks that are plausibly attributed to Jews - worldwide. Then tell me how much larger the Muslim population is than the Jewish population. I'll use your own numbers to respond with an appropriate number of terror attacks plausibly attributed to Muslims.
If I can't beat the target number I'll rescind my stance.
No. I would choose a group that has been suffering from genocide in one area, and ethnic cleansing in many others. Not a hundred years ago. Not 75 years ago. Today, in the here and now.
We can go back and forth on this however many times you want. The issue I am raising is that all three religions are dangerous when used to justify murderous goals. You unfortunately are hung up on the idea that a religion is less bad or more bad than the others.
That is an irrational foundation for me to spend any more time debating against.
