just as soon I finish watching Mr. Robot. And Braindead.

Oh, and fixing the bathroom.

And after finishing this big project for my client.

Dang it. Then I have my niece's wedding.

OK, maybe after the new year I'll have time for some terrorism.

Wait, why am I terrorizing?

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/extremists

It seems to me, the author is simply trying to save Islam by saying that some forms of Islam don't count as Islam.

You can't motivate an atheist to kill him- or herself by offering promises in the afterlife.

But you are right, it's all about believers comforting themselves by saying believers they don't agree with aren't really believers.

As a white guy, I never have to apologize for what other white guys do. A bunch of coked up dipshits destroy a small midwestern town after a Dave Matthews concert? No big deal. No one expects an apology or commentary from me. And if by some remote chance someone actually does, I'll just say, "Hey, I don't know those assholes. And Dave Matthews blows."

A few angry black protesters destroy a CVS in Baltimore, on the other hand, and the only thing the VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE want to know is whether or not black civil rights leaders condemn the destruction of property.

Religious affiliation works the same way. If some asshole burns a bunch of people alive in Syria, the narrative in the United States is "Why aren't Muslims condemning this". Meanwhile, the narrative in Saudi Arabia is, "He's not a real Muslim". The majority always has a No-True-Scotsman-shaped escape hatch to conveniently distance themselves from any association with the more unsavory types hidden away in their ranks.

Some may disagree with me on this, but I'm generally of the idea that religious people are so diverse in their beliefs that there's little logic in trying to hold them to account for the actions of others who may only nominally share their faith. I'm more concerned with religions themselves. Their institutions, their collected texts, traditions, and practices, and whether or not the ideas incubated therein can be considered, in the aggregate, good or bad for society.

And people say I lack nuance.

I'm generally of the idea that religious people are so diverse in their beliefs that there's little logic in trying to hold them to account for the actions of others who may only nominally share their faith. I'm more concerned with religions themselves. Their institutions, their collected texts, traditions, and practices, and whether or not the ideas incubated therein can be considered, in the aggregate, good or bad for society.

Nail on the head. Problem is, more than a few DUers (who coincidentally enjoy tremendous religious privilege themselves) see *any* critique of religious beliefs and practices as an attack on "all" believers, and you and I have both been the targets of their ire for what they imagine to be our position. Many of them I ignore because of their foul and bigoted behavior, because it's just not worth it. Their hate and anger consume them.

...

Islam, as you said, isn't a single unified religion, it is split. The main split is between suni and Shi'ite. They each say the other is a false religion, and unbelievers. That is the context of one group of Muslims calling another a false religion.

after all according the DHS veterans like me who were infantry soldiers have the necessary skill set to become home grown terrorists.

Being that I'm also a non-believing veteran I suspect there's someone keeping a small window open into my world.

But that's just paranoia on my part I'm told, it's not like it's based on the actual writings of the DHS or is it?

http://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Deprogramming military training? Nah, let's slap em on a watch list.

terrorists have no one religion

Islam (like all religions) is a religion of many things. Peace is down on the list however.