A Lesson From 9/11

[WC_lun]

There are idiots in every culture than can be taken advantage of men with the charisma and desire for power. There are men in the Middle East that derive thier power AND control from religion. When they no longer get to use that religion to dictate the lives of thier followers due to moderation they react and in some cases violently. It is not isolated to Islam, as many here would like you to believe. It has happened in the US. In my opinion, it is happening right now, but with less violence. Add to this scenario men who recognize this upheaval for what it is and use it to forward thier own agenda.

The answer for us, while simple is not easy. We must act to our ideals, thinking long term in order not to give ammunition to those seeking to radicalize and recruit. This means not doing things such as torture, invading countries under false pretense, or attacking the Muslim faith. The US is one of the most generous and giving countries in the world. Do things to highlight this, which I think we are doing. We build schools, infrastructure, and donate billions wordlwide. Third, we kill or capture those seeking to radicalize and use people for thier own agenda. That means if a terrorist attacks any US citizen, they and thier entire network is taken out, as far as we can. No more Osama Bin Ladens who create a following for themselves by just being alive after committing an attack on us. Make the risk for attacking us not worth the possible reward. While the front line troops of organizations like Al'Queda may not mind dying for thier cause, the planners and leaders certainly do.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I don't know if they are extremists or not. They're engaging in what we would call civil disobedience to protest (apparently) not having enough prayer space set aside for them. I would not attempt to assign a religious component (extremist, moderate, etc) to their actions. I've certainly seen religious people block access to abortion clinics. I don't know if they are extremists or not either. I don't approve of either action. However, civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition in the USA. The point of it is that it should end up with the protesters being ticketed or arrested and in any case, forced to clear the streets.

I can't imagine why the French police are tolerating this behavior. I'd expect the police in the USA not to.

Maybe because experience has shown them that if they try to put a stop to it, then the Muslims there will cause violence. I point you to the 2005 riots there when the police detained some Muslim youths who were breaking the law.

And what about the violence after that Dutch newspaper published images of Muhammed? Essentially, we as Americans, would have to curtail our rights of free expression so as not to even offend Muslims so that violence doesn't ensue.

Embrace the people? Yes. Accept that kind of activity? No. But not because it is religious; not because it is Muslim. Because it's an impediment to traffic. I can't do it, you can't do it, the people doing it should not be able to do it. Make them move; if they don't, start taking up the blankets and issuing police citations. Tolerance does not mean 'do nothing while our laws are broken', and I hope I've never suggested that it does.l

And if they riot when we do attempt to enforce our laws, as they did in France?

See, it's easy to say enforce our laws, but when the French did, they had a state of emergency for three months. Then what? That would be just as much fuel for the fire for Muslim extremists to use against the west, as people here argue that burning the Koran does. This would just be the argument of, "See, they won't even let you pray in peace to Allah."

It's a no win situation.

No, I did NOT say that the only way to stop the violence is to embrace them into our culture. I said that there is a battle for hearts and minds going on right now, and refusing to embrace moderate Muslims into our culture is to shove them in the direction of the extremists and the terrorists. That's not the same thing at all.

"We stop it by embracing our Muslim immigrants, and enveloping them in our culture as quickly as possible."

Perhaps I misunderstood what you said here then. Because it sounds to me like you are saying that we need to take them and their views into our culture, because...

"Estrange them instead of embracing them, and you give them nothing to hold onto in our nation. They find themselves unable to succeed in our culture, which leaves nothing but (TADA) their own culture. And the terrorists will gladly embrace them and welcome them back to the (from our point of view) Stone Age. And give them an AK at the same time."

Once again, I pose the question: If we must embrace them, how far does it go. After all, the French have had ample expericence as to what happens when you decide to enforce even burglary and tresspassing laws against them. (I know this is an oversimplification for the causes of the riots in France,

Once again, no, I did NOT say that. I said that if we do not embrace them, meaning accept them, then they have nowhere to go. I said nothing about rigging the game so that they have an advantage or succeed over others. All they deserve is what all Americans deserve; an equal chance.

The people to which I am referring are those (and I believe I said this) who are Muslim and have either been born in this country or have moved here and obtained citizenship. These are people who WANT to be here; they have embraced OUR culture to the extent that they are willing to live under our secular laws, to work, pay taxes, to try to achieve and better themselves. They may keep many aspects of their own culture, such as their religion, but they don't embrace the parts of the Koran, for example, that might urge them to kill infidels (just as we no longer obey similar commands in the Bible). They are the farthest thing from extremists. However, if they cannot be accepted in the USA, if they are rejected and not allowed to take part in the society of America because of their religious beliefs and practices, then they will be outcast and more open to the siren call of the Islamists. The Islamists tell them over and over that no matter what they do, they will always be hated and not accepted by the West. If we prove them right, then which direction do you suppose they will turn?

The terrorists are a distinct minority. They need converts to give them power. I don't mean converts to Islam, I mean converts to their way of thinking. In addition to their extreme view of Islam, they also believe that the West is destroying their traditional culture. They use this as a key point in trying to gain converts. It is not essentially different from any politician or salesman's spiel; they try to identify with their target audience, create a bond, and then build on it.

When terrorists reach out to an ignorant and relatively primitive (by our standards) people such as the tribes-people in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan or rural Iraq, they don't have a huge task in front of them. They can control the media, they can control the message. They can sway opinions by simply being the only voice that the people who live there hear.

When they reach out to the Muslims who live in more modern circumstances, they have to compete with other messages. In Islamic countries, they can try to control this if they can gain political leadership positions; taking over governments by fair means or foul, and controlling the media, public education, and so on.

However, when they reach out to the Muslims who live in Western nations under modern circumstances, they have to employ an entirely different set of tools. They cannot control the media or the access that Muslims who live in places like Europe and the USA have to it. They cannot tell the average Muslim who works in Dearborn, Michigan putting fenders on Fords that Americans hate him and want to kill him if the Muslim who lives in Dearborn knows that is not true. Does that make sense?

So he has to convince these moderate Muslims, somehow, that they will never fit in to American (or European) society. That they will not be permitted to succeed no matter how hard they try. That their religion will be hated, that their sacred symbols will be desecrated, that their Mosques will be burned down and that they'll be personally subject to violence and even murder if they stay.

They cannot do this if it's simply not true. The Muslim guy who works in Dearborn at Ford is not interested in blowing up buildings or taking up arms against the USA; he lives here, he has a house, a mortgage, his kids are in college, he has to buy groceries! He would be against the terrorists; they make trouble for him, they make his life more difficult; they hate the things he prefers. The only thing they share is a religion; but that's like saying my religion is like Fred Phelp's religion. They might be both called 'Christianity', but that's about as far as it goes.

If anti-Muslim sentiment continues to grow, if we begin to see more and more violent incidents against Muslims in the USA, then the terrorists will begin to be able to make headway with their message and their recruiting. If the Muslim guy who lives in Dearborn and works at Ford starts getting people driving by his house at night and firing shotguns in the air, if his local Mosque gets burned down, if people throw burned Korans on his yard, he might start to believe that no matter how much he WANTS to be an American, he'll never be allowed to be one. Then what is he supposed to do?[/quote]

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And what about the violence after that Dutch newspaper published images of Muhammed? Essentially, we as Americans, would have to curtail our rights of free expression so as not to even offend Muslims so that violence doesn't ensue.

What about it? We have freedom of speech here; if Muslims choose to live here, they have to accept that. If they 'riot', they get arrested like anybody else.

And if they riot when we do attempt to enforce our laws, as they did in France?

Arrest them. This is not France.

On the other hand, have you seen any Muslim riots in the USA?

See, it's easy to say enforce our laws, but when the French did, they had a state of emergency for three months. Then what? That would be just as much fuel for the fire for Muslim extremists to use against the west, as people here argue that burning the Koran does. This would just be the argument of, "See, they won't even let you pray in peace to Allah."

I am not going to argue about some supposed thing that might happen and then this person might say this and that person might say that. The Muslims who live here in the USA have not been rioting. And I live in Detroit; if they were going to riot anywhere, it would be here; we have 300,000 Middle Easterners living here.

It's a no win situation.

It's a make-um-up no-win situation.

Once again, I pose the question: If we must embrace them, how far does it go. After all, the French have had ample expericence as to what happens when you decide to enforce even burglary and tresspassing laws against them. (I know this is an oversimplification for the causes of the riots in France,

I'll make it simple. Treat the Muslim down the street the same way you treat the Jew next door, the Mormon across the road, or the Christian-but-of-another church that you work with. Stop acting like the Muslims in the USA want something different than you do. That's what I mean by 'embracing' them. If they break the law, enforce it. If they riot, club them over the ****ing head. Jesus H. Christ.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Sorry about that. My computer started acting up and it only took part of what I was writing.

Once again, no, I did NOT say that. I said that if we do not embrace them, meaning accept them, then they have nowhere to go. I said nothing about rigging the game so that they have an advantage or succeed over others. All they deserve is what all Americans deserve; an equal chance.

Yes they do. Just like the rest of us, they can go to a State / Country that is more in line with their belief system.

The people to which I am referring are those (and I believe I said this) who are Muslim and have either been born in this country or have moved here and obtained citizenship. These are people who WANT to be here; they have embraced OUR culture to the extent that they are willing to live under our secular laws, to work, pay taxes, to try to achieve and better themselves.

You mean like Nidal Hassan, the man who killed thirteen U.S. Army soldiers. Or what about Anwar al-Awlaki, another who is also born, raised (partly)and educated (partly) in America? Or Sharif Mobely, who is an American born and raised member of al-Queda. Or Hasan Akbar, who while on active duty in Kuwait killed and wounded U.S. soldiers with a hand grenade. Or Lee Boyd Malvo, the D.C. Sniper, who told us that his motivation was jihad against the United States.

Or what about this girl, who is a student at a VERY good college in Southern California:

Not only does she agree with the killing of Jews, but this "moderate" is wearing terrorist garb.

Are these the disenfranchised Muslims of whom you speak.

They may keep many aspects of their own culture, such as their religion, but they don't embrace the parts of the Koran, for example, that might urge them to kill infidels (just as we no longer obey similar commands in the Bible). They are the farthest thing from extremists. However, if they cannot be accepted in the USA, if they are rejected and not allowed to take part in the society of America because of their religious beliefs and practices, then they will be outcast and more open to the siren call of the Islamists. The Islamists tell them over and over that no matter what they do, they will always be hated and not accepted by the West. If we prove them right, then which direction do you suppose they will turn?

But then, is that their religion? Or are they betraying fundamental tenets of their religion?

BTW, your comparison to Christianity is erroneous. God gave no general command to kill non-believers, or anyone for that matter. When the Jews did kill, it was upon the direct order of God to kill a specific group of people. This is something completely different then the what the so-called Muslim extremist believes.

The terrorists are a distinct minority

How do you know? Tell me where you get your facts and figures from? I suspect this is a pure speculative statement on your part.

Even still, this doesn't take into account those that support their terrorism without committing direct acts of terrorism themselves. Perhaps like the woman in the video that I showed.

I don't mean converts to Islam, I mean converts to their way of thinking. In addition to their extreme view of Islam, they also believe that the West is destroying their traditional culture. They use this as a key point in trying to gain converts. It is not essentially different from any politician or salesman's spiel; they try to identify with their target audience, create a bond, and then build on it.

Since when did you or anyone else here become an expert on Islamic doctrine and belief? I find it interesting that I should believe your and others here position, when I have OBL, al-Awlaki, or al-Zarqawi, who are / were born and raised practicing Muslims. To be sure, they are not the only ones who fit such a bill, but the question is why should I believe you over them about what their faith entails?

However, when they reach out to the Muslims who live in Western nations under modern circumstances, they have to employ an entirely different set of tools. They cannot control the media or the access that Muslims who live in places like Europe and the USA have to it. They cannot tell the average Muslim who works in Dearborn, Michigan putting fenders on Fords that Americans hate him and want to kill him if the Muslim who lives in Dearborn knows that is not true. Does that make sense?

They cannot do this if it's simply not true. The Muslim guy who works in Dearborn at Ford is not interested in blowing up buildings or taking up arms against the USA; he lives here, he has a house, a mortgage, his kids are in college, he has to buy groceries! He would be against the terrorists; they make trouble for him, they make his life more difficult; they hate the things he prefers. The only thing they share is a religion; but that's like saying my religion is like Fred Phelp's religion. They might be both called 'Christianity', but that's about as far as it goes.

If anti-Muslim sentiment continues to grow, if we begin to see more and more violent incidents against Muslims in the USA, then the terrorists will begin to be able to make headway with their message and their recruiting. If the Muslim guy who lives in Dearborn and works at Ford starts getting people driving by his house at night and firing shotguns in the air, if his local Mosque gets burned down, if people throw burned Korans on his yard, he might start to believe that no matter how much he WANTS to be an American, he'll never be allowed to be one. Then what is he supposed to do?

First, I'm gonna say, as you say in the next post that you write, that "I am not going to argue about some supposed thing that might happen and then this person might say this and that person might say that."

See how that works? Kinda weak, don't you think?

But I won't ignore your hypothetical as you do mine, because, as in science, it's a good place to begin your exploration for further understanding.

After a certain point, I think that anyone can be expected to begin to stick up for themselves. But, we have always had these kinds of attacks against particular groups, both here in the U.S. and in other countries. In that respect, why should Muslims be any different.

But is it really that they are being treated different, or that their response to such treatement leads to quicker and more violence then other groups. And if so, what is it that those people have in common that makes them distinct from others?

They have told the average Muslim that (with the help of the left wing American media, no less) and the message is resonating. Hence, all of the American born terrorist that I listed earlier.

What is it about Islam that makes it so susceptible to corruption, then, if these things are not a basic tenet of their belief system already?

What about it? We have freedom of speech here; if Muslims choose to live here, they have to accept that. If they 'riot', they get arrested like anybody else.

And yet we say that a pastor should not burn the Koran because of the reaction that it will cause among Muslims, namely that it will cost American soldiers their lives.

Really? It's that simple, huh? Yeah, I suppose the French thought the same thing.

How did that work out for them?

What's funny is, you say arrest them for violating our laws, but when Mexicans do it and people make this argument, it can't simply be that, can it. And you're so assertive when it comes to enforcing traffic laws, but not immigration laws.

Were you a motor cop? That would explain alot. (That last bit was a joke, and was not meant to be offensive, to you or motor cops.)

Arrest them. This is not France.

And if there is swift and violent backlash? Then what?

On the other hand, have you seen any Muslim riots in the USA?

No, but I have seen a lot of them commit mass murder, become active terrorists, become finacers of terrorist organizations.......

I am not going to argue about some supposed thing that might happen and then this person might say this and that person might say that. The Muslims who live here in the USA have not been rioting. And I live in Detroit; if they were going to riot anywhere, it would be here; we have 300,000 Middle Easterners living here.

Weak agrument here.

As they say in psychology, the best indicator of future performance is past behavior. They may not riot, but look at the other things they have done.

It's a make-um-up no-win situation.

You mean kinda like your "if anti-Muslim sentiment continues to grow". So, I'm supposed to address your make-um-up-no-win situation, but you refuse to do the same for mine.

Nice debating with you then. :roflmao:

I'll make it simple. Treat the Muslim down the street the same way you treat the Jew next door, the Mormon across the road, or the Christian-but-of-another church that you work with.

As I said that I do.

Stop acting like the Muslims in the USA want something different than you do.

I would actually argue that most people want something different that I do.

That's what I mean by 'embracing' them. If they break the law, enforce it. If they riot, club them over the ****ing head. Jesus H. Christ.

And as you yourself said, create the next generation of terrorists. Because if you somehow think that the message that they will receive is merely "don't break our laws" and it will be live and let live, the you are sorely naive and are ignoring human psychology.

And I would say that about almost any group with a "cause", not just Muslims. Black Americans, homosexuals, Hispanics. If the cause is "unfair treatement" then any incarceration / anti-riot reaction will evoke such a response.

As you said yourself, what other behavior could I expect.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

There are idiots in every culture than can be taken advantage of men with the charisma and desire for power. There are men in the Middle East that derive thier power AND control from religion. When they no longer get to use that religion to dictate the lives of thier followers due to moderation they react and in some cases violently. It is not isolated to Islam, as many here would like you to believe. It has happened in the US. In my opinion, it is happening right now, but with less violence. Add to this scenario men who recognize this upheaval for what it is and use it to forward thier own agenda.

The answer for us, while simple is not easy. We must act to our ideals, thinking long term in order not to give ammunition to those seeking to radicalize and recruit. This means not doing things such as torture, invading countries under false pretense, or attacking the Muslim faith. The US is one of the most generous and giving countries in the world. Do things to highlight this, which I think we are doing. We build schools, infrastructure, and donate billions wordlwide. Third, we kill or capture those seeking to radicalize and use people for thier own agenda. That means if a terrorist attacks any US citizen, they and thier entire network is taken out, as far as we can. No more Osama Bin Ladens who create a following for themselves by just being alive after committing an attack on us. Make the risk for attacking us not worth the possible reward. While the front line troops of organizations like Al'Queda may not mind dying for thier cause, the planners and leaders certainly do.

I agree with you. And we have been doing such things, as you say.

And yet, they are still winning converts who are trying to blow us up.

American soldiers, Marines, and sailors have lost their lives defending Muslims. Whether it be Kuwait, Kosovo, Afganistan (against the Russians). We have poured billions of dollars into Muslim nations in order to support them. To be sure, I am not ignorant of the fact that in most, if not all of these things, there was some underlying U.S. political or economic interest. But quite frankly, we have been better to Muslims on a whole then they have been to each other.

And yet they still win converts who want to blow us up.

We allow Muslims more freedom in this country to practice their religion as they see fit than even their own countries (with the exception of things like stoning rape victims).

So, I'm sorry if I don't see your solution as the panacea you seem to make it out to be. It seems that no matter what we do, they continue to win converts over who want to blow us up.

If this isn't about Islam, which I'm perfectly willing to accept, then what is it that makes the average Muslim, even the ones that were born and raised in the U.S., so willing to kill us.

I am fighting for an answer, I really am. I talk with a really good friend of mine and he is about as anti-Islam as one could get. And I argue on behalf of the Muslim. But when I see the dirty, nasty, downright evil s**t that the "moderate" Muslim engages in, I have to ask myself why I'm doing it.

 

[Archangel M]

A "non-issue" like all this supposed anti-muslim activity in the US?

So, in 2008, the last year such statistics were available, there were 2,876 hate crimes against blacks, 1,297 against gays, and 1,055 against Jews.

Yet, with only 105 such disgusting acts committed against Muslims, America's media want you to believe this nation is Islamophobic.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ate-crimes-against-jews-muslims#ixzz0zmVsxw27

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A "non-issue" like all this supposed anti-muslim activity in the US?

That was 2008. It seems anti-Muslim activity is on the uptick.

 

[Big Don]

That was 2008. It seems anti-Muslim activity is on the uptick.

Gee, that was a year when we had a President who constantly praised Islam, and yet, chose to prosecute a war against terrorism.
Hope and Change, baby, Hope and Change...

BTW, got anything you can cite that shows that?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Gee, that was a year when we had a President who constantly praised Islam, and yet, chose to prosecute a war against terrorism.
Hope and Change, baby, Hope and Change...

You're barking up the wrong, tree if you're talking to me. I voted for Bush and I voted for McCain. I'm no Obama fan.

BTW, got anything you can cite that shows that?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39081887/ns/business-careers

“There is a hatred, an open hatred, and a lack of tolerance for people who are Muslim,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the Phoenix district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She said she has seen an uptick in discrimination complaints among Muslim workers in her region, which includes Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico.
“I think the mosque in Manhattan seems to be a flashpoint, but it taps into feelings that preceded it,” she said. “The feeling among people in the workplace,” she added, is “not only are we not going to accommodate your practices and beliefs, we’re also going to ridicule you and call you names.”
Claims of bias against Muslims in the workplace rose to 1,490 last year from 1,304 in 2008 and just 697 in 2004, according to EEOC figures. Last year's total was even higher than in the year after the 9/11 attacks, when bias claims hit 1,463. Figures from this year are not yet available.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129330121

 

[Archangel M]

Discrimination complaints to the EEOC does not equal hate crimes reported to the FBI.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Discrimination complaints to the EEOC does not equal hate crimes reported to the FBI.

I stated "That was 2008. It seems anti-Muslim activity is on the uptick."

Big Don said "BTW, got anything you can cite that shows that?"

I did and posted it. Question asked and answered. I try to support my statements. Unless you want me to support statements I did not make. That would be a bit harder.

 

[Makalakumu]

Meanwhile...

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6328.shtml

WMR has learned from a deep background source that Xe Services, the company formerly known as Blackwater, has been conducting false flag terrorist attacks in Pakistan that are later blamed on the entity called “Pakistani Taliban.”


Only recently did the US State Department designate the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as the Pakistani Taliban, a terrorist group. The group is said by the State Department to be an off-shoot of the Afghan Taliban, which had links to “Al Qaeda” before the 9/11 attacks on the United States. TTP’s leader is Hakimullah Mehsud, said to be 30-years old and operating from Pakistan’s remote tribal region with an accomplice named Wali Ur Rehman. In essence, this new team of Mehsud and Rehman appears to be the designated replacement for Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri as the new leaders of the so-called “Global Jihad” against the West.


However, it is Xe cells operating in Karachi, Peshawar, Islamabad and other cities and towns that have, according to our source who witnessed the U.S.-led false flag terrorist operations in Pakistan. Bombings of civilians is the favored false flag event for the Xe team and are being carried out under the orders of the CIA.

Who are the terrorists, again?

 

[Archangel M]

Pfffttt!! Wayne Madsen. He He He!!!!

[yt]ctEDHm0OKms[/yt]

"Deep Background Sources" conspiracy code for "made up".

 

[WC_lun]

We allow Muslims more freedom in this country to practice their religion as they see fit than even their own countries (with the exception of things like stoning rape victims).

So
If this isn't about Islam, which I'm perfectly willing to accept, then what is it that makes the average Muslim, even the ones that were born and raised in the U.S., so willing to kill us.

.

These two paragraphs are nothing but nonsense. Muslims have the same religious rights in the US as anyone else. No more or less... unless you count the knuckleheads that promote fear by doing such idiotic things as fire bombing mosque. Take into account the knuckleheads and they have a little bit less religious freedom than say the average Christian.

The "average Muslim" as you put it, abhors violence just as much as the average Christian. To think otherwise is to feed on the ignorance of fear espoused by people who either do not know any better, or are pursuing an agenda. You take some examples of radical Muslims from the US as an example of the "average Muslim." That would be the same as using Timothy McVey as an example of the average Christian. Once again, there are idiots in EVERY culture. Those idiots are not the norm.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

These two paragraphs are nothing but nonsense. Muslims have the same religious rights in the US as anyone else. No more or less... unless you count the knuckleheads that promote fear by doing such idiotic things as fire bombing mosque. Take into account the knuckleheads and they have a little bit less religious freedom than say the average Christian.

I think you misunderstood that paragraph. It wasn't about Muslims in the U.S. having more rights then any other group. It was the fact that they have more freedom to worship in the U.S. then in even Muslim countries. Here, everyone is free to worship as they please, with very few exceptions. The same couldn't be said in most Islamic countries. There you worship as the government / Imam sees fit.

Oh, and in so far as your last statement, there are an average of 15 to 20 Christian church arsons per month. In the period of 1996 to 2000, according to the ATF, there were nearly 1,000 church arsons.

In doing a search online, I haven't found one U.S. mosque arson. Admittedly of course, just because I couldn't find one doesn't mean there haven't been any, but I don't think it's the scourge that you intimate that it is.

You should probably utilize facts to support your position before you speak.

The "average Muslim" as you put it, abhors violence just as much as the average Christian. To think otherwise is to feed on the ignorance of fear espoused by people who either do not know any better, or are pursuing an agenda. You take some examples of radical Muslims from the US as an example of the "average Muslim." That would be the same as using Timothy McVey as an example of the average Christian. Once again, there are idiots in EVERY culture. Those idiots are not the norm.

I didn't put them as average Muslims. I asked if the example that I showed were typical of the average Muslim.

Why do I pick them?

Because these are military soldiers and officers, students at American universities, laborers. You know, those people who lived everyday lives like the rest of us, but eventually killed, or as in the case of the student, believes in her heart that the Jews should be "hunted".

Do I believe that all Muslims want to convert or kill all non-muslims, absolutely not. I have met some great people of the Islamic faith.

However, I keep seeing things from the average Muslim that show that violence is a part of their way of life. I could keep posting them, such as a video of a woman being kicked to death and a cinder block dropped on her head in the street for not marrying the person that her family arranged for her to marry, but what would be the point?

You know, I point out instances of "everyday"(?) Muslims killing and talking about killing others who are not of their faith. But, other then a few Islamic religions leaders, no one is providing evidence to the contrary, nor giving any evidence to refute those actions or positions as being in defiance of Islamic law and faith.

That is most frustrating.

And, once again, your comparison is erroneous. Tmothy McVeigh was not motivated, as were these people, by religion, much less Christianity. McVeigh stated himself that the bombing was revenge for the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. Not only that, but here is a Wikipedia version of his religious beliefs:

In a recorded interview with Time magazine McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be anagnostic and that he did not believe in a hell. McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."

So, where should I get that he represents the average Christian.

Once again, get your facts straight before you speak.