> islam has a 'violent fringe' in the way the revolutionary proletariats or nazi brownshirts had a 'violent fringe'. the violence is rationalized through ideological structures.

Well, no, Islam has a 'violent fringe' in the way Germans had a violent fringe. Are you claiming that every Muslim is the equivalent of a Nazi brownshirt, when not even every Nazi was a brownshirt, and not every German was a Nazi? It seems like you're making my point more than refuting it.

>when your dialectic is unable to articulate or recognize the extant ideological structures that rationalize, justify and endorse violence, the discussion must then pursue things outside of religion if it pretends to explain anything.

I do recognize them, I'm just refusing to recognize that they only exist in Islam.

I'm attempting to draw an equivalency between radical Islam and radical Christianity, and trying to point out that while similar claims about the violent ideals and tactics can be made about both, particularly when taking a literal interpretation of the canon of each religion, neither represents the mainstream view of that religion.

You're kind of proving my point, here. The problem with radical Islam isn't Islam, it's the politics of the radicals and the states that support them.

>this supports the postmodernist and terrorist sympathizer claims that every dead westerner brought it upon themselves for being evil westerners

But, that's not a claim I'm actually making, so no it kind of doesn't. It seems like we're typing past one another.