Consider the following statement :
"Maybe most Jews are peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing zionist cancer they must be held responsible"
Is the above sentence racist? anti-semitic? Blood libel? Incitement to hatred and violence? Possibly prosecutable?
Well here is what Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corporation, the head of one of the largest media organisations in the world tweeted a few days back :
"Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible."
I'm pretty sure that if he'd said this about Jews, it would not have had 7k retweets and he'd also have been forced to 'apologise'.
... oh wait, I forgot it's not Reddit.
Well I don't think many jews, or muslims for that matter (muslims do it too) would be offended by a reasoned criticism of circumcision. It is usually the hot topics like Israeli actions, or depiction of Prophet Muhammad that seems to trigger passions.
You are essentially taking away their right to do something.
Like... harming other people, specifically children? Oh, they are so oppressed /s
Maybe truly radical elements are in fact the tiniest sliver, but I'd appreciate some leeway for those struggling to understand how that sliver is so intimately involved in just about every major violence and armed conflict across the world.
It's a shitty thing to equate islamic terrorists (Al-Qaeda, in this case) with Islam. Al Qaeda kills eight times more muslism than non-muslims: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-o...
And Daeh is killing muslims and blowing up mosques: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-grue...
The idea that this is a clash of civilisations, rather than terrorists seeking to control co-religionists, is designed to drive both sides to their respective extremists.