[Demidog]

The second seems to imply Pakistani interests. However, the first demand quite specifically points to an Muslim orientation.

And when the KKK burns crosses and lynches Black people, that quite specifically points to a "Christian" orientation. Broad-brushing the entire membership of Christianity is absurd as is broad brushing the entire membership of "Islam" as "inspiring" of the acts of this particular group of people.

[UberVernunft]

The second seems to imply Pakistani interests. However, the first demand quite specifically points to an Muslim orientation.

And when the KKK burns crosses and lynches Black people, that quite specifically points to a "Christian" orientation.

Perhaps on burning crosses, but it's doubtful on the lynching of black people.

Also, bringing up Christianity in this context does nothing to dispute my point.

Broad-brushing the entire membership of Christianity is absurd as is broad brushing the entire membership of "Islam" as "inspiring" of the acts of this particular group of people.

Yes, but the issue is not as simplistic as you continually attempt to portray it. The group that kidnapped Daniel Pearl was not just a bunch of "violent thugs" as you put it, but an Islamic terrorist group. You're description is a distortion and that is the point I was making.

[AppyPappy]

"Light crosses", not "burn crosses".

[Nogbad]

And when the KKK burns crosses and lynches Black people,
that quite specifically points to a "Christian" orientation.
Broad-brushing the entire membership of Christianity is absurd
as is broad brushing the entire membership of "Islam"
as "inspiring" of the acts of this particular group of people.

What percentage of the Christian population supports cross burning?

What percentage of the Moslem population supports Bin Laden?