So if you believe some are so smug they will not admit (or apparently report) terrorism from Christian radicalized groups then why don't you proved some material examples of what they are missing. If CNN, NBC, CBS and others had stories on Christian radicals beheading, burning, drowning, gunning down, enslaving, torturing etc etc etc they would be on the air and you know it.
The IRA (separatists) wanted to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom of Great Britain. They were willing to use violent/terrorist tactics to do so. It is estimated the IRA had a had a hand in the violent deaths of 1800 people from 1969 - 1998 mostly in Northern Ireland/Great Britain. The IRA was primarily Catholic and the British were aligned with Protestant Unionists. There is a lot that went on there for a very long time that finally erupted into "the troubles" of more recent times.
A 5 second Google came up with two instances of terrorist attacks in the US within the past week that you probably didn't know about. I don't say that these attacks are as severe as those conducted by the ISISites - but they are terrorist attacks none the less.
You might also want to consider that one of the aspirants to the Republican nomination for the office of President of the United States of America has already proposed that (at least) "some" Mosques be closed by government fiat. (You might want to take note of the fact that there is no mention of "closing Christian churches where hate is preached" [which means that the WBC is save and still enjoys the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America].)
You still haven't grasped the fact that the Northern Ireland dispute was over whether to remain a part of the UK or not and NOT over "religion". The IRA wasn't killing people because they were "Protestants" it was killing them because they didn't want to separate from the UK. The fact that the Northern Counties were populated primarily by Protestants was irrelevant to the actual struggle (except in so far as the Protestants didn't want to be "swamped" by Catholics and have to abide by the dictates of the Vatican).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-mosques-paris_5649dc69e4b08cda34898552
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/11/17/mosques-vandalized-terrorized-paris-terror-attacks/75915076/
Mosques vandalized, terrorized after Paris terror attacks
A Quran was covered in feces at a Texas mosque while a Florida man was arrested for making threatening phone calls.
Tell me about the two issues of "terrorism" conducted in the US. Let's examine them openly. I suspect they are being called something they are not. If your examples were good, you would have listed them out to make your point. You chose not to, I wonder why.
Some mosques are fomenting anti-American activities, some calling for direct action and may be supporting or encouraging killing Americans. Can you name me a Christian denomination church that is doing so? No you can or you would have already done so.
I have a very solid grasp of the Northern Ireland issues. I have studied them over the years and my wife and her family are British and her father was as student of the cause as well as an office on the RAF. I stated clearly that the issues were political and religious. If you don't believe that you are simply ignorant on the issue. As I stated above, the separatist (IRA and others) were Catholic and the loyalists were protestant. The loyalists wanted to remain aligned with Great Britain. It was not a coincidence that the two groups were divided by religion and political alliance.
As for Northern Ireland, could you please let me know which side was calling for the abolition of "Catholicism" or "Protestantism"? As far as I know NEITHER the "Separatists" nor the "Unionists" proposed outlawing the religion of the other side (or even argued that the other side were "heretics".
However, since you are (obviously) much closer to the matter than I ever was, I'm sure that you won't have any difficulty in finding proof that one side or the other was MOTIVATED by "religious doctrine" (as opposed to simply belonging to one or the other religious sect).
Obama says he is God, mocks the Bible
Obama read Psalm 46 and attributed what was read to himself, PROCLAIMING HIMSELF AS GOD. Here are a few facts that really drive home that point. At the 9/11 ...
Dear Sir,
Is it possible that the reason that total number attacks in the EU are down because attacks are happening increasingly in larger parts of the World? Now people from the areas where many attacks have taken place are making their way from those areas to the EU, and the US. Is it possible that we are opening the door for future terrorist attacks to again increase ? Just a thought. (Oh, and the events listed in the link are only ones that "received significant press".)
List of Islamist terrorist attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terror attacks by Islamist extremists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause have occurred globally. The attackers have used such tactics as arson, vehicle rampage attacks, bomb threats, suicide attacks, bombings, spree shooting, stabbings, hijackings, kidnappings and beheadings. The following is a list of Islamist terrorist attacks that have received significant press coverage since 1980.
After all, the Basques aren't likely to travel to Bali and blow things up in an effort to pressure the Spanish government into granting them independence.
I suspect that the reason for the drop in "non-religious" terrorism is that ISIS has given "terrorism" a bad name.