I singled out the fridge example because that was the part that was ridiculous to me, and the part I wanted to comment on. It best illustrated the ridiculous way some people try to diminish the very real threat islamic extremists pose. Then you just completely ignored it, which I can't say I blame you for because I can't think of how you'd defend that.

As for the rest of what you said, it's all kind of rambly.  I can't really address all of it, because I'm not entirely sure what all of it means, but I'll address a few points.   

"THey are also ready and able to all those things including nukes and more. "Radical Christian" terrorists are also quietly increasing their resources and danger level cause no one pays attention to them. 

You'll have to support this with some kind of evidence.  So far as I know, there is thankfully no group that is actually ready to commit a nuclear strike, Christian or Islamic.  As for motivation though, there are many islamic groups that have made it their expressed goal to kill as many western civilians as possible.  We also know that ISIS had a nuclear scientist in Belgium and his family under surveillance.  Al Queda claimed it was the religious duty of muslims to work towards attaining a nuclear weapon, and had met with nuclear physicists in Pakistan.    

There is really no rational motivation for Christian terrorists to detonate a nuclear device in a Christian majority nation.  While there may be some insane christians with nuclear ambitions, there is no organized and well funded Christian group that has made murdering civilians a specific goal.  I'm actually strongly opposed to christian extremism, (and religion in general) but I am not aware of any christian group that poses the same level of threat by any stretch of the imagination.

"Why don't you deal with more imminent, growing and bigger dangers than "Radical Islamic" terrorists before looking suspiciously at more than a billion people." 

Why don't you rationally defend your position instead of accusing anyone who acknowledges that radical islam (no quotation marks, this is a real thing) is a threat of being islamaphobic?  I didn't say or imply in any way that we should be suspicious of every muslim.  I did specifically say we should be taking in muslim refugees.  But don't let what I actually said get in your way.

"You look at outside threats like there are no threats in your own home."

Nope.  I didn't say anything like this.

 The media and the right have made you perceive these middle eastern assholes and dumbasses as more dangerous than other threats when it is statistically and logically and factually not that much of a danger to beigin with.

No.  No.  No.  No.  No. No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.

Are you an expert in nuclear security?  No?  Didn't think so.  So I don't know how you came up with these statistics.  

But, there ARE people who actually are experts in these fields.  These experts, on average, believe the risk to be around 30% of a nuclear attack occuring in a major US city per 10 years (albeit most of the data I found was from 2005-2010 so the numbers may have changed).  Barack Obama has said that the threat of a nuclear terrorist attack keeps him awake at night.  Forme UN Secretary General Kofe Annan has warned of the damage that can be caused by a nuclear attack in Manhattan or Washington DC.  

So maybe you don't think it's not much of a danger, but a lot of people who know a lot more than you about this think that it is.

http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/bunn-nuclear-terror-risk-test-08.pdf

Oh, and this is just referring to the danger of a nuclear attack.  Of course, the risk of a major non-nuclear attack is far higher.  

Daesh is a joke which would be quickly dealt with if USA, Russia and others left their politics at home.

Ask the people of Syria how funny this joke is.

I wrote a really detailed answer to your question but the beauty of Vgchartz it crashed. But the point that I remember now is that USA does not want the middle eastern problem to end. It is secretly letting it carry on. It needs an enemy and has basically had a hand in creating the three major middle eastern and afghani terrorists among others. If it wanted Daesh would be child's play for USA. Also the terrorists are elite rulers manipulating deranged idiots to kill indiscriminately. They want power, money and land and are not doing it for anyone's religion or for any belief. If you acurately want to describe these loonies call them Middle Eastern terrorists not "Radical Islamic" terrorists. If the middle east was mainly christian they'd use that propaganda if it was athiest they'd use that. They only use Islam cause it's and effective propaganda tool and when folks like you buy into it they achieve a small victory. When leaders like the president of the USA buy into it they achieve a major tool for propaganda and recruitment of deranged individuals. And sure ask Syria and how everyone including most muslims are suffering over there. Whe you say "radical islamic" you link these psychos to the major religion of Islam and essentially ligitimize them. Its like you are doing the enmy's work for them. You are helping them. You should have the courage to say no that's not true and its unfair to them. Mock them by calling them Daesh. Make fun of them Take them lightly. They don't have nor will ever have access to nukes or enough manpower to seriously damage any other country. All they can do is cause these incidents every few months. They are weak and pathetic. Also my city alone has experienced tens upon hundreds of 9/11s in the 21st century so I understand the pain they can cause much more than you can. Ad I have to tell you they are a joke. People sure feel afraid but at the end of the day people live their lives and forget about them. They become an afterthought. They are pathetic and weak and have no future nor are they a major threat to Europe or USA. Its just that USA and Europe are experiences a sliver(taste) of what Asia has suffered for about two decades. The major terrorist attacks that are not reported bu your media are the ones that occur in areas between Turkey and India like PAkistan Iraq and Syria. In bombs and attacks where hundreds die in a single incident or even thousnads sometimes. But the terrorists are weak and will ultimately be forgotten. But all of the mess in the middle east can be traced back to USA, Uk and somewhat Russia. So it is coming to bite USA in the ass somewhat but even that is not much of a danger. The UK basicallt drew lines on a map to create these countries that we have today and USA tried to topple regimes in eadch of them which resulted in the creation of one terrorist organization after another

You kind of need some sort of source for a lot of these things.  

At any rate, when I say radical Islam, it's because it's radical Islam.  They have radical beliefs, and they attribute it to Islam.  Whether the "masterminds" actually believe this or not, I can't say, but the bulk of the followers certainly do.   

And no, if they were atheists they would not be doing these kinds of things.  Because certain ideologies are better motivation to extremes then others.  If you have people who believe in an all powerful deity who can reward them after they die, you have a pretty good pitch.  How exactly do you convince an atheist to blow himself up?  "Hey, strap this bomb to your chest and detonate it in public.  There's no higher power that wants you to do this, and once you do, you will not be rewarded, and your consciousness will be gone forever."  It's a really poor pitch.

Would this be happening if the Middle East was mostly christian?  Maybe.  I can't really say, but that's not the case.  If it were the case though that people were commiting attacks in the name of Jesus, I would certainly call it radical christianity.

Frankly, I don't know why muslims would have a problem with the term radical islam.  Some members of their religion do crazy violent shit in its name.  That's an absolute fact.  Why is addressing this fact an indictment of all muslims?

This will go nowhere but I dare you to at least call them what they truly are Radical Faux Islamic terrorists or Faux Radical Islamic terrorists. At least add faux and then we can agree

I don't see why I should.  I'm not the authority on who is or is not muslim.  I'm sure some muslim people, probably most muslim people, will say that they are not "true" muslims, but the extremists will turn around and say those people are not true muslims.  Based on what I know about the other two Abrahamic religions, I'm pretty sure you could probably find passages to support violence or to support non-violence.  

From my perspective, if someone believes in Allah and the prophet Mohammed and are acting in accordance with what they believe to be true about them based on the Koran, that person is Muslim. 

I'm talking about the masterminds. You yourself admitted that they most probably don't believe so they in actuality are 100% faux muslims and they concoct the schemes so they are the true terrorists. Call them that you and I know don't believe in the ideology radical faux islamic terrorists. DO that at least. AND believe it or not, what you call someone matters. Calling them radical islamic terrorists is a huge win for legitimizing them and also helping them so people who call them that re helping them by isolating the second largest religion and targeting it specifically since you never seem to hear radical christian terrorists or radical jew terrorists or radical buddhist or radical hindu  or even radical athiests even they exist. It helps them spread propaganda to get more recruits from super ignorant and super poor people, especially the ignorant part since you just saw in USA that ignorance can lead to Drumpf becoming president. It isn't calling it what it is like republicans say but rather its helping legitimize lunatics like daesh and taliban. Jokes like that don't deserve to be legitimised, they deserve to be laughed at. You shouldn't call them radical islamic terrorists but rather say "these people barely qualify as living beings and are an insult to them since they will blow themselves up and kill others as well, If they are barely living then how can you call them human let alone muslims. You need to have a certain level of respect for life to qualify as a living being and deserve to have an ideology and these guys don't." You need to say the moment you join any terrorist organisation, you disqualify your right to be called a human being and a living being. The bacteria that cause us illness our better than you. Stuff like that and not legitimise them in any way or form

You're argument is shifting.  Before we were talking about terrorism in general, now we're talking about just the masterminds. I don't believe I said that the masterminds probably don't believe in Islam.  If I did, I misspoke.  It is possible they don't believe in it, but I don't know what's in their heads.

We are focussed on radical Islamic terrorism because it is the largest threat.  There aren't a whole lot of Jews, and America is a pretty strong supporter of Israel, so that's not a risk here.  There are right wing terrorists, but few are explicitly motivated by the bible or to spread christianity.  There are some, but not many, and they tend to carry out smaller attacks on specific targets (abortion clinics for instance) rather than causing mass chaos.  I'm not aware of any radical atheist attacks.  It's hard to motivate someone to kill someone else because there is no god.  Plus, atheists are a really disorganized group in general.

Reality just is what it is.  There are terrorists.  They claim that their motivation is to serve allah, glorify the prophet, and so on.  They're radical, they're islamic, and they're terrorists.  There's nothing wrong with calling it what it is.  It doesn't imply that all muslims are terrorists.  It accurately describes that some are, and those that are pose a clear danger.

SO you have a really hard time uttering radical faux islaic terrorists as in they don't represent or show islam in its true form. You're persistence to utter the word faux aside, why are you conveniently ignoring the fact that calling them islamic legitimizes them and isolates muslims who are ignoratn. words do matter I mean calling the nintendo console Wii U did so much damage as an insignificant example.  Why not call them just terrorists no need to legitimize their efforts. You are helping them by calling them radical islamic. That is what they want. You give them propaganda to work with. Its like giving a better sword to the enemy you are dueling. It's like giving better ingredients to your competitor in a cook-off. It's empowering them and there is so much wrong there. Why can't you seem to grasp that as you put it 'calling it what it is' is damaging and destructive to your own cause. These are mind games and you are losing.You don't call your enemy a genius even if they are geniuses. You don't give mental edge to your opponent you try to make them angry and panic. I'll even give you a better "calling it as it is" that you can use. Call them the enemy of the muslim world and islam cause that is what they are. Why don't you call it as it is in that instance. Why doesn't Drumpf or the republicans ever utter the phrase"They are not only our enemy but the enmy of the Syrian, Iraqi and Afghani people as well as the enemy of the entire Muslim world and of Islam". Now since you failed to call them faux, why don't you call them the enemy of the muslim world and islam and that is calling it as it is

I will happily acknowledge that they are a threat to the majority of the muslim world.  

But, I'm not going to say they don't represent Islam, because frankly I don't know that they don't.  I'm not saying they do either.  I'm just saying that as a non-muslim, I don't know enough to make that judgment.

I am familiar with the old and new testament.  If I'm not mistaken, these are considered to be generally true by Muslims, although they do object to the fact that the books, especialy the bible, do not meet the strict replication process of the quran.  From what I know about these books is that there are absolutely vile passages that can be used to justify things like murder, torture, rape, and slavery. From my experience, the ones that do the more repugnant things are acting more strictly in accordance with yahweh.  I am guessing the quran (Koran?) is similar in that it also contains violent passages that can be used to justify heinous acts.  

The problem is that basically everyone who practice a religion believe that the way they practice it is the "true" religion.  As someone who doesn't believe in any of it, I think that the various interpretations are mostly on even grounds.  There are obviously interpretations I think are better for society than others, but I don't believe any one of them is "truer".

I grasp what you're saying.  However, you don't understand my ideology.  I am not only agaist Islamic terrorists.  I am also against Islam.  Not just Islam, but pretty much all religions or any ideology that serves to divide between us and them.  Many people act as though religion is always good and any violence that comes out of them is just because those people aren't practicing the "true" religion.

 I think that islam, and religion in general, itself is a part of this problem that needs to be addressed.  So, we can not ignore the aspect religion plays in this.

And, to take this back to the original point, pretending something isn't a threat makes us complacent and decreases vigilance.  If we act as though refrigerators are more of a threat than terrorism, then that will be reflected in budgets and preparedness.