Rosie O'donnell shows her true colors every time she opens her mouth.  Let's look at her comment that 'radical Christians' are just as dangerous as 'radical Muslims.' 
    Starting with the assertion itself, we see the absurdity right away.  Whoever she thinks a radical Christian is, I am certain she has never witnessed one, in the name of Jesus, blowing up a pizza parlor full of children, or beheading a woman for being raped, or rioting in the streets because someone drew a cartoon of Jesus.  Her main argument was that we were bombing innocent people in other countries, and therefore 'radical Christians' are just as dangerous as 'radical Muslims.'  Of course some innocents are killed in all wars.  The problem with her argument is twofold.  First we are not purposefully killing innocents anywhere, the 'radical Muslims' are purposefully killing innocents.  Second, in our fighting we aren't using war in the name of Christianity, the Muslims are fighting in the name of Islam.
    The conclusion she reaches in the case of Christianity is the conclusion she would not reach in the case where it was her personal life that was being protected.  Imagine if someone came up to her and tried to assassinate her, and consequently her security guards shot back at the guy.  Additionally, in the process of him returning fire her security guard shot and killed a woman standing behind the attacker.  Would she really accept the charge that she is no better than the would-be assassin because he was trying to kill an innocent and she did kill an innocent?  I think not.  Now let's say that the attacker was trying to kill her in the name of Jesus.  Would she really accept the charge that her atheism is just as dangerous as the attacker's ideology, because he wanted to kill an innocent, and she did kill an innocent?  I think not.  Would she really accept the charge that the innocent woman was killed in the name of her Atheistic ideology?  I think not.  I only wish she could think clearly, and she wasn't blinded by her faith.