Here's a decent article discussing the politicizing of the term: http://spectator.org/articl…

I'm not only taking the text. I'm talking about the ideology of Islamists, the disturbing proportion of Muslims that are Islamists and the opinions of the general Muslim populations in respect to things like the support in sharia, as reflected by opinion polls.

Who gives a shit what groups and ideologies were dangerous in the 4th century BCE? When I discuss the ideology of [some] Muslims I'm talking about how it affects the well being of those currently alive, not some spreadsheet covering the history of mankind.

Whuh? The cause of the JAT 367 crash has not even been officially determined. But let's assume it was what you say—and that's a really big stretch—the best you can come up with is something that happened 44 years ago?

Who doesn't care? I care. That part of the world has been in a protracted civil war for generations. But it's really not relevant to the conversation. I'm not talking about violence perpetrated by people of a certain religion, I'm talking about religion being the primary motivating factor for violence.

Please cite 10 examples in the past 15 years of a Congolese Christian committing an act of Christian-motivated terrorism in the US or Europe.

Yeah Brian, that's it. You really nailed it. :-/

I think the "no" might be informed less by a grasp of history than by something else.

Not even murder. Terrorism, murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter—all result in the same thing but they all have different meanings. So no, not "half a dozen" at all.

Again with the equivalency? Yes, there was racism. Still is, though to a lesser extent. Yes there have been instances of domestic terrorism but, again, to a far lesser extent than what we've seen from Islamists.

The Wiki page is comprehensive, especially the section on "Criticism of use".

I agree that it's not Islam alone. Political climate, economic conditions and cultural factors all contribute, but when you look at the employment of (for example) suicide bombing, you can't ignore how disproportionately it's used by Muslims (usually against other Muslims).

Articulate? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Actually, the guy has demonstrated he's completely unfamiliar with the topic. It's not my job to inform him, it's his.

"When America kills dozens of children in a bombing in Afghanistan it is terrorism."

Where did I say "all the violence in the world is from Muslims"?

Muslims shouldn't be hated. But an ideology that spawns so much violence shouldn't be ignored either should it?

Again, you're falling into the Fox News/MSNBC equivalency. Isolated incidences of violence perpetrated by non-Muslims doesn't compare to a worldwide jihad against the West.

You're failing to grasp the difference between bigotry against Muslims and the term "Islamophobia", which was invented and employed to shut down the examination (and sometimes criticism) of an ideology shared by so many who perpetrate acts of violence.

Who is "tarring billions"? I merely said that there's something about the ideology of Islam which apparently compels its followers to turn to violence. Not all, not even most, but a significant number.