Didn't read all the responses, but if the first page was anything to go by, it doesn't look like most of you guys have any sort of case.
Looks like we're in agreement that terrorism is violence in the pursuit of political aims (and often for religious reasons). But you're insisting that Muslim Arab-Americans would be labelled "terrorists" even if they engage in violence without any religious or political motives? That makes no sense to me. People — including investigative journalists, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies — would look INTO the possibility of the individual being a terrorist, yes, but it is a bit far-fetched to believe that they would be labeled as such. Here is a case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing_in_the_United_States
These people were murderers, but none but the most deluded would call them terrorists.
Now for an example of a non-Muslim terrorist...Anders Breivik.
I think the reason you would even go so far as to make your argument has more to do with the fact that most terrorists are, in fact, Muslims. There are many who are not, but it would be impossible to refute the fact that most commonly accepted acts of terrorism are perpetrated by Muslims (unless one were to go so far as to call the USA and Israel 'terrorists' due to their foreign policy, for which a case CAN be made).
