Lets draw a line here between what the people whish to do, and if they are truly courageous to do such.He's narrowing of the definition of terrorism to suit his argument, but the REAL spike was 9/11/2001, not 2003 as he claims. Take a poll of 1000 typical Americans and ask them when the watershed moment was for this country's awareness of Islamic terrorism and I will bet the house that more people say 2001 and not 2003.
And there was definitely "wow was it Islamic terrorism?" coverage for OKC before the facts emerged (and yes everyone knows it was McVeigh, that is not the point, it was seen as domestic terrorism, yes that T word)--that is addressing his "mainstream belief" comment re: Muslim terrorists; I remember how most people assumed it was Islamic terrorism until the facts came out. The Cole, US embassy bombings, WTC, etc. weren't covered as much as 2001 and beyond, but it was called terrorism back then and it still is. It's not body count it's coverage and labeling of events as terrorism that we were talking about, "you imbecile."
Take for example the day after 9/11, how many Americans would liked to wipe the whole Middle East? but the most importantly is, how many of those were actually willing to pull the trigger to commit such act?
The same analogy applies to Charlie Hebdo killing and Muslims, and many other terrorist acts as well.
My point is, and far as the claims in ME goes, there is still a considerable chance that recent terrorism acts weren't done by Muslims from their general population, and if that is the case, I suppose it shouldn't be called Islamic terrorism.