Resolved: The term "terrorist" is discriminatory towards muslim United States citizen's.

Throughout this debate, I have raised numerous pieces of evidence to show why the word "terrorist" is not discriminatory to Muslims. I have raised the point that, while terrorists belonging to Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., are Muslims, not all Muslims are terrorists. This is akin to saying that all Nazis are Germans, but not all Germans are Nazis. It is reasonable to say that the average person can make the distinction. After all, there has been mainstream effort to go out of the way to show the distinction, after all, President Bush visited a mosque after 9/11. My opponent, however, has not shown any evidence to show how the word terrorist, as well as the general public mindset regarding Muslims, has been discriminatory. In short, my opponent has not even bothered to contend this issue with me--which shows he either agrees with me, or cannot respond. In addition, my opponent does not believe that Muslim terrorists, affiliated with Al-Qaede or some other terrorist group, are the most active terrorists in the world. To show how ridiculous this statement is, I composed a list of all the major terrorists attacks by Muslims. I then compared these to attacks by non-Muslim groups. The obvious conclusions was that the attacks by non-Muslim terrorists were A)fewer and B)less damaging/noticeable. Once again, my opponent refused to respond to this point. Thus, once again, he either agrees with me, or cannot refute what I say. Finally, my opponent tried to make the specious argument that any criminal is a terrorists, so Muslims are not the most active terrorists in the world. This argument is the product of tortured logic produced by an ideologue who seeks to twist all the events and facts of the world to fit their own worldview. I have pointed out that, while all terrorists are criminals, not all criminals are terrorists. This is common sense, a person speeding on the highway is not a terrorists, neither is a jaywalker or a streaker. My opponent, instead of responding to these logical points, responds with the mantra of a definition I put foward, namely, "a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence" from dictionary.com. My opponent narrowly defines this to mean anybody who uses violence to gain. However, he ignores the political side of the definition, as well as another point I raised: all terrorists groups have a political goal that is achieved through violence. In the definition, the use of the word "government" distinctly implies a political goal. Compare this to the definition of a robber, an example used by my opponent, from the same source: to take property from (a person) illegally by using or threatening to use violence or force; commit robbery upon. Note that while both a terrorists and a robber use violence, a robber is seeking personal gain, while a terrorist seeks a political end. Indeed, simply looking at the goals of any terrorist movement will show that there is a political goal at the end. Thus, my opponent is completely wrong to compare all criminals and terrorists. I will reiterate: a terrorist is a criminal, but all criminals are not terrorists. A speeder is a criminal, but he is definitely not a terrorist. The person who, through the use or threat of violence, seeks to gain a political goal is a terrorists--like the members of Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah or Hamas. Throughout this argument, my opponent has tortured logic and facts to make them say what he wanted them to say. While it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, there is not getting around the fact that there are some who are. It is stupid to not call these terrorists what they are. My opponent advocates exactly that. It is much more in keeping with common sense to say, as I've said all along during this argument, "all terrorists in Al-Quaeda, Hezbollah, etc., are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists."