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

Well, to clear up the confusion about the argument, I made the mistake of assuming that the debate was about the definition of "terrorist" in light of current events. I did not understand that we were to debate a subjective belief my opponent holds that people in our society, as exemplified by me, according to my opponent's last argument, believe that all terrorists are Muslim. My opponent cites, as evidence that our culture believes that all terrorists are Muslim a quote from an Israeli ambassador. Now, I am not familiar with the quote, but the source my opponent cites is ridiculous anti-Israeli and is inundated with factual fallacies and idiocies that would take multiple pages to chronicle. All that I will say is that the article would make Ahmandinejad and the Iranian intelligence corp very proud. My opponent says that Muslims are not the most active terrorist in the world right now. Well, let us go back in history: All terror attacks against US troops and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were done by Al-Qaeda or Muslim insurgent groups, such as the Mahdi army or the Taliban. The car bombs in London were done by Al-Qaeda, or Muslims who wanted to follow the example of the members of Al-Qaeda. The attack on the apartments in Riyadh were done by Al-Qaeda. The bombings in Indonesia were done by Al-Qaeda. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were done by Al-Qaeda. The attacks on the US embassies in Africa were done by Al-Qaeda. The attack on the USS Cole was done by Al-Qaeda. The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut were done by Hezbollah. Then, of course, there were the numerous terrorist attacks on the state of Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO. In recent memory, there are only a very few attacks conducted by non-Muslim groups. These attacks include the attacks in Oklahoma City, the attacks by ELF, and the activity of certain separatist groups such as the IRA and Tamil Tigers (who are actually believed to be working with Al-Qaeda). However, many of these attacks have tapered off in recent years, or are not as spectacular or as damaging as the attacks by the Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc. This is, of course, not a complete list by any account. However, it does seem to me that many groups, who allow membership to Muslims exclusively, seem to have conducted the majority of attacks in the last few years. It brings to mind the old adage: "Not all Germans are Nazis, but all Nazis are German." Just change that to "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but only Muslims are in Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the PLO, etc." Of course my argument is moot if a terrorist is just a person who commits any crime. This would by a huge stumbling block, if the definition of a terrorist did not make my opponent assertion completely wrong. A terrorist is one who uses violence to achieve political ends. I doubt that speeding on the highway qualifies as a violent operation to make the government do something for the speeder or his affiliated group. So, I have established that the recent activities by the Muslim terrorist groups is, indeed, terrorist. I have also established that a mugger, speeder, or bank robber are not terrorists. It has also been established that many of the current terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by Muslim groups. Now, my opponent believes that people in our society equate terrorist with Muslim, as exemplified by my statement that "Muslim terrorists are the most active terrorist at work in the world today." To do this, I will go back to the quote: "Not all Germans are Nazis, but all Nazis are German." Since Nazism is another form of fascism, and the more infamous form, I would deign it appropriate to replace Nazis with fascist. According to my opponent's argument, the word "fascist" would thus be discriminatory against all Germans because fascism is associated with Germans. This is quite the ridiculous leap of logic. By stating fact, I de facto discriminate, albeit unintentionally. The same analogy applies to communism and Russians. The only remedy to this discrimination is to stop reporting facts. This seems to be a rather ridiculous belief, as well as being elitist. Does my opponent assume that most Americans cannot discriminate between Muslim terrorist and the law-abiding Muslims any more than he can discriminate against a Nazis fascist and a law-abiding German or a communist and a law-abiding Russian? My opponent may think that most Americans are so narrow-minded, but I don't. In short, my opponent's position is laughably illogical. It shows more contortions and obfuscations of fact than an Ahmandinejad speech. It is built on hostile articles that are seriously flawed at best--complete lies at worst. It is an elitist view of the people of this country, and as such, is also arrogant. It shows a complete disregard for common definitions and the truth. In short, my opponent is completely wrong.