It's less that you can say anything about Muslims, I think, than that you CAN'T make many criticisms in any way linked to the race and/or ethnicity of other, larger, American demographics. If there were >10,000,000 Muslim illegal aliens in the US, plus tens of millions more who immigrated legally (and descendants of same) then, no, you wouldn't be able to treat Islamic terror as it so often is treated. Not without riots, anyway. However, the reason you don't hear much about regular terrorist acts by various Hispanics in the name of religion isn't because of some media blackout or vast right wing conspiracy, it's because there aren't a whole lot (in fact, I can't think of any. ) About the closest you can come is FARC, but FARC isn't about religion, it's about economics and politics, with a heavy dose of drugs for financing. Ironically, each of those offers very real and strong parallels with Islamic terrorism, but religion doesn't or you wouldn't hear about nuns murdered in predominantly Catholic Latin America.

Likewise, I don't think a media conspiracy is responsible for daily reports of Islamic terror in Palestine and Israel, or Pakistan, or Iraq, or India, or Egypt, or the rest of Africa, or the Philippines and even episodically in Europe and America. I think we hear about those for the same reason we don't hear about Christian or Jewish or Sikh or Buddhist or Taoist etc. etc. religious killings around the world: Not because of bias, but because, by a wild coincidence, Islam actually does happen to include the vast majority of RELIGIOUS terrorists (note: "Latino" is not a religion nor a choice, and "Jewish" can be religion, ethnicity or both these days; isn't ambiguity fun?) There were no media blackouts on Bloody Sunday or Belfast despite the fact it was essentially Catholics vs. Protestants and most of America falls into one of those two categories. I'm not going to get into the foundation of the religion because, the authors claims aside, it would unleash a PC s--tstorm and I've got enough crap flying about me at the moment, but it's undeniable that SOME SECTS of Islam have, almost from the beginning, elevated the scimitar to the same level as the crescent for religious symbolism. Not all assassins are Muslim either, but the first group to bear that name were radical Shiites. They're in the same class as Christians who bomb abortion clinics (or, in the case of the man recently convicted of the Olympic bombings in Atlanta, just bomb to protest abortion; I forget which non-media source I got that from both when it happened and when he was convicted last week. ) It just so happens that a disproportionate number of that class is Muslim.

I don't doubt for a moment that's more other socioeconomic issues (e.g. poverty, repression, economic exploitation) than the nature of Islam, but pointing to numbers on the US to claim a group that's a distinct minority here doesn't contain more terrorists globally is disingenuous. It's like saying, "I have more sex than anyone, because I'm the person I see doing it the most. " An extended fallacy is still a fallacy; it's just harder to catch (which is the whole point with fallacies of verbosity. ) Perception really isn't reality, it just seems that way to the unperceptive.