It’s not clear, however, that we should make such a concession. Were all of the attackers Muslims in more than name? Here’s another way of putting it: did their Muslim beliefs motivate them or was it some other, say political, belief?
The Munich terrorists, for example, self-identified as Palestinians, not Muslims; their motivation was political not religious. I won’t belabor the point. Any time there is violence committed by an Arab, the West usually labels the perpetrator, “Muslim terrorist.” Socio-political considerations simply fall by the wayside.
Sirhan Sirhan did not assassinate Bobby Kennedy because of his Islamic beliefs. In fact, he was a Palestinian Christian (thanks Leonard).
Lists of this sort are highly selective. I don’t see included, for example, the seventeen innocents killed by a US soldier in Afghanistan, the death of innocent citizens in Iraq (as a result of the war), the treatment of prisoners in Abu Graib, the unjust holding of prisoners in Guantanamo, etc., etc. Nor do I see US support of Israel which, I think, perpetuates a lot of not unjust Arab anger against the US.
Suppose Muslims call the recent killings of the Afghani citizens, “Christian terrorism” (the killer being from the Christian US and, likely, at least nominally a Christian). And then judge all Christians as intent on the destruction of Islam. Most Christians would think it unfair to be judged by their most extreme members. Moreover, most would not consider such people faithful to Christian ideals. Similar considerations should be given to Muslims.