Not quite. You confuse an coherent group of people with actions of individuals. Not all members of Hitler's SS personally killed other people. Nevertheless, SS is a murderous organization. What make an organization deserved of a characterization --- terrorist, murderous, peace-loving or any other --- is whether that organization (i) adheres to a stated philosophy and (ii) allows SOME of its members to promulgate the corresponding actions and assists them in doing so in some way. Conversely, an organization that (i) abhors certain philosophy and (ii) punishes its individuals that act on that philosophy is NOT deserved of the characterization.
Apply this test to SS. It (i) said it wanted to murder Jews and Gypsies and (ii) directed some of its members to do so. It is a murderous organization.
Apply the same test to Islam. It (i) is a militant religion --- its and has always been; no person is allowed to leave Islam and remain alive, no land that ever ONCE was under Islam is allowed to revert to any other religion, etc. (ii) allows and directs its members to undertake jihad, which for all the talk of being a "personal struggle" has always been directed at the infidels.
Apply the converse to the second test. In the past 50 years since they chose the path of terrorism, (i) Islam has never proclaimed terrorism to be unconditionally wrong, (ii) they have never excommunicated or took any other punishing action against the terrorist cells in their midst. One can conclude that the entire Islamic world is condoning and supporting (to various degree) terrorism.
When saying that "Muslims who do not denounce Islamofascists are not terrorists," you make a similar error: one need not kill to be a terrorist; one can merely abet in such killing. In this country one can be charged with murder even if she did not pull the trigger (although the law differentiates the degree). Thus,the one blowing up babies is a more active terrorist and the one who merely abets him is a less active terrorist (and, you can perhaps argue, guilty to a lesser extent) but he is a terrorist nonetheless. And, recall that the argument is about not specific individuals but whether a certain "organization" can be classed as terrorist.
"I would say that Islam is a religion, not a terrorist organization." The first part is absolutely correct of course.
Do you differentiate Christianity and the Church? You probably do. Christianity is a religion, philosophy, world outlook. Adherents of it believe that it was handed down by G-d himself. In contrast, the Church is comprised of human beings, which are fallible. When pedophile priest molest children it is not Christianity that does so, but those specific members of that Church.
The same applies to Islam, but what confused some people is its horizontal organization: there is no Pope, there is no Archbishop of Canterbury, there is no Chief Rabbi. Every time it is convenient for Islamist, they say, "Oh, that imam just made a mistake." But, again, we never hear of excommunication or any other punishment for these people; we here of great and widespread help to them. Recall, moreover, that these are people that do not hesitate to kill a 16-year-old girl for... being raped by her uncle. They chop off hands for petty theft. But blowing up babies on a bus in Jerusalem has NEVER deserved even spanking.
Because of its horizontal structure, people use the word Islam when referring to BOTH the religion and the church. If it helps you to be more precise, we are at war with THE CHURCH of Islam. The Church of Islam --- yes, in its entirety ---has chosen a path of terrorism for the past 50 years (starting with Algiers, then Israel and Kashmir, then Europe, then U.S.). At the present time, it is certainly a terrorist organization. (You may also reflect on the fact that of the four Orthodox Caliphs that inherited Islam from Mohammad himself --- an equivalent of Christ's Disciples --- three were murdered --- two, if I recall correctly in a Mosque, while praying).
Thus, if it helps you to avoid confusion of terms, substitute "Islam" with "Church of Islam," and you will see what people mean when they say it is, at least presently, a terrorist organization.
"When the Soviet Union made communism a state religion it did not make everyone who lived behind the Iron Curtain our enemy." Correct. But this did not negate the fact that the Soviet Union was an imperialist, murderous "organization."
"PS: I agree with Ann Coulter's remark made in Sept 2001 - One way to end the terrorism is to convert them all to Christianity. THAT would be the ideal solution! "
Really? Are YOU now showing your "democratic" colors? To stop terrorism it would suffice to convert them to Buddhism or Judaism, so you belief is logically faulty.
But you would impose YOUR religion on others in a heartbeat, won't you?
IT might, but those aren't proselytizing religions. Converting people is part and parcel of Christianity. It was the "Great Commission" given by Christ himself - go and convert the world. Historically, where Islam has been checked, it has been by Christianity, in large part because Christianity is a dynamic faith that believes in spreading its spiritual boundaries.
I am leaving this discussion now, you wrote a very lengthy argument for your perspective and then you finished by stating that I wanted to IMPOSE a religion on anyone.
"Convert" does not equal "impose." I do not understand how someone as agile with words as you are could believe such a thing.
Perhaps if I said I wish there were no madrassas, or I wish there were no people who revered beheaders, then maybe you and I would not seem to be so far apart.
I don't care if they adopt Christianity, but a little bit of civilization wouldn't hurt.