Every once in a while, some ignorant fool who never bothered to Google anything claims only Muslims are terrorists. Then they remember one or two things before September 11 and then adds "in the past 15 years". Well, they are wrong.
Here is a list of all terrorist attacks on US soil (including aircraft going to or coming from the US). I exclude other countries because I don't want to debate who is or is not a terrorist - and in a country that has no Christians it is not relevant that no Christians were terrorists (just as a in Ireland, there are no Muslim terrorists, they are all good Catholics). The date goes back to 1975, as any further things get a bit grey on 'terrorist', again.
1975: Jan 24, NYC, Puerto Rican separatist terrorists - Christian
1988: Dec 21, Lockerbie airplane bound for NYC. Libya (Muslim) takes credit.
1993: Feb 26, NYC - first WTC bomb. Muslim
1995: April 19, Oklahoma City bombing, Christian
2001: Sept 11, NYC, Arlington, Shanksville, Muslim
2009: Dec 25, Detroit, underwear bomber, Muslim
2010: May 1, NYC, Time Square, Muslim
2010: May 10, Jacksonvile, Florida, Christians pipe bomb a Mosque
2010: Oct 29, two Yemen Planes to US, (Saudis discover and remove bomb before the planes lift off for the US), Muslim
2011: Jan 17, Spokane Washington, pip bomb along Martin Luther King Jr. March - unknown, most likely Christian
First of all, holy crap 2010 was a bad year!
But of the 10 terrorist acts between 1975 and 2011, only six are Muslims, three of the others are confirmed Christians, and one more is most likely Christian.
Part of the problem is definition. Some morons define terrorism as anytime a Muslim kills a non-muslim. If you do that, then yes, only Muslims are terrorists. Suddenly the Irish's IRA say "YAY - we can get out of jail, now, right?" That is why you have a bunch of fools claiming things like the Little Rock traitor was 'terrorism' or the Cole bombing was terrorism.
The CIA's definition of terrorism is simple:
1) Premeditated Violence (including the threat of violence)
2) for Political reasons
3) against Civilians
4) by sub-national groups
The last one (sub national groups) was put in just so that the CIA's own actions don't qualify as terrorism. They wanted to be allowed to kill North Korean and Iranian Nuclear Scientists without worrying about going to jail or violating certain treaties the US has signed.
But we can accept their definition, it has certain things going for it.
First, if you attack a soldier, it is an Act of War, not an act of terrorism. It doesn't matter if it it is a hopeless attack, or even suicidal - like the kamikaze attacks Japan was famous for in World War II. Nor does it matter it if was an 'ambush'. Both of those activities are just as ethical and reasonable as any other military action.
Second, under these terms as per the CIA's own rulings that means the 2000 USS Cole attack - suicide torpedo boating of a US war ship - is not terrorism. Neither was the 2009 Attack on two US Soldiers outside a military recruitment center. Both were done against soldiers, not civilians. As such I did not include it on the list above.
Why is this so important? Because we want the bad guys to try and kill out soldiers, not to try and kill our children. If you have enough guts to attack us head on, as opposed to trying to kill old men, women and children, then we say "You are honorable enough to qualify as a soldier and we will treat you as a Prisoner of War."
Those are important things are they make a lot of sense to me. We treat soldiers better because they act better. Good people may, if the conditions warrant it, have to go to war, but they don't have to kill kids, old people, or pregnant women. Not ever.