The roots of terrorism are complex. Boiling it all down to religion/religious belief is a large oversimplification of the problem particularly given the simple observation that some believers are very devout, but disinclined to violence while others are very violent but disinclined to devotion.
I've written in more than one post that both the peaceful Muslims and the violent fundamentalists are all Muslims - they are both practicing Islam. This is because the religion can and is interpreted that broadly. And I haven't called for abolishing Islam, but rather to make changes in the religion or how it is understood - changes that will be effective in taking away the moral, religious motivation for forcing others to accept a set of beliefs or die. Why do you not address? And by the way, you presume that those inclined to violence are disinclined to devotion... that is so wrong.
The Koran and Hadith are considered infallible and they are the source of Sharia law. It is taking this religion and applying it as enforced rules. That is the basic fact regardless of how many different views there are of the Koran, or how different Islamic sects apply Sharia. It is mystical in its foundation and epistemology, collectivist in its practice, subjective and tyrannical in its application. Your view of it is bizarre.
It is the means by which many Islamic authorities destroy individualism and liberty.... by this formulation of tyrannical laws that cover hygiene, etiquette, economics, diet, sexual practices, theological duties, marital laws, criminal laws, military laws, and even dress codes.
I'm well aware that peaceful Muslims believe that jihad means an inner struggle. But when we are talking about terrorists, that is clearly NOT what we mean in these recent threads. We mean the the violent jihad. How can you not grasp that? When you call for a counter-jihad to counter the fanatics, you don't make sense. What does that look like? Is it taking up arms to attack the would-be attackers? Are you calling for a military approach? You don't say. On a thread that attempt to discuss the problem of Islamic terrorism you are proving to be as effective as the Obama administration.
You claim that ignorance of history leads to failed US policies, but don't specify any specifics. You act as if you understand history and therefore should be able to suggest a better path to solving this problem, but you provide no specifics. You mock American exceptionalism, which if not explained, is sort of a non-concept whose only purpose is to be a rallying cry for Conservatives, and an attack dummy for the leftists.
You make your proclamations from some undefined moral high ground where you imply that YOU understand history, YOU understand the religion, YOU understand the Middle East, YOU understand terrorism, while the rest of us are ignorant and probably racist. My experience is that most of the people who make unsupported claims that they know best and that those who disagree with them are ignorant, and who supply no evidence, and then turn around and call their opponents bigots are usually progressives... or at least that is what they behave like (some anarchists and self-admitted Marxists have similar bad habits) - if this doesn't describe your current or past political philosophy then you'd be well advised to stop arguing like that.
You asked why all the Christians haven't sent you personal letters condemning the Planned Parenthood shooting. Why should they? Are you someone important in the world of Planned Parenthood? You "demand" all Christians explain to you why their religious beliefs don't commit them to terrorism against Planned Parenthood. Are you Muslim? And is that your outraged feeling of being a peaceful Muslim who is offended by references to Islamic terrorists? Or is this just a very peculiar way of satirically calling any reference to Islamic terrorism wrong since you seem to be taking the position that Islamic terrorism isn't really Islamic? If it's that, I don't think it is working.