I have a good idea, why don't you tell us where the real threat lives.

Much of the domestic problem has to do with visitors here, they are being watched very closely.

The "real" terrorists live in Washington DC and are running this country into oblivion while most stand around sucking their thumbs and sitting on their arses. No, I'm not perfect in this area but, for gods sake, are we gonna go down swinging or we collapse into history with a whimper?

That's certainly a problem but it's not "terrorism".

That term has become widely misused to carve out more power for civil "ath-or-i-tay".

Terrorism or "terroristic threats" do not actually come into play in bar fights, domestic disputes, social media name calling, or even routine criminal activities. IMO there needs to be an intent and capability to assault and disrupt our collective society at some level, as opposed to simply targeting an individual or group over a personal or business dispute. We already have laws for the later, and we don't need to end-run around civil rights to enforce them.

The term Terrorism and associated laws should be restricted to probably three categories:

Weapons of mass destruction (nuclear prompt super-critical): This would apply only to a credible threat that a functioning nuclear bomb will be employed. No civil rights here, immediate and full-capability response by the DoD (national special mission teams). Kill 'em all and let the relevant diety sort 'em out.

Weapons of mass destruction (other): Threats capable of causing loss of life in the hundreds (or perhaps thousands?)...ie 9/11, large conventional explosives, dirty bomb, etc. All national means, including intelligence will be employed. The emphasis is on prevention, not prosecution or protection of sources and means. Civil rights respected in the aftermath.

Weapons of moderate destruction: Less capable threats, invcluding small bombs, and most chemical and biological agents. This is not going to bring western civilization to a screeching halt so take the long-term view...respect civil rights (US citizens at home), protect intelligence sources, proceed methodically.

Almost by definition, terrorism should be a federal issue...no need for state/local "terrorism" laws to prosecute teenagers who make threats (or jokes) on facebook. County mounties can play a supporting role, ie manning the barricades and roadblocks while the feds do the heavy-lifting.

Definition of terrorism in the basic sense:

Epic flame bait.

We can't win! I wish it was the future when all the races have mixed so much that we are all the same color. Then we can all just finally hate each other for who we really are!

Despite what many would like you to believe, race is rarely a factor in hate. People hate for many reasons, but most of it is based on the actions others take and not stereotypes or other imagined differences.

Color has almost nothing to do with any of this, actions always make more of an impression.

Jungle, there you go with that "discriminating" thinking again. If you keep such a discriminating thought process going, the issue will be completely de-confused and clear, which is of course unacceptable.

I think the question is this: Is Islam a religion, an ideology, or a perfect storm of both?

Islam is not a race, of that I am certain (just ask a Coptic or Syriac Arab how things are going lately).

Of course "Arab" may also not be technically an ethnicity/race either. I think Arabs are actually Semetic-Caucasian, a.k.a. some form of "White".

Most hate stems directly from efforts to coerce humans for whatever reason, the truth is that we seem to have a hard time leaving others alone and can't be happy unless we are making what we consider an effort to make them "better".