Why? Because it's politically incorrect to single out Muslims?

No.  Because it's kindergarten level critical thinking.

Incorrect.

Huh??? What kind of politically correct nonsense is that???

1. Arson, or so called "monkey wrench" crimes, perpetrated by environmental extremists such as the Earth Liberation Front. Such attacks rarely target people directly (contrary to popular belief, tree spiking incidents are almost always accompanied by reports to timber companies of what regions were spiked by the offending groups, the intention being that all logging in those areas will stop. And no, this does not justify these actions—it simply places them in a different class factually than attacks that directly target people).
2. Attacks by Animal Rights activists, once again, usually not against people.
3. Attacks by domestic Far-Right groups including anti-abortion groups (most of which claim to be "Christian"), white supremacy groups (many of which also claim to be "Christian" like the Christian Identity movement), and anti-government/property rights extremists.

These comprise nearly all domestic terrorism in America, and the third category—extreme Right-Wing terrorism—has for a number of years now been a relatively small player on this list, but it accounts for the large majority of violent domestic terror incidents by FBI and DOJ criteria.  International terrorism including that perpetrated by Muslim extremists accounts for no more than a fraction of the number of incidents these do, but this is camouflaged by the fact that over the last two decades international terrorism has tended toward fewer, but larger impact, incidents. But the actual risk of the average American being a victim of these attacks is quite small.  This can be seen as follows.

By definition, the risk of anyone being victimized by a terrorist attack is given by the probability that he/she will be in the wrong place at the wrong time when such an attack occurs.  To estimate this risk we can define P_a as the probability that an average American citizen will be found at a particular geographic location at a particular time (Event A), and P_b as the probability that a terrorist attack will occur at the same location and time (Event B). If these probabilities are expressed in terms of say, the variables x (latitude), y (longitude), and t (time), then the risk R(x,y,t) of Joe/Susy Average being victimized by a terrorist attack is given by,

where P_a(x,y,t) is the probability of Joe and Susy Average being present at location x,y and time t, and P_ba(x,y,t) is the probability that Event B will occur at the same time and place given that Event A has already occurred. If Events A and B are independent and uncorrelated (which they would be for the average citizen), this reduces to,

1. Unusually vulnerable to attack by any number of means—particularly large aircraft, and,
2. A global symbol of First World secular capitalism and wealth, and therefore a target of high social, economic, and spiritual significance to a wide range of extremist fanatics.

Personally, I would not have worked in the World Trade center given recent history.  But I also wouldn't have worked in an unprotected 100 story skyscraper that housed 1800 abortion clinic doctors, their staff, and the national headquarters of NARAL and the ACLU.

Don't get me wrong. I'm outraged by the 9/11 attacks and Islamic extremism too.  But I'm outraged at terrorists, not any ordinary decent person on the street who happens to have Muslim beliefs and through no fault of their own was unfortunate enough to be born to parents of Arabic race—or for that matter, any race that looks even remotely middle-eastern to some excitable “patriot” after 5 or 6 drinks.  Moral outrage and patriotism alone will not magically transform BS into truth or sloppy fact-checking into professionalism.

Last time I checked we were in a war against terror.  So it seems to me that there's a lot to be said for actually (God forbid!) knowing that the person we're about to strip-search, lock up without due process, or shoot between the eyes actually is a terrorist, or in the very least that someone somewhere has half a lunch pail's worth of evidence suggesting that they might be.  Reliable evidence—now there's an interesting idea....

Exit polls and nationwide voter surveys indicate that on the day of the fall 2004 presidential election, fewer than one in every 3 to 5 Americans who voted for George W. Bush could correctly answer any given question about U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Even more revealing was the fact that only one in four of these could even correctly identify Bush's position on any given issues indicating that they had no idea what he even planned to do about them (PIPA, 2004).  Nearly 3 out of 4 believed there were WMD's in Iraq at the time of the 2003 invasion and that Saddam Hussein had a direct working relationship with Al Queda (!)—all of this despite the 9/11 Commission Report (prepared by a team the Bush Administration appointed) and a wealth of easily accessible information to the contrary.  Hence, the concluding remarks of our history test author, who also seems to have been unaware of it.  If a majority of Americans prefer moral outrage and bumper stickers to evidence, then perhaps a refresher course in Democracy 101 is in order.

Like it or not folks, real freedom involves risks and responsibilities as well as rights.  You cannot, repeat cannot restrict someone else's freedom without jeopardizing your own.  Yes, instituting a "Patriot" Act to put some racial, ethnic, religious, or political groups under surveillance would make America a lot safer for blonde haired, blue eyed, white Christian males like me.  In fact, as many who still remember WW II can tell you, rounding them up, pistol whipping those who resist arrest, and putting them in internment camps would make me even safer.