Seems to me that if 2(b) applies, then 1 is no longer in effect. In other words: if anyone in Jihad kills women or children they are not a Muslim, then if not a Muslim how can they be brethren.
I am inclined to agree with this comparison, but one important distinction remains. The KKK does not regularly carry out terrorist attacks.
One man's Freedom Fighter is another man's Terrorist. I firmly believe that, and I agree it is a matter of your point of view. From King George's perspective, the Founding Fathers were, indeed, terrorists. Although I would think the world more applicable would be "insurrectionists". It's not like Adams sent suicide bombers to London. They openly rebelled, for the purpose of freeing themselves from tyranny. You could argue that Palestinians are doing something similar, sans the "openly". But to compare the Founding Fathers to today's Wahhabi extremest groups is a tad disingenuous.
Yes. That speak volumes about the Muslim religion and the underlying fact that the religion calls for the violent (if necessary) take over of the world.
It is not at all similar. And you are a dope if you think it is. Take the technology out of it. Take any slave revolt throughout time. The slaves pursued insurrection for freedom. The forefathers did the same to avoid political persecution. Bin Ladin stated several times he wanted the world to convert to Islam. Extremist groups like his have gone on record saying they will kill - indiscriminately - the infidels until that is accomplished. If anything, they are trying to enslave the world to their ideas, not make people more free.
Osama Bin Laden stopped being a Jihadist the first time a woman or child was killed. The Quran is quite clear about this. I do not understand your point.