As has been covered before though, Irish terrorism did not have its roots in religion, having thousands (millions?) of 16 year olds declaring Jihad when they clearly don't understand all the influences is a very different situation.
Many will argue that the roots of 'Muslim Terrorism' is not religion but the perceived/real oppression of people who also happen to be Muslims. At least, that is what Bin Laden says and emphasises this with his comment that Sweden isn't being targeted.
Also, let us be clear - Jihad does not equal terrorism. If you target civilians, you are a terrorist. In fact, Jihad (in the sense of armed struggle) comes with strict laws and any act of terrorism cannot be called 'Jihad'.
I've avoided discussing the use of the term 'Jihad' - because the meaning in most people's mind is clear, even if the term is not appropriate. Therefore the word has taken on a meaning which is not true to its roots, but as a label for acts of armed attack by Muslims, it does the job. And it is in this context I am saying that Jihad is not equal to terrorism.
I do not see anything wrong, say, with Hizbullah capturing the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon last year. They are legitimate military targets generally, and the fact that thousands of lebanese are being held captive without trial makes the legitimacy quite specific. However, the capture of the soldiers was branded as 'terrorist' acts by a 'terrorist organisation' .
Cheers,
Shafique