Although terrorism is defined as an act of political violence with no reference to race or ethnicity, according to our culture terrorism is an act of violence done by mainly extreme Islamists. It is justified in saying the more radical and severe acts of violence against innocent people were mainly radical Islamists (9/11 attacks) but that does not justify saying all terrorists are Muslims or all Muslims are terrorists. On the contrary, Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion that renounces violence. I believe mass media has hyped and in a way ticked our beliefs. When a Caucasian man or woman is accused of deadly premeditated acts of violence against innocent people it is more likely he/she will be declared mentally ill and not a terrorist. Whereas is a man with an Islamic name or Islamic background commits an act of violence he is automatically titled a terrorist. For example in November 2009 a military doctor at Fort Hood killed 13 people and injured many more, without proper investigation he was considered a terrorist. Later it was proven he has ties to individuals in Yemen known for training people to inflict violence. But I questioned how come this military doctor was a terrorist because his affiliation to Yemen but James Holmes who killed 12 and injured 58 people was not considered a terrorist? Was it because the military doctor has ties to the Middle East? Going back to mass media distorting the true definition of a terrorist. This is similar to what has happened an act of racism.