How about if we try something brand new: stepping away from the ignorant, stereotyped, one-dimensional view of Islam all too prevalent in the West:http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ss_terror_06_12.asp
Bottom line: they're not all radicals; mainstream Muslims are no more wedded to the nutty language in their scripture than we are to the nutty language in Judeo-Christian scripture. The trick is to "dis-incentivize" the radicals so they're viewed by Muslims as the kooks that they are. Just like most of us view the fundamentalist kooks who think it's OK to shoot a doctor through the kitchen window of his home because he has performed legal
And Paul, there was neither dynamite nor remote control garage door openers nor cell phones nor the internet in the 18th century. So, unless you can point me to some weapons analysis to the contary, surprise bombings directed at civilian targets were as impossible then as cruise missle strikes -- oh, unless you had access to the "surgical accuracy" of a mortar. No civilians ever slaughtered by those babies.
Now, one other minor detail: just in case you didn't know, there weren't that many British civilians in the 18th century colonies, so your challenge to find accounts of "British store bombers" is, to be charitable, both logistically and technologically specious.
And Paul, your argument about the Boston Massacre is just silly. A provocative act by rebels, aimed at eliciting a disproportionate response by the heavy-handed and despised enemy, followed closely by grossly distorted propaganda campaign to whip up support against such enemy. See the pattern? It doesn't matter that John Adams got the British soldiers acquitted; the bad PR fed the appetite of a hungry public long before that. Now, forget the WTC analogy for a second; even on a good day in Iraq, women and children and elderly are inevitably killed by our forces. Lots of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
And that's on the good days, not a Haditha-days. Oh, and despite those high-altitude feel-good camera shots intended to show us how accurate all them fancy GPS weapons are, we don't get to see the body parts of all the civilians who've been killed "collaterally," as the euphemism goes. But the locals sure do. So, while we're told of how the terrorists use "human shields," the Muslims not only hear about, but constantly see, dead women, children and elderly. High explosives just tend to do that. So, whether it's Dubya's 30,000 civilian deaths or Lancet's 695,000, our conduct of this war easily can be characterized as just as inhumane as almost about any terrorist act you can name. Way more than any count of our gross losses. Let's be clear: I'm not making that characterization but, to draw on one of your comments, Paul, to persist in thinking that there is no evidence on which those who are not sympathetic to us can support their belief that it is we who are the barbarians, is just "delusional."
So let's all ditch the rose-colored glasses and back off the romanticizing of the war we've got our boys fighting over there. The only truly accurate observation ever made on the subject was Wm. T. Sherman's. I'm sure you know it.