Moving from the absolute falsehood "all terrorists are Muslim" to tomming the statistics is tangible progress, since you've acknowledged the existence of rightwing domestic terror incidents.

Classic tom approach to statistics, finding lost change under the cushions to add to the side you want to favor, applying rigorous standards only to the side you want to diminish.

You've brought up Malvo and Muhammad before, and you're making the classic rightwing mistake of classifying any crime committed by a Muslim as a terrorist act. Bigotry much? You see, Muhammad was simply crazy, he was just the classic mass shooter mad at the world in general and his ex-wife (of course) in particular, psychotic, and locked in a sick "father-son" relationship with Malvo. Their killing spree had absolutely zero to do with Islam or any kind of politics.

If that's your criteria for blaming terrorism on a religion, you've just implicated Christianity in most of the mass murders in America for the last century or so.

As for Taheri-azar driving his SUV into a crowd of people, he did it to protest killing of Muslims, so it was in the general ballpark of radical Islamic terror. But he didn't kill anybody. The criteria used by the International Security study was "deadly jihadist attacks", so Taheri-azar's attack doesn't technically belong on the list. That one's kind of half right, but its omission is consistent with the rules of the analysis.

[edited to add this paragraph]If you include all acts of ideological violence that don't result in death, the incidents of rightwing terrorism skyrocket. For example, the Cliven Bundy Incident absolutely fit the definition of a sublethal rightwing terrorist incident. Remember the pictures of the snipers on the bridges ready to assassinate Federal officers? And really, since most people consider brandishing a gun to be a violent act, all those "open-carry" assholes invading businesses qualify as rightwing domestic terrorists. The well of rightwing terrorism seems bottomless when you include violent incidents that stopped short of killing. It's clear that rightwingers are inherently violent.

The case of Michael Julius Ford seems to be a workplace shooting. I could find zero indication of any ideological or religious reasons. But I can see why you'd insist it had to be "radical Islamic terrorism", since it was reported that he had recently converted to Islam. So that must be the reason, unlike all the other workplace shootings committed by Christians, in which religion couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Should you be called a "bigoted, hateful, racist fascist" because of this? I'd say that's only about half right.

Since Muslims come in all colors hating Muslims can't be racist, merely bigoted.

We all know that fear is at the root of hate. You're expressing hatred of Muslims not because you're hateful, but because you're fearful.

As for "fascist", you don't really meet the formal criteria outlined elsewhere. No need to beat yourself up with the empty insult form of the term.

"Adding these to the mix tips the scales with a thud." Uh no, that's not what caused the sound of a "thud".