Prejudice will always exist, because it's human nature to form groups, then you have group and those not in the group, = prejudice. The group can be about anything, race religion, finances, countries, sports teams, or who likes what movies. And guess what, those outside the group are a group of their own who are prejudiced against these others, who are prejudiced against a diff group, and so on and so on...

As I believe I've said on this forum before, I have acne and man-boobs. Acneism and manboobsism are the last acceptable forms of prejudice in America, heh-heh.

Yoohoo...the issue of prejudice really should have ignited a firestorm, because I for one, believe that every single person who walks the planet is prejudiced in some way. Personally, I think society has become too sissified and people need to stop trying to please everyone else. Nope, maybe that's not it. Wait, I got it, society needs to go back to individualistic thinking rather than depending more and more on group-think. There is a whole generation growing up that communicates with 140 characters and they won't be able to think about their prejudices, let alone verbalize them. Now that's some prejudiced thinking right there.

Acceptable targets of prejudice:
white people
men
boys
businessmen
Christians
Catholics
Israel
Conservative women

In high school, there was a group of non-popular people. They made a group. Called it Loosers. They could be rather exclusionary at times.

However, I think there is a difference between freedom of association and prejudice. I may not choose to associate with people who eat plants (just to pick something random). That doesn't mean that I judge them or act against them.

So, prejudice/discrimination is acting against the plant eater (or guy with man-boobs to use an earlier example).

I would further add that discrimination isn't all bad. For instance, I discriminated against all the other species when I decided to get married to a human. I guess I'm species-ist. I try to think of the word in terms of discriminant analysis (or trying to discern things that are different). That's much more neutral, but not how the word is commonly used.

I will admit that I am quite prejudiced against terrorists (of any religion (or not)) but especially Islamist.

How do you tell the difference? By who they kill. An insurgency is marked by limiting their targets to government and valid military targets. For example a valid military target is a base. Blowing the shit out of a weather service outpost manned by fifteen military people is not really a valid military target.

Blowing the shit out of a market district to kill four MP's on routine patrol is not a valid target. Shooting the shit out of the four MP's and catching a single civilian, by accident, can be called an insurgency.

The same can be applied to governments as well.

Targeting civilians and "soft" targets means you are a terrorist. This is why I think both sides in Syria can go fuck themselves.