Rebar,
I see. Let me explain what I see with each of your responses:
Serbia:
When it's another religion on the line, you're willing to look to ancient history to avoid the current practices of its membership. That's what you did in order to ingore the fact that approximately 600,000 men, women and children were killed by christians in Bosnia and Kosovo, right?
Sri Lanka:
And when it comes to Tamils, then religion isn't important....religion only counts if they are muslims who are fighting, right?
India:
Hindu mobs....justified response to muslim violence, even if they kill innocent women and children too.
Cambodia:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804526315.html
Interesting. You explain away violence entirely when it is committed by members of another religion, but refuse to blame violence on anything but Islam when muslim extremists act out.
And when you do recognize violence, you justify it by citing what the Turks did 100 years ago.
Now here's me doing exactly what you are doing with Islam and terrorism:
I can only assume, since you did not strongly and unequivocally condemn the Serbian genocide of the 1990's (and take out ads in Muslim papers to prove to the Muslim people that you don't support terrorism and genocide), that you must in fact secretly support a plan to kill all non-Eastern Orthodox Christians. Your citations to ancient history are just excuses, and you are doing nothing to help root out and punish the war criminals who were shooting women and children in Bosnia and Kosovo. You must be a supporter of genocide against all non-Christians.
Now, tell me what's different about the picture I just painted of you, and the one you're trying to paint of all Muslims?