Not sure if it's more "dog-whistle", or more "too lazy to check dates before posting".

@Andy4608 @Creative51 Good points. I went by the date the web page was posted instead of the date the article was written.
I you wish some contemporary data, 411 deaths in the past 30 days:
[thereligionofpeace.com]

The Buddhists are killing Muslims because they're scared of Muslim bigotry rather than because of any of their own. Buddhism itself, so far as I know, propagates no hate, so it is benign. The Chinese (atheists) are also killing Buddhists for the same reason. There is no inherent problem with religion, but there is a severe problem with religious bigotry which comes from the hate in many holy texts. Strip that hate out of them and they would all become peaceful, respectable and benign. Leave the hate in them and it will go on generating atrocities by the followers of those religions, and pre-emptive or revenge attacks against them by groups which are scared of the holy hate which threatens them.

"Equally abhorrent" ??? Islam is the only "religion" which requires its adherents to pursue the objective of worldwide domination, subjugating or executing all who refuse to accept the teachings of "the prophet". Islam is an ersatz religion. In reality it is an imperialistic political ideology masquerading as, and usurping the advantages of a religion.

@PBuck0145 Give it a rest! Christianity has had a good try at world dominance and putting non adherents to death...have you never heard of the witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition. I dislike all religions equally....Islam may be more barbaric at the moment, but it’s just by degrees.

@Marionville I infer that you believe that past actions by Christians justifies the current actions of Islam, which we should tolerate and "let slide".

@PBuck0145 Please do not twist my words....I explicitly said that I consider them all equally abhorrent and merely pointed out that they all have murderous ideology....my thoughts on all religions is “a pox on all of them”. I detest “whataboutery” or tit for tat. None of them should be killing in the name of their god....whom they all say is a god of love. I just don’t single out Muslims for this criticism like you do, but condemn them all.

@OwlInASack Are you suggesting they're acting on hate like "bless the jewel in the lotus"? Buddhists are not acting on primary hate in their own religion. If they hate Muslims, that hate is coming from somewhere else, and that is fear of Islam's hate.

@David_Cooper In Myanmar, it’s not really a fear of Islam in my opinion, having been there. It’s the Generals who are still really in charge, despite the pretence of Aung San Suu Kyi being the titular head of state. They have been targeting minorities for decades, even fellow Buddhists...it’s ethnic cleansing rather that religious....they want a pure race of Burmese. The Buddhist monks have themselves been targets of the Military in the past, and I found it shocking to see that they themselves were just as capable of violence against their fellow humans...the Rohinga.

@Marionville You're right that they're targeting other minorities too - there are multiple causes, but the savagery in this case with Buddists taking part reveals a level of hate that's multiplied by something else. The non-Muslims who live in that area are scared of the Muslims and they have been willing participants in the violence as a result. Those who buy into holy hate are a threat and they are feared as a result.

@David_Cooper That is not the fault of the victims, but those who orchestrate the violence and murder....hatred of the “other” is what it’s about...every religion is as bad as another in that respect.

@OwlInASack It is certainly not an excuse for the behaviour of the people killing Muslims there or anywhere else, but it remains there as an explanation for their behaviour. If you care about stopping the violence, you need to look honestly at the causes of the violence and address it directly. Primary hate generates secondary hate back at it, and hotheads are quick to pick up guns and start shooting. All of that hate is aimed at people, but I want to turn all of that hate against the primary hate instead so that it gets eradicated and the people can get on with the business of living together in peace instead of threatening each other.

@Marionville No, every religion is not as bad as every other. The ones that propagate hate are generating violence while the ones that don't are not. Any violence that comes from people who follow religions with no hate in their holy texts is driven by something outside of that religion.

@David_Cooper Have it your own way....there is not a meeting of minds between us. No more to be said,

@OwlInASack It is a valid explanation because it is the correct one. Everything operates on cause and effect. Nothing happens without a cause unless it's random. If a group has bought into any kind of ideology which contains primary hate in its revered texts which cause a small proportion of the members of that community to abuse others, all the people who endorse that ideology have a causal role in that abuse, and the more decent they appear to be, the more they boost the status of the ideology in question, along with the hate which it contains. The people on the receiving end of the abuse ask where it comes from, particularly if there is more of it coming from people of that community than there is coming from members of their own, and they recognise the primary hate as the driver of the cultural difference. That hate serves as a continual threat, and no one should have to live in fear of these eternal death threats. There is nothing peaceful about a death threat, and these religions make direct death threats against others. In a civilised world, such hate should never be tolerated.

And when you talk of persecuted minorities, in cases like this we're dealing with people who automatically become the persecutors whenever they are majorities and are free to impose the hate on everyone else. Jews, Christians and Muslims are all guilty of this because they have failed to condemn the hate and strip it out of their holy texts. The "peacefulness" of any communities of such people is also an illusion - the hate is being sustained in their midst by the texts which contain it, and there is always the potential for members of those communities to take it upon themselves to act on that hate in order to do their religion by the book, which is precisely what we see when people from peaceful families suddenly decide to go and fight for terrorist groups. There is nothing mythical about the bogeyman you speak of - that bogeyman is the holy hate itself. We all recognise that kind of hate and its danger when we see it in Nazi literature, and we should not deny it when it exists in any other kind of literature. Nazi hate drove a genocide of six million (and caused the deaths of many millions of others at the same time). Holy hate has also driven massive genocides and it should not be given a special licence to do so. So long as people go on denying the cause, we are doomed to see these genocides go on and on. The road to peace is a war not against people, but against the primary hate which is the source of all the trouble.

@OwlInASack No, my argument is that if you endorse Nazi literature, you have a causal input into genocide. The same applies to the endorsement of any container of similar primary hate. It's a proven mechanism, so why deny it when the containers are holy texts? All you're doing is adding to future genocides instead of trying to cut out the cancer and stop the lot of them.

@OwlInASack The whole point is that it isn't just Muslims - it's all the ideologies and religions that propagate primary hate, and all the people who endorse those are responsible for the abuses generated by the hate which they have (in many cases inadvertently) endorsed. It isn't good enough to say, "I back religion/ideology X and don't act on its hate, therefore the hate doesn't drive me to be violent" because that backing of X by someone peaceful boosts its status and automatically gives the hate a respectability too by making out that it's harmless. It is not harmless - ISIS told us exactly why they killed 10000 Yazidis. The mechanism is fully understood.

@OwlInASack Not classical conservatism. You are referring to corporatism and plutocracy.