My guess is that its the large amount of nationalism Europe has traditionally had. Politicians and leaders have always blamed internal problems on outsiders going back to the dawn of time, while this happens everywhere it is much easier to do so when you were at total war with those outsiders n years ago.
The Americas are in a unique situation because the dominant power, the US, contains large percentages of citizens with South American, Mexican, Canadian, and Asian, heritage. You still get violence and hate speech, but the strife between them is relatively short lived even when considering the likes of Japan, Vietnam, and China.
Then you have the religious and cultural differences between western and middle eastern values. I think this transcends everything as you see the same distaste of middle-easterners in both Europe and the United States.
Depends on how literally you define "instructs". Certainly, the first 100รท years of Catholicism in Central and South America didn't value the lives of non-Catholics very much.
That's a very uniformed view of the situation.
Most if not all of the post-colonial (50 onwards) Arab/"Islamic" militant groups in the middle east were actually socialists and communists (same template as asia, and south america).
Ba'ath party, the PLF/PLFP, PLA, AMAL take your pick[0]...
Pretty much all of the terrorist attacks in Europe from the 50's till the 80's were left wing socialists whether homegrown or Arab using Zionism and western capitalism as an excuse.
I've read the memoirs of a Mossad agent who later became the head of operations and he noted about the "romantic" period in global Terrorism.
heavily paraphrased:
"I remember when they (terrorists) used to recruit in the ivory towers of the universities of Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and Tehran. Using the words of Marx and Lenin rather than those of the mufti."
He later goes on and discuses how drastically different they were even tho they would be just as ruthless you could talk to them when needed, and if not at least respected them for having a philosophic ideology rather than blind faith.
He also added some anecdotal evidence on that matter.
"When we needed to find one, we knew not to look for them at the mosque or at the madrassah, but rather at a titty bar in east berlin. As one would be much more likely to find one ("terrorist") snorting cocaine of a stripper than listening to a sermon or hunching over hadits in a dim lit room".
When talking about how they compare to the Afghani mujaheddin he made another anecdote saying that the average Arab terrorist at his time would be wearing blue jeans and a bright polo and walk around with a ringo star haircut rather than have a beard and wear tribal rags.
Religious [Islamic] Terrorism / Militarism picked up steam in the 80's and onwards and you can literally distill it to 3 major (and somewhat interconnected) events.
1) The Islamic Revolution in Iran, heavily religious, very devout, used religion as a primary source of power and more important for divine mandate.
This lead to the formation of Shia groups around the globe like Hezbollah which put allot of Sunni's in panic mode as they would be just as likely to fight against them as they would against "Zionists" and "imperialists"
2) (heavily interconnected with 1) The soviet invasion of Afghanistan, this is what gave the Sunni the break they needed. Anyone who've been, or read about the history of Afghanistan or Pakistan knows just how "nonreligious" they were this doesn't say that they weren't Muslim, but many especially in the tribal and nomadic regions weren't the example of a devout Muslim one would think of today. They didn't had mosques (some of the bigger villages had a house of prayer, but not a mosque as it's a bit hard to build a minaret from mud and straw) many of them haven't seen a Quran in their life and the few that did couldn't read Pashtu, Urdu, or which ever language they spoke out of the regional 5000 languages yet alone Arabic.
But none the less the Salafist seized the opportunity because they were one of the few that could (and they desperately needed it), you can't really fight Soviet communism with Arab communism/socialism, Iran wasn't in a position to do anything about it (nor did it want too) so a fight against tribesmen was turned into a fight against holy warriors due to the lofty assistance of Salafists extremists mainly from Saudi-Arabia and the minor gulf states.
This later turn to sprout the Global Islamic Jihad and it's various local chapters like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, it was the 1st time in nearly 40 years that west had to deal with religious ideological Islamic terrorism and not the usual socialist/communist club.
3) The r decriminalization of the Muslim Brotherhood and the release of it's leaders form Egyptian jails following the assassination of Sadat, this lead to spread of more religious ideology and lead to the formation of groups like Hamas in Gaza and Harakat Al-Islah in Somalia.
So sorry people will always find reasons to kill each other, with a few flaps of the butterfly wing we could've been still fighting socialist Arab/Near Eastern terrorism rather than Islamic one and it would be just the same just under a different banner.
Maybe it's possible to compare the total number of the victims of the terrorist attacks of non-religious terrorists and Islamic terrorists, and also the number of civilian victims in war operations of one and another. I have the impression that the numbers differ in many, many magnitudes against the religious ones and that wouldn't support the relativism presented. But maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe we miss the proper word, the closest would be "totalitarianism" -- any kind of the ideology with the "final solution" and the desire to "rule over everything."
Do we count the state actions against the rebels inside of their territory or the wars on their borders as terrorist attacks? I think some other name is typically given to those.
Again impossible to define, either no true scotsman or an arbitrary cut off.
Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and many other while being "terrorist" organizations are also very much state like, with their own political, social, and economical infrastructure.
About 2M Lebanese live under Hezbollah's rule in Lebanon, they get more services from Hezbollah than from the Lebanese government.
Hamas is the de-facto and de-jure (even tho they didn't had elections in 10 years) government of Gaza, and the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan for nearly 30 years.
And should we only count Islamic terrorism as religious? Because the Christian militia's in Lebanon killed 100,000's, and on the other hand socialist/communist groups in Asia and Latin America have probably claimed easily over a million by now.
I'm on my phone but my short answer having grown up in Southern California in a primarily Latino and Black community is that America is a nation of immigrants and there is a lot of historical Mexican roots in California.