[acqq]

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."

[dogma1138]

Depends if you count in Saddam as a terrorist because then he trumps them all combine as far as death count goes.

[acqq]

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.

[dogma1138]

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.