Yes maybe so? but adding an element of religious endorsement allows outrageous extraordinary cruelty/excess to be included or justified!

Even so, remove the alleged/claimed religious cover and those that engage in their mindless excesses, are just common Godless thugs, satan serving rapist's, baby murdering thugs, for whom no mindless excess is too much!

That said, and having opened death's door and had a peek, can testify, that which awaits each and every one of these moribund miscreants, is far more terrifying than anything they witnessed, engaged in or perpetrated on others!

So as you sow, so also shall you reap!
Do unto others as you would be done unto! Quote unquote.
Alan B.

yes it is true that secularism has so much in common with Islam. For a long period of time, Christ teachings influenced the West which made us the envy of the world. Now that every other ideology and ism including atheism/feminism has been embraced the West has become a lot more dangerous especially if you live in your mothers womb.

Thank you, Kendall,

Politicians like terrorism (in moderation) because it has the potential to build patriotism and unite the nation behind them, which in turn gives them more power. Senseless and non-ideological crimes, however, like the latest Melbourne attack, do not yield any such benefits for them. While they may shed tears and strongly denounce terrorism in public, they rub their hands with glee in the privacy of their homes when it occurs.

Kendall, if you look at the definition of terrorism you will see that the State is a terrorist organisation, only it exempts itself from the definition.

"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
(Some definitions say "unofficial" instead of unlawful.)

So if you use violence and intimidation against people, especially civilians, in the pursuite of political aims, but you control the legislature and exempt yourself from the definition, then it's not terrorism, supposedly.

In reality, in ethics, in fact, in history, The State is a terrorist organisation. And ISIS is just an incipient State.

If ISIS successfully claims and exercises a legal monopoly of ultimate decision-making, backed by force and threats, over its subject territory, it will be a State in the true and ordinary sense of the term.

If it continues to extort money from its subject population, that will be called "taxation" and "fiscal policy". Its threats against its subject population will be called "legislation". It will be entitled to a seat the United Nations, just like all the other established legal terrorist organisations. And the leftards will assume it has all the same magical powers to cure the sick, fine-tune the weather, and create wealth out of nothing by printing special squiggles on paper. What is that but religious belief in a superbeing?

I don't know why you concentrate on the illegal terrorist organisations. A little convenient, isn't it? It is obvious that the legal and official ones are far bigger, far more criminal, and have done exponentially more damage, than the illegal or unofficial ones. Look at the USA, the UK, Russia and China for examples.

“The State” by Franz Oppenheimer
http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Oppenheimer%20(Franz)%20-%20The%20State%20Its%20History%20and%20Development%20Viewed%20Sociologically.pdf

“Anatomy of the State” by Murray Rothbard
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Anatomy%20of%20the%20State_3.pdf

Runner needs to read and understand Phil Zuckerman's book, Society without God. Extract from introduction to; Society Without God by Phil Zuckerman who wrote;

First of all, I argue that society without God is not only possible, but can be quite civil and pleasant. This admittedly polemical aspect of my book is aimed primarily at countering the claims of certain outspoken, conservative Christians who regularly argue that a society without God would be hell on earth: rampant with immorality, full of evil, and teeming with depravity. Well, it isn't.

Denmark and Sweden are remarkably strong, safe, healthy, moral, and prosperous societies. In fact, a good case could be made that they are among the "best" countries in the world, at least according to standard sociological measures.

In an age of growing religious fundamentalism and strengthening ties between religion and politics-in the United States as well in as many other countries-this is important information. It is crucial for people to know that it is actually quite possible for a society to lose its religious beliefs and still be well-functioning, successful, and fully capable of constructing and obeying sound laws and establishing and following rational systems of morality and ethics

Another silly "Islam is just another religion, move on, nothing to see" article.

Obviously Ms Galbraith has little knowledge of Islam. If the Quran and hadith teach hate and violence, and they do, why is it not proper top assume the potential for violence of Muslims is greater than that of most other religions or ideologies? Perhaps Ms. Galbraith should watch the news. Would she believe simple, obvious facts? I doubt it! What she is trying to say is that Islamic violence is no big deal because there is non-islamic violence, too.

An analysis of her twitter account indicates that her basic position is "if we don't say anything bad about Islam and Muslims then all will be well." Pretty stupid!