Probably more related to american society than religion. Gallup did polls on 131 countries to find out which support attacks on civilians more. They asked people if those attacks were never justified or sometimes justified, when they were done by the military and then when done by individuals. They found that support for attacks on civilians is affected by how developed the country is, how stable it is, how wealthy and well governed. The worse the country is the more support exists. But there are a few exceptions. America for example is a stable and developed country but people there are the more likely to say that attacks on civilians are sometimes justified. 49% if done by the military. Muslim countries are less likely to support that compared to the average. Less if done by individuals. 14%. And less if the attacks are by the military. 18%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx"Predominantly Muslim Societies Reject Violence at Least as Much as Other Societies
Since 9/11, voices arguing that Islam encourages violence more than other religions have grown louder - most recently in the manifesto penned by Anders Breivik before he gunned down more than 70 people in Norway. In his manifesto, Breivik argues that Islam is intrinsically violent and peaceful Muslims are simply ignoring their faith's injunctions to kill. He cites dozens of European and American pundits to support this assertion. If this popular claim were true, it would logically follow that Islam's adherents would be more likely than others to condone violence, even if most find it easier not to follow through on their beliefs, as Breivik contends.
The evidence refutes this argument. Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks."
"This suggests that terrorist activity is largely on the periphery, carried out despite community rejection and not with its tacit support."
"Moreover, whereas terrorist groups are not legitimate representatives of their countries of origin or the national or religious groups they claim to represent, militaries in contrast are legitimate state actors, representing the citizens of their countries. Not only does the military represent the public in a democratic state, but it is made up of a cross section of that public. Strong public consensus against the military targeting civilians as never justified means members of the defense establishment will be intrinsically and strongly committed to avoiding civilian casualties as well as to holding accountable those who violate the laws of war, a foundation to global peace and security."
