Clearly the difference

is that the expressed motivations in specific cases were "religious" in nature, and

there is a movement involving a sizable number of people of that religion focused strictly on the task of establishing a political reality known as an "Islamic Caliphate" across various regions of the world, and

the individuals in that movement publicly express their desires, including their support for the use of terrorism against innocent civilians, via various forms of media.

that's the difference. duh.

there is no sizable movement believing that people in a Batman movie should be murdered, or that Gabbie Giffords was particularly rude to Jared Loughner and therefore deserving of being shot in the head, and all those visiting with her at a political event, worthy of being shot dead.

no, it's not all Muslims. <<--- retard point for retards to retard about and feel good about having covered. "there, we covered the issue". aye yaye yaye.

yes, there are many peaceful Muslims.

if you want to have a useful conversation, here are some points to address:

do certain sects of Muslims believe in using violence to force their religion as a political system onto others?
do they believe in using violence against civilians as part of that process?
do they encourage others to engage in the use of violence against civilians in order to counter what they perceive as religious persecution against their faith?
are they retarded enough to think that violence is justified when someone makes a cartoon involving their prophet?

most importantly, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

if you're avoiding the above topics, you are intentionally avoiding the important parts of the issue, most likely either out of fear of the reality, or out of a desire to maintain ratings by never resolving any important issues, in which case you're a fucking parasite and deserve to be blanket beaten until you limp home crying.