You're overcounting Montenegro and undercounting China by putting the same weight to them.

I'm not really sure where I said anything about montenegro...

There are violent groups in America that would probably become violent if the law enforcement knack suddenly dropped. But anyhow, America brought about, or opened, if you will, the problem.

Iraq is currently on their seventh government since the fall of the ottoman empire in the early 1900's. Sure there may be violent extremists in america, but nowhere near the level in iraq; After all, america is pretty much still on our first government, over 200 years later.

Competing factions all held together by some nutjob dictator don't make for a very stable place, and indeed Iraq has never been the most stable of places. Something would have likely happened eventually.

Faith is a part of culture, but not all of culture. The root divisions of India and Pakistan was Islam and Hinduism. But in Pakistan, they were Punjab and Pashtun, while the Indians were Hindi and Bengali.

Islam was not promoted in this war, nor was Hinduism, and the folk fought for their country, not for their faiths (for the most part, I know there's probably exceptions).

Most hindus were in favor of keeping a united india. If both sides were in agreement that there should be separate islamic and hindu states it's likely that there would have been much less mess than there was, as well as much less animosity in the region today.

Make Trump rich again!

I'm not really sure where I said anything about montenegro...

This is why I don't like to argue with you, seem like the points keep missing the dot. You haven't said anything about Montenegro, but with an unweighted average, you count it the same as China.

Iraq is currently on their seventh government since the fall of the ottoman empire in the early 1900's. Sure there may be violent extremists in america, but nowhere near the level in iraq; After all, america is pretty much still on our first government, over 200 years later.

Well, it was still a British settlement until 1932, but anyhow, it never had Islamic extremism as a big problem until the 1980s, when America started encouraging such things. Also, America is on its second government, the first one was ended.

Competing factions all held together by some nutjob dictator don't make for a very stable place, and indeed Iraq has never been the most stable of places. Something would have likely happened eventually.

There are competing factions in all countries, some more than other. And just about every country is held together by a dictator. China, India, America. But a good dictator makes patriots, which America is known for. Every page will have an end, but I assure you, the freer countries will be ended faster.

Most hindus were in favor of keeping a united india.

Source? M. Gandhi was, but he was in great opposition to this - by Muslims and Hindu.

If both sides were in agreement that there should be separate islamic and hindu states it's likely that there would have been much less mess than there was, as well as much less animosity in the region today.

I don't disagree.

This is why I don't like to argue with you, seem like the points keep missing the dot. You haven't said anything about Montenegro, but with an unweighted average, you count it the same as China.

I suppose I'm just not getting it. Why should there even be any sort of weight? Measuring murder rates in terms of intentional homicides per 100K people is totally fine IMO.

Source? M. Gandhi was, but he was in great opposition to this - by Muslims and Hindu.

This is just how most descriptions of the partition describe it; The Indian national congress wanted a united, independent india, and the muslims refused to live in a coutnry with the hindus.

http://asianhistory.about.com/od/india/f/partitionofindiafaq.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India#Two_nation_theory

http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/baker_modern/baker_mj_ep_p4/indian_pakistani_conflict.htm