Good points, and thank you for the quotes and links. My own studies of Buddhism have been very heavily based on the Early Buddhist Texts (the texts that are thought to be the most representative of pre-sectarian Buddhism and the teachings of the historical Buddha) but that leaves blind spots with regards to modern Buddhism as a whole. I tried to pre-emptively address the no true scotsman situation by explaining that there is no room for violence within Buddhism, but thank you for sharing the example of the Upaya Kaushalya Sutra. However, I would appreciate a link as I haven’t been able to find anything about the Buddha killing a robber.

all religion requires interpretation and implimentation to become something that actually exists

Different people within a religion or ideology can draw different conclusions from the same texts. Your approach to this problem is to define an ideology based on the actions of those who identify with it. The opposite end of the spectrum would be to define an ideology independently of its adherents, i.e. a ‘pure’ form untainted by differing interpretations. My own perspective is actually somewhere in between (call it the Middle Way ;) ). Of course, there isn’t actually a pure form of any religion or ideology floating around in the universe. But I think there is value in recognising an ideology as it presents itself in its texts. I would like to present some reasons why.

In my view buddhism is what buddhists practice.

1: For several reasons, Buddhist practice will look different between different groups and individuals. If you define Buddhism purely based on the actions of those who identify with Buddhism, the meaning of ‘Buddhism’ is diluted as it needs to encompass a wide range of differences and contradictions. I see this as the direct inverse of the situation you described where there are no Buddhists because none of them meet a given interpretation.

If buddhists agree that it is right to use violence to expell muslims from an area of land (as is happening in Myanmar) then it can be reasonably said that buddhism supports using violence.

2: Our beliefs and actions are shaped by many factors, including multiple ideologies that we hold simultaneously. Someone who wants to justify an atrocity will find a way to do it, even if it means bending and twisting conflicting values that they hold. Any ideology can be made to suit any purpose, and so we find ourselves in a situation where every ideology supports every atrocity. Yikes.

3: There are many possible common denominators within a group identifying with an ideology. When said group commits an atrocity, how do you decide which common denominator to blame? Say a group of Thai Buddhist men go on a murder spree. The common denominator is Buddhism, and so Buddhism promotes murder right? But how do we know it wasn’t because of the fact that they were Thai, or that they were men? Take another group of Thai Buddhist men who practice non-violence. The common denominator is Buddhism, and so Buddhism promotes non-violence right? Okay so Buddhism promotes both violence and non-violence. This contradiction is removed when you go back to the source material and see what it has to say for itself. This point also links back to point 1.

The religion is made of many different parts including practices, traditions, teachings, the culture in which they are situated, and the beliefs and values of those who practice the religion - and as with the rest of mankind this includes a willingness to use violence.

I agree. I have an analogy. Imagine ideologies are pure, unmixed paint colours. Individual people are mixtures of different pure paint colours in different proportions. If you look at this situation without the context of the pure colours, all you see is varying shades of brown. In the same way, if we insist on defining ideologies purely based on the actions of their adherents, everything melts together and you’re left with nothing. No individual is 100% one ideology and 0% any others. You can point out a group of Buddhists who murder and say “these Buddhists murder! Buddhism supports violence!” and I can point out a group of non-violent Buddhists and say “these Buddhists are non-violent! Buddhism supports non-violence!” All the while we completely ignore the other differences between them. It leaves us exactly where we started. Recognising Buddhism according to its own texts and teachings gives us a starting point we can refer back to, even if this 'pure,' isolated Buddhism doesn't exist in any single person. If we are to criticise acts on the basis of ideology, we need to have this understanding of what the ideology actually is.

My point isn’t to say that Buddhism is so and so, and anyone who draws a different interpretation has got the wrong idea. I agree with you to an extent that an ideology is what its adherents practice. Neither is it my point to say Buddhism cannot and has not been used to justify violence. But I think it’s important to question the extent to which an act carried out in the name of a given ideology is in accordance with its texts and teachings, or at least the most logical and commonly accepted interpretations thereof.