It used the word "Buddhist" many many times, such as Buddhist village, Buddhist neighbors, Buddhist community. The conflict is much more complicated than religious and those Buddhists mentioned are in fact local "Arakan" people.
See following NY Times article, not to defend the killing or anything but to show the matter is much more complicated than it seems. The western medias have been entirely one-sided and barely listen to the other side of the story of local Arakan.
Unfortunately more important than the victims themselves in this story is the confirmation Reuters has now provided to so much of the rest of the narrative about Rakhine. Soldiers disguised themselves while committing atrocities. We know this now because Reuters found paramilitaries and police officers to confirm it. Orders were specifically given to "clear" Rohingya villages. Same. Buddhist neighbors torched the village itself. We know this because Buddhists have now admitted to it, to Reuters. The government fabricated a terrorist attack. We know because the victims of the supposed attack deny it occurred.
What happened in Inn Dinn was too systematized to have happened only in Inn Dinn. It happened, in general, throughout Rakhine, the way the Rohingya displaced said it did.
Again, this may be an important difference between members of the two groups, but like any conflict between groups, the differences in identity are what get played up and pointed out, when the differences are rarely the _reason_ for the conflict. They're a way to manipulate people into joining a side, or to cultivate political resentment, or to explain a complex situation in a simple way for a mass audience. But such reporting only buys into and amplifies the artificial distinctions that feed the conflict. The reporters do no favors to these people by oversimplifying the situation.
The GO suggested "Arakan people", but that would imply that Rohingya are not inhabitants of Arakan, which would be plainly wrong and politically biased. For the same reason "Arakanese villagers" is not possible. "Non-Rohingya" is unambiguous, but not suitable for many reasons.
Moreover, some Buddhist monks had public preaches violently against Muslims, so the religion played a role in this conflict.
Lastly, if you open any history book about the last world war, you'll read about "German" soldiers committing crimes against Jews. They did not commit these because they were Germans, nor did every German from these years bear responsibility for these, but the word is still appropriate.
What do you propose we do? There is "mass murder" all over the world, and as the major faiths go, Christianity globally is much more zealously persecuted than Islam. Why is this particular flash point of religious strife being given such a disproportionate amount of attention by Reuters and other major western media outlets?
I don't want to spark arguments - so feel free to just post some reading material as a reply if you'd prefer to and I'll read it.
And it doesn't matter what justification is used for killing, really. One must look at the case from all angles, as the your parent said. However war and killing has never resolved long running conflicts in history. It merely subsides for a while before rearing its head again.
We really must put an end to quarrelling based on religion, race, ethnicity, and other puerile differences, or our species is never going to reach its potential on this planet.
This goes even as far as not executing serial killers.
So this is unprecedented, which is part of why many are so shocked.
Buddhists are no exception. Sad as it may be, such atrocities are not unprecedented and have accompanied Buddhism throughout its history; just as they have accompanied any other faith.
If you are interested, the book "Buddhist Warfare" collects a few interesting essays on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195394844
Buddhism, from it's source, is different in that its first espouser categorically denounced violence against all living things, which makes any Buddhist warfare a shocking example of human ills. The Buddha even goes as far as to denounce just retribution.
It is easily worked around by dehumanization of your opponents. In buddhism such people might be considered icchantika for example which is basically someone who can never reach Nirvana and thus killing these "non-people" is akin to exterminating pests.
Obviously, there are many ways to dehumanize someone and sadly this is happening in many societies around the world right now.
Although a very (very) few monks are trying to implement such idea. When there is zero reference to support their idea in actual Buddha's teaching, they are seeking and using some ancient India/Sri Lanka historical arguments.
Unfortunately, with the situations with Rohingha conflict, they are gaining some support.
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Calling this "interview with a monk" is like calling an interview with Donald Trump "interview with a politician". Correct, but perhaps not very helpful.
But what is there I can do from the Midwest US? There's not too damn much I can do. Post it on Facebook? It'll be drowned out the 80% other party political issues of the week. Give them money? I can't guarantee it'll get to the right place (or me deemed terrorist).
Feels bitterweet honestly. Horrible situation, and there's absolutely nothing I can do that has any positive effective change.
I've written to them before regarding tech issues (net neutrality) that had direct bearing on us. I received either nothing or a form letter. Maybe it did have an impact, but it sure didn't feel like it to me.