While I have nothing but the greatest of respect for Buddhism, I have to disagree with the part of your post about Buddhism in SriLanka.
The circumstances in Burma are not similar to Sri Lanka, for example where Buddhists were terrorized by Tamil terrorists for decades and then reacted with violence against their tormentors.
I'm not sure where you got this version is history from, but as someone who is originally from this Island nation; it is far from the truth.
The whole Civil unrest started in Sri Lanka after the claims by Buddhist Zealots circa early 1950s to make Srilanka a Sinhala Buddhist nation, much to the dismay of the minorities. This led to the Sinhala-only act of 1954 which banished English from the government, and required everyone to learn Sinhalese(even the Tamils who had their own language). I need not point out that the first prime minister of Srilanka was assassinated by a Buddhist monk.
There were no "Tamil terrorists' till the 80s, and multiple peaceful Ahimsa(Gandhian non violence) protests by the Tamils in the 50s,60s and 70s were met with pogroms by the minority. I know this for a fact because my granddad(who btw was a big supporter of Gandhi, so much so that he visited India pre-independence to meet with Gandhi )was one of those who got beaten up by the mobs during their non-violent protests.
Religious zealotry has always existed among a small portion of Lankan Buddhists from the early historical days (a Lankan Buddhist king, Mahasena, is credited with the destruction of some of the pre-Buddhist Hindu temples in the island circa the 3rd century BCE). While reading Vivekananda's works(late 1800s), the Indian who traveled through Lanka on his way to India recounted events where Buddhists monks would lead mobs to disperse his speeches.
Anagarika Dharmapala , probably the most famous Lankan Buddhist revivalist, was also one of the main proponents of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism, in the early 1900s. He was also very openly racist.
Thus, it is pretty incorrect to say that Buddhist nationalism did not exist in Lanka till the Tamil rebels appeared on the scene in the early 80s, in fact they were a result of decades of oppression under the draconian policies of the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists.
I'm a Hindu(of the Advaita Vedantin variety..thus an atheist), I always support my Buddhist friends and consider both traditions to be pillars of the Dharmic philosophies. However I do not shrike from accepting that there are always bad apples in every religion/philosophy. I usually do not bother to reply to most comments, but decided to reply cos this topic is something I am very aware of, having lived on this island for years.
In recent days when I hear some Lankan Buddhists advocating taking harsh actions against Muslims in the island, I can't but feel the irony. The claim leveled against the Muslims is that they are outsiders and converts. What then should we Hindus of Lanka say of the Buddhists? who were but Hindus who converted to Buddhism. Maybe we Hindus should consider them converts as well?