> Oh please. A proper root cause analysis is different from blaming everything on the West.
That's another rule I forgot to mention:
5. Anyone pointing out the clear history of repeated violent actions by X against Y shall be labelled a: Y sympathiser, "blame-the-X" bleeding-heart liberal, anti-X, etc
> It would have to include the idea that the current cultural clash is with an extremely violent religion as can be shown by its teachings.
You seem to hold a Western stereotype of Islam[1]. How can you accept this stereotype and at the same time bristle with indignation when someone points out that the West is a collection of extremely violent superpowers, as shown by the West's history of constant war and invasion?
What metrics do we use to calculate which 'side' is more violent? Number of people killed, and number of countries invaded? On that basis the West is clearly far more violent, isn't it?
> 9/11 as the showcase of the clash between the West and radical Muslims was planned by a descendant of a rich Saudi family. There were not many poor and underprivileged amongst those plane hijackers.
Injustice is oxygen for radicals at every strata of society, so my point is that if you serve your subjugated people more justice and less injustice, you are getting increased stability and security in return. It's a good trade for people like w1ntermute who are satisfied with their global status and not troubled by questions involving morality and ethics.
> Anyone pointing out the clear history of repeated violent actions by X against Y shall be labelled
You are constructing a straw man here. YOU specifically stated that "that violent military intervention coupled with Western political soundbites [...] are the real factors responsible for radicalizing elements", so you ARE knocking the West for everything that happens. I did specifically not label you as anything of the above.
>What metrics do we use to calculate which 'side' is more violent? Number of people killed, and number of countries invaded? On that basis the West is clearly far more violent, isn't it?
I don't think so. How many wars between democratic Western countries vs. between Muslim countries? I do recall Iraqis and Iranians happily gassing each other as late as the 1980s.
>Injustice is oxygen for radicals at every strata of society, so my point is that if you serve your subjugated people more justice and less injustice, you are getting increased stability and security in return.
Sure, that's why Western secular countries win this contest hands down. Saudi Arabia is not a US colony, they have a home-grown Muslim theocracy. They are subjugated by their own sheiks and their religion.
The West does deserve blame for destroying traditional societies during the 19th century. BUT, those societies were far from peaceful - and contrary to a lot of Asian states, a big part of Africa and the Muslim world never changed their violent ways post-colonialism. The West deserves blame for nurturing dictators like Hussein and Ghaddafi, but it's the Muslim population that - even in more or less free election - votes Islamic radicals into office.
I for one are getting irritated and tired of proponents of a peaceful Islam blissfully ignorant of the realities of violence in Muslim societies and Muslim migrant culture. I don't get it why it is so hard to take at least some responsibility and try to improve things instead of always blaming the West. This is a loser's attitude.
That's another rule I forgot to mention:
5. Anyone pointing out the clear history of repeated violent actions by X against Y shall be labelled a: Y sympathiser, "blame-the-X" bleeding-heart liberal, anti-X, etc
> It would have to include the idea that the current cultural clash is with an extremely violent religion as can be shown by its teachings.
You seem to hold a Western stereotype of Islam[1]. How can you accept this stereotype and at the same time bristle with indignation when someone points out that the West is a collection of extremely violent superpowers, as shown by the West's history of constant war and invasion?
What metrics do we use to calculate which 'side' is more violent? Number of people killed, and number of countries invaded? On that basis the West is clearly far more violent, isn't it?
> 9/11 as the showcase of the clash between the West and radical Muslims was planned by a descendant of a rich Saudi family. There were not many poor and underprivileged amongst those plane hijackers.
Injustice is oxygen for radicals at every strata of society, so my point is that if you serve your subjugated people more justice and less injustice, you are getting increased stability and security in return. It's a good trade for people like w1ntermute who are satisfied with their global status and not troubled by questions involving morality and ethics.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence#Western_ster...