See? What you're doing is removing the responsibility for violence from the perps to the victims. In essence, you are legitimizing the use of terrorism to redress political grievances.This reminds me of the "liberals empower terrorists" rhetoric. Your logic is wrong. The root causes analysis, when done with honesty, expose the culpability of all involved. Western interventionism in the Middle East has, for decades, been anything but benevolent. It has consistently been focused on forwarding U.S. interests and very rarely been focused on interests of the citizens of the nation being intervened within. The west absolutely has culpability in this situation.
And, in doing so, you completely ignore the fact that I cited earlier...western interventionism ain't the cause of Islamic terror and violence in Africa or Southeast Asia. The cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam's promotion of violence. This promotion of violence causes Muslims to respond violently to redress their grievances rather seeking political dialogue and diplomacy.
You're wrong. My attitude is that Islamic terrorism ain't justified by actual or perceived western injustices. You seem to hold the opposite attitude. Do you?Again I completely disagree with your. Your attitude is a prime example of the problem here. Complete denial of culpability in the face of decades worth of evidence to the contrary. Us against them, they are wrong, we are right.
I believe that Islamic terrorism is caused by Islam's promotion of violence which motivates Muslims to resolve their political differences with violence. You see, nation's that are not religious radicals resolve their disagreements politically and diplomatically. Nation's like China, Japan, the US, the EU, Russia, et al. It's only these Islamic nation's that are committing global terrorism to redress their political grievances.
Their grievances may be legitimate or not. But Muslims decide to respond violently to redress those grievances. The US and other western nations do not choose for them.
No, I am dismissing the absurd argument that Islamic terrorism is justified or caused by such transgressions. Muslims choose to redress their political grievances with violence.Not at all. You're dismissing western transgressions for apparently no reason at all other than you view Islam negatively.
Why do you disagree?
Why do you insist that the promotion of violence within Islam is promoted by fundamentalists and extremists? You have no evidence for this. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly against this concept. We see islamic violence not only in Islamic-controlled nations but in nations where Muslims are not in control. We see Muslims in Britain attmepting to have sharia law run parallel to british common law with some success. We see honor killings throughout Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, and now the US.I understand this point, but you didn't make it clear in your first comment. I agree that some scholars and many politicians pin the reason for Islamic terrorism on the Palestinian problem, and some scholars and almost all politicians shy away from the history of violence as taught by many fundamentalists and extremists within Islam. And I agree that they are wrong to place such a limited view on the problem.
The west has no culpability in the choice that Muslims make to wage war to redress their political grievances.However I also think people with your mindset are also a big part of the problem as you seemingly refuse to recognize the west's culpability in the issue.
Now, I would concede that the actions and behavior of western nation's may have caused those grievances to arise in the first place, but they ain't the cause of the Islamic violence wages to redress those grievances.
Okay, prove it. How has western interventionsim left the Middle East in squalor? We see Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the little oil sheikdoms doing fabulously well with oil profits benfitting the population and possessing modern institutions of governance. Meanwhile, Iran, Iraq, under Hussein, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc., squalor, poverty, violence, etc.The middle east, one of the most resource rich regions on the planet in terms of being able to produce monetary gain for the nations located there, is rife with economic disparity, corruption, and religious strife. Our interventionism in that region has had a direct impact on how the modern middle east has been shaped and how it's politics have played out.
Without western intervention, Hussein managed to crush a cosmopolitan and modern Iraq. Without western intervention, Iran has to import gasoline.
Where? And how is it successfully overturning the promotion of violence of islam throughout the world?Modernist practice of Islam, and moderate thinking is shunning violence and encouraging tolerance.
Answer: it is not. What you are referring to is a tiny minority of enlightened Muslims in the western world, not islamic leaders throughout the Middle East, east Asia, or Africa.
It ain't even approaching the corner. Where in the middle east is this supposedly spreading?And it's spreading not only in the Middle East but throughout the nation of Islam as a whole. Like Christianity, Islam is turning the corner...it's just taken a long time to get going.
No, a manifestation of my bigotry towards Islam's promotion of violence.Your attitude is the manifestation of intolerance and bigotry towards Muslims.
Well, I'm glad that you finally conceded the point I have been long making...Islamic violence is caused by Islam.No, the wests problem is it's inability to understand or care why there is such strife within the Muslim nations. Decades of oppression, repression, poverty, and dictatorial rule have a lot to do with why Islam has taken so long to modernize. Nobody argues that Islamic terrorism isn't associated with Islam. Your statement is absurd.
BTW - yes, the problems in the ME are caused by oppression, repression, and dictatorial rule. Notice how all three of these things reflect not western interventionism but Islamic governance.