> 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.
>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.