If you want to defend your country against extremists, defend your country against extremists. Not Muslims. Not every muslim is an extremist, and not all extremists are muslim.

The way some Islamophobic people start to target muslims as extremists is actually quite detremential to the cause. Maybe in the plane where the angry arabic speaking guy was kicked out there WAS an extremists, clad like a proper western capitalist (just as the arabic speaking guy was apparently), NOT looking arabian (because lets face it, there are MORE caucasian and asian people among the muslim extremists than most people think... the best fighters of the IS are actually from chechnia, now part of russia), NOT speaking any arabic language (because these guys certainly speak english better than many people born in the US).

Maybe because of the fuss created by the probably islamophobic woman and the probably angry arabic speaking guy, the extremist that MIGHT have been sitting in the same plane most probably was even LESS likely to be detected... after all, the plane just got cleaned of extremists, no?

Well, I am not versed enough in the Koran to really quote what is in there... are you? Maybe you are... I believe the moderate islamic scholars that say that most of the stuff the extremists abuse is actually either not there, taken out of context or just misinterpreted.

I would bet you can do the same with the bible, not matter if old or new testament (lets not get into saying bible > tora.... that would be just as wrong).

If you go looking for parts of these "holy books" that are calling out for acts of violence or injustice, you will find it.

When did it ever matter whats in a "holy book"? If it helps your cause, you quote it. If it might help, you misinterpret it. If it doesn't help, you just ignore it. Has happened in all of christian history. Still happens today. Why should muslims be any better? Or worse, for that matter?

And just to add to that, because all holy books are just as bad as the others when it comes to being vague about things, being written by many authors and through countless revisions, AND because most people abusing the holy book for their own means actually don't care what written in there, as long as waving said book and stating that the crap they are preaching are handed down to them from god through that same book, it really doesn't matter which religion we are talking about.

What matters are actions... you really want to judge millions and billions of people by the actions of some thousands?

I will reiterate... this is not about one religion waging war on other religions. Its about people abusing their power and manipulating the weak minded into doing their bidding.

Food for thought: there are countless books hidden by the catholic church that some believe are actually a variation of the bible. Some claim it IS actually the bible, with what we have today being a chimera warped beyond recognition by the catholic church (at least it is clear that said church had a window of about 1000 years to do whatever they wanted with that book as nobody besides the church was that versed in latin).

The fact that the catholic church STILL TODAY is extremly secretive about all those books is not helping the cause at all.

How would the christian bible look if you would dig out such old manuscripts? What if what we call the "holy bible" today is just the propaganda of a roman emperor, or the product of the bad dreams of multiple generations of popes and cardinals?

We will most probably never know. But it just teaches us to take religions and "holy books" as what they are... the products of humans trying to interpret the will of the gods, NOT the word of god.

The problem of course is that still today, many people believe the "word of god" crap... which is their right to believe, of course. But its also the one big weakness extremist leader use and abuse.

Uh, the thing is, ISIS has vastly more support from Muslims (Even moderate ones) than Christianity does. Same with the Taliban/Boko Haram/PLO etc, so it's warranted to be wary of the religion as a whole.

The only constant in Islamic terror is Islam.

The argument that being wary of Muslims will push them towards extremism is pathetic, as it implies they're only 1 step away from being radicalized, and thus a huge risk.

Uh, the thing is, ISIS has vastly more support from Muslims (Even moderate ones) than Christianity does. Same with the Taliban/Boko Haram/PLO etc, so it's warranted to be wary of the religion as a whole.

The only constant in Islamic terror is Islam.

The argument that being wary of Muslims will push them towards extremism is pathetic, as it implies they're only 1 step away from being radicalized, and thus a huge risk.

The only constant in all the places where islamic terror originates is that they are either third world country where people kill to get access to a better life, or countries that got drawn into a civili war where people kill too.

The only thing THAT has to do with the islam is that a lot of islamic (and african) countries somehow never really became modern societys like the west, and some asian countries did.

Which MIGHT have something to do with the fact that a) many of these countries where colonies or occupied territory by the west, sometimes until middle of the last century, b) different historical development, no segregation of church and state for example (which was ONLY mandated and needed in the west BECAUSE things got way worse than it ever was in the islamic world of the middle ages).

If people get access to proper education, and access to at least moderate wealth and a stable future, you can bet extremists have no chance at all (or at least not more than they have here in the west). THAT is the solution.

Is that easy to achieve when the US, Russia, Europe and Asia all have their own, often diverging interests in the regions, and are not ready to sit on the same table just this once? No, of course not.

But instead trying to go for the seemingly easy solution that doesn't solve anything doesn't help too.

Uh, the thing is, ISIS has vastly more support from Muslims (Even moderate ones) than Christianity does. Same with the Taliban/Boko Haram/PLO etc, so it's warranted to be wary of the religion as a whole.

The only constant in Islamic terror is Islam.

The argument that being wary of Muslims will push them towards extremism is pathetic, as it implies they're only 1 step away from being radicalized, and thus a huge risk.

Agreed on the ISIS, Taliban, Boko Harem part. Yes indeed these are all terrorist organisations that want to kill anybody who is not Muslim.

The PLO on the other hand is a completly different ball game and is not an Islamic terror group. They are a secular organisation. They are an organisation that wants the liberation of Palestine. They just happen to mainly consist of Muslims (not all of them are). They are also no longer a recognised terror group and have UN observer status.

The only constant in all the places where islamic terror originates is that they are either third world country where people kill to get access to a better life, or countries that got drawn into a civili war where people kill too.

That's not a constant because there's plenty of countries that have those issues, yet no Islamic terrorism (See: African countries with low Muslim populations).

There are also first-world countries that have been attacked by Islamic terrorists.

The only countries that have reasonably high support for these countries (as in, morally agree with their actions in the double digits) have a large Muslim population. Christian terrorists are way less violent than Islamic ones (While there's more "terrorist" atacks in the USA from non-Muslims, Muslims dominate the list of terrorist attacks that involve killing/death/injury), and thus way less of a risk.

If we had Christian terrorists performing attacks/killing people and they had double digit support from Christians, you can bet we'd be talking about spying on Churches/banning Christian immigration.

Which MIGHT have something to do with the fact that a) many of these countries where colonies or occupied territory by the west, sometimes until middle of the last century,

The countries in question do better as colonies than seperate entities. I suggest you check out a great Vice documentary called "empire of dust" on youtube.

b) different historical development, no segregation of church and state for example (which was ONLY mandated and needed in the west BECAUSE things got way worse than it ever was in the islamic world of the middle ages).

Not really. All religions were basically the same in terms of brutality at that point, and Christianity improved. With it, the political climate/quality of life improved. Islam did as well, but not to the same degree. Lately, Islam has been regressing because of conservative scholars/religious councils, which is one of the core issues.

If people get access to proper education, and access to at least moderate wealth and a stable future, you can bet extremists have no chance at all (or at least not more than they have here in the west). THAT is the solution.

The issue is that even in the west, Muslims are way more likely to commit violence terror than other religions. Even if what you said's true (it's speculative), that's still an unacceptably high margin of terrorism.

I believe the only solution is to reform Islam itself, which I think can only be done through deconstructing radical Islam first (killing terrorists and those prone to radicalization), then replacing religious councils/scholars with those who interpret the Koran less literally, and offering heavilly Muslim areas vices (porn, booze, TV).

Buster2000

The PLO on the other hand is a completly different ball game and is not an Islamic terror group. They are a secular organisation. They are an organisation that wants the liberation of Palestine. They just happen to mainly consist of Muslims (not all of them are). They are also no longer a recognised terror group and have UN observer status.

The thing about the PLO is, there was a solid decade of terrorist attacks on Israel from them, and whiel they agreed to stop in the 90's, many of the same people who were complicit in the attacks are still in the party, so I don't consider them anything more than a terror organization waiting for a chance to attack.

ExErvus

I think the take away from all of this is that ALL religion has had a smeared history.

say what. It should just be the whole worlds history is smeared.

What we have here is a race of beings that are that immature, that they would rather harm each other then respect each others difference's and work together.

Wonder what would of came if each culture had there own planet. Star Wars....he..........

The discussion is not about the world. It is about religion and Islam.

@Gian-Reto

I already explained where I get the quote of "Islam is not a religion of peace". You then began to talk about how evil Christianity was in the past which I already briefly covered and even said as you did, that Christianity can be considered the same. You either didn't read what I wrote in its entirety or your short term memory is terrible. You didn't add anything with the bulk of your argument. All you did was find an avenue to argue a different point INSTEAD OF REBUTTING the original point of the Islamic religion is inherently wicked. I will restate to you, assuming you read this far, that out of all the relgions of antiquity that still exist today, including both Christianity AND Islam, the archaic nature has subsided in a more modern, peaceful world EXCEPT Islam.

By the way, I am not Christian, I promise this is not a personal crusade to defend Christianity.

No extremist in the world really is interested in religion. They just need SOMETHING to justify their unjustifiable acts. We are talking about hooligans, people that "just want to see the world burn", to quote alfred.

Religion to them is like a badge of honour to a soldier. It looks good on their uniform, but its not the reason why they do what they do.

I will ask you again, what are your parameters that define an extremist? Apparently all it is to you are the trendy suicide bombings. The everyday culture of Muslims outside of the US still treat women as if they are in the stone age, many still consider suicide bombings to be often/sometimes justified(this is among the general Muslim population). I already posted a link to these polling's. Your point that religion is just used as a badge for a soldier is incorrect. These ideals are pulled directly from the texts of the Quran. It IS BECAUSE OF RELIGION. The only reason they can't get away with it in America is because the common citizen would never allow that to happen. The American culture, with all its flaws, has a great abundance of staunchness and a solid set of values.

And do you honestly believe they hold some sort of anarchist point of view of wanting to watch the world burn? That they fight just because? That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read.

The only constant in all the places where islamic terror originates is that they are either third world country where people kill to get access to a better life, or countries that got drawn into a civili war where people kill too.

Civil war over religion... Third world country still, because of civil war, because of religion... Noticing a strange cycle here.

If people get access to proper education, and access to at least moderate wealth and a stable future, you can bet extremists have no chance at all (or at least not more than they have here in the west). THAT is the solution.

You literally are contradicting yourself from your previous post. You said all war is about is money and power. How is more money going to stop extremism if money leads to the want for more war? If I were given more money, what would I do with it? If I had the mentality of a lunatic, someone who is already prone to extreme behavior, maybe I could further embed myself into a target country? Money and education does not stop it. Stateism, Nationalism and a strong pride for country is the only way to stop the spread of extreme behavior(which does not only mean suicide bombers...). Love for your fellow man because you share a common territory and set of values rather than a god has always proved more fruitful.

The only constant in all the places where islamic terror originates is that they are either third world country where people kill to get access to a better life, or countries that got drawn into a civili war where people kill too.

That's not a constant because there's plenty of countries that have those issues, yet no Islamic terrorism (See: African countries with low Muslim populations).

There are also first-world countries that have been attacked by Islamic terrorists.

The only countries that have reasonably high support for these countries (as in, morally agree with their actions in the double digits) have a large Muslim population. Christian terrorists are way less violent than Islamic ones (While there's more "terrorist" atacks in the USA from non-Muslims, Muslims dominate the list of terrorist attacks that involve killing/death/injury), and thus way less of a risk.

If we had Christian terrorists performing attacks/killing people and they had double digit support from Christians, you can bet we'd be talking about spying on Churches/banning Christian immigration.

Which MIGHT have something to do with the fact that a) many of these countries where colonies or occupied territory by the west, sometimes until middle of the last century,

The countries in question do better as colonies than seperate entities. I suggest you check out a great Vice documentary called "empire of dust" on youtube.

b) different historical development, no segregation of church and state for example (which was ONLY mandated and needed in the west BECAUSE things got way worse than it ever was in the islamic world of the middle ages).

Not really. All religions were basically the same in terms of brutality at that point, and Christianity improved. With it, the political climate/quality of life improved. Islam did as well, but not to the same degree. Lately, Islam has been regressing because of conservative scholars/religious councils, which is one of the core issues.

If people get access to proper education, and access to at least moderate wealth and a stable future, you can bet extremists have no chance at all (or at least not more than they have here in the west). THAT is the solution.

The issue is that even in the west, Muslims are way more likely to commit violence terror than other religions. Even if what you said's true (it's speculative), that's still an unacceptably high margin of terrorism.

I believe the only solution is to reform Islam itself, which I think can only be done through deconstructing radical Islam first (killing terrorists and those prone to radicalization), then replacing religious councils/scholars with those who interpret the Koran less literally, and offering heavilly Muslim areas vices (porn, booze, TV).

Quote options are again failing me, so forgive me for quoting the whole thing instead of parts:

1) Other countries are not breeding places for terrorists: Agreed, in parts.

There is plenty of terrorism in other non muslimic countries... see spain, see ireland some years ago, see parts of russia, just to name a few that are NOT fitting the bill of a third world country.

It just happens that these terrorism is normally not exported to other countries (hence we as foreigners don't care).

You could say the definining characteristic of religious terrorism is the urge to globalize their terrorism. I would say that has a lot to do with the involvment of the west in the arabic and african regions during most of the 20th century, thus the west having become the common enemy multinational organizations with pretty diverse goals (besides ammassing money and power) need.

I am not saying "its our own fault"... I am just saying that this, again, has nothing to do with religion, and all with history. This is NOT a war of religions. Its a war of systems at best... or just a scape goat to make the fools following the terrorist leader believe that there is a big enemy to fight.

It is quite remarkable how quickly terrorism disappears from western countries everytime the extremists actually find an enemy to fight in their own hemisphere (like Assad in Syria)... only to resurface once the terrorists run out of money, or get fought by the western alliances (which I fully support... this is a conflict that needs to be solved with international intervention).

Tells me the terrorists just want to blow up SOMETHING, and hit on the west if they lack better targets, or want extra money because attacking the west always gives them cookie points with rich arabic extremists. They are not steppind on the toes of anyones distant family, and they get extra air time because the western culture has such a high interest in dramatic news.

2) Those countries would be better as colonys: Yes, please go to those countries and tell that to people. Don't wait for a reaction though, run as fast as you can.

I DO think some countrys have rested on their self pity over being enslaved for so long too much... some populations seem to have never learned to actually stand up to oppressors and kick them out of their palaces. Which again, is hardly surprising. The history of a society defines pretty much how this society will react when put under pressure.

The europeans have been warmongers for all their history. Somebody invading your backyard? Lets grab those pitchforks and torches, we will teach them. Some emperor wants to bring you civilization and wealth... lets send him back his envoys head on a stick, we give a damn about civilization!

This was completly different in other parts of the world. The chinese have had a more or less stable empire for thousands of years. Sure, the dynasty changed.... sometimes foreigners took over. But all of them guaranteed a certain degree of stability, while maintaining a totally crippling military might. AFAIK, the chinese learned to arrange themselves with pretty much anything and anyone as long as their country thrived.

I guess this is why they see many things way differently than people from the west.

What has this to do with africa and arabian countries? Well, these countries also have a different history and culture than europe. People there think and react differently to how people in the west do.

If anything, then the unrest in the arabian world that led to this new wave of terrorism is the first sign that arabian societys finally start to stand against oppresors and dictators. Didn't had the effect many hoped until today... the fact they DO stand up against their own dictators instead of just blindly bombing the west is remarkable still. There is hope that in 20 years, nobody will be able to make a... statement you did up there, and all others can say is "yeeees, but..."

2) Christianity improved: No. Christianity never improved. Christianity was forced to resign from its power. Western society learned that you cannot leave the power in the hands of religious nutjobs. So church and state where segregated. This was something the church fought against for quite some time. Without the church loosing power organically (thanks to protestant movements, and people generally loosing interest in religion, and gaining interest in science and philosophy during the beginnings of the modern times... lets not forget the end of feudalism), rome would most probably still rule europe through its feudal vasalls.

To be honest, when christianity was at its worst, the islam was at its best... during the middle ages, the islamic world was going through a similar golden age we have had in the west in the last few centurys. Science thrived, religion was controlled by the secular powers, and other faiths were accepted next to the islamic religion. It was kind of the same as today, just with switched sides.

4) Muslims commit more violence than people of other faiths: Do we have access to scientific, unbiased material that shows your bold statement is actually true?

While it might FEEL to be true if you read the newspaper and watch all the violence-porn on CNN, that doesn't mean its actually a reality. Even a half truth is still half a lie. So until sombody can present scientific research in this area, I will not comment on that.

Reformation of a religion can ALWAYS come from the inside, bottom up. If muslims are fed up being played by their extremists, and no longer want to live udner rigid rules of some religious nutjobs, they will overthrow their religious rule, either by replacing them, dictating new rules, or by leaving their faith behind.

This is what happened with christianity. It wasn't the protestants raiding catholic churches and killing catholics that helped release europe from the iron fist of christian rule.

It was a shift in the interests and outlooks of society, new leadership, new forms of secular powers, and last but not least constant hemorraghing of believers that led to the catholic church just being a church.

Killing terrorists is like cutting of the heads of a hydra. You really want to see how many heads that thing can grow? I would rather try to attack the root causes.

ExErvus

I think the take away from all of this is that ALL religion has had a smeared history.

say what. It should just be the whole worlds history is smeared.

What we have here is a race of beings that are that immature, that they would rather harm each other then respect each others difference's and work together.

Wonder what would of came if each culture had there own planet. Star Wars....he..........

The discussion is not about the world. It is about religion and Islam.

@Gian-Reto

I already explained where I get the quote of "Islam is not a religion of peace". You then began to talk about how evil Christianity was in the past which I already briefly covered and even said as you did, that Christianity can be considered the same. You either didn't read what I wrote in its entirety or your short term memory is terrible. You didn't add anything with the bulk of your argument. All you did was find an avenue to argue a different point INSTEAD OF REBUTTING the original point of the Islamic religion is inherently wicked. I will restate to you, assuming you read this far, that out of all the relgions of antiquity that still exist today, including both Christianity AND Islam, the archaic nature has subsided in a more modern, peaceful world EXCEPT Islam.

By the way, I am not Christian, I promise this is not a personal crusade to defend Christianity.

No extremist in the world really is interested in religion. They just need SOMETHING to justify their unjustifiable acts. We are talking about hooligans, people that "just want to see the world burn", to quote alfred.

Religion to them is like a badge of honour to a soldier. It looks good on their uniform, but its not the reason why they do what they do.

I will ask you again, what are your parameters that define an extremist? Apparently all it is to you are the trendy suicide bombings. The everyday culture of Muslims outside of the US still treat women as if they are in the stone age, many still consider suicide bombings to be often/sometimes justified(this is among the general Muslim population). I already posted a link to these polling's. Your point that religion is just used as a badge for a soldier is incorrect. These ideals are pulled directly from the texts of the Quran. It IS BECAUSE OF RELIGION. The only reason they can't get away with it in America is because the common citizen would never allow that to happen. The American culture, with all its flaws, has a great abundance of staunchness and a solid set of values.

And do you honestly believe they hold some sort of anarchist point of view of wanting to watch the world burn? That they fight just because? That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read.

The only constant in all the places where islamic terror originates is that they are either third world country where people kill to get access to a better life, or countries that got drawn into a civili war where people kill too.

Civil war over religion... Third world country still, because of civil war, because of religion... Noticing a strange cycle here.

If people get access to proper education, and access to at least moderate wealth and a stable future, you can bet extremists have no chance at all (or at least not more than they have here in the west). THAT is the solution.

You literally are contradicting yourself from your previous post. You said all war is about is money and power. How is more money going to stop extremism if money leads to the want for more war? If I were given more money, what would I do with it? If I had the mentality of a lunatic, someone who is already prone to extreme behavior, maybe I could further embed myself into a target country? Money and education does not stop it. Stateism, Nationalism and a strong pride for country is the only way to stop the spread of extreme behavior(which does not only mean suicide bombers...). Love for your fellow man because you share a common territory and set of values rather than a god has always proved more fruitful.

1) Well lets just agree that a) all religions are about as bad when it comes to being open for abuse by extremists and b) sometimes failing to condemn the actions of said extremists.

If the islam of today fails in one thing, its condemnation of extremists actions. Many moderate muslims do that. Many orthodox ones do not. I am unsure if it is REALLY because they love violence... ur just because by condemning something that happened following a popular interpretation of "the word of god", the orthodox mulsim would be condemning this interpretation too....

I fail to see the peaceful world you see, I just see humans still following their archaic nature constraint somewhat by modern law and rules... which happen to have never been implantet into some societies.

There is nothing inherently superior to christian faith or western culture. We might have gotten ahead a little bit when it comes to secular rules and laws... at least when it comes to preventing manslaughter. That doesn't mean that the islamic world will never catch up... they are IMO just behind of the curve.

Maybe when they catch up on that part they can teach us something about how to run an economy where NOT just few hold 90% of the wealth. Who knows. Point is, if you start a hate campaign against the fate of a good part of human population, nobody will profit other than extremists on both sides.

2) Yes, yes I do believe that. Watch some documentaries about ISIS leavers. Most of them left because they were disillusioned about the whole organization. The way these guys describe it, ISIS is a mafia organization, basically murdering people, stealing goods just for personal gain and power. Many of the higher ups in the organization are partying hard with alcohol and sex slaves, and do not follow any muslimic law. They preach their own interpretation of the sharia, but only execute it when it doesn't affect somebody within the organization.

Now tell me, is this still about religion?

3) If you mean "ethnics"... yeah, that might have something to do with some civil wars. Religions hardly ever. Sure, the ethnic group Assads family and most of his cronies belong to have a slightly different religion than many of the opposition groups. Yet many opposition groups now fight the ISIS despite being part of the same muslim sect.

This war started over people being fed up with Assad being the violent dictator he is, AND failing to actually make reforms addressing economical problems. It escalated because some extremists used the conflict to gain territory, wealth and power. I don't see any religion involved other than for propaganda reasons.

Here in switzerland the catholics and protestants killed each other until the 19th century... regularly, one cantons army would invade their neighbouring cantons and pillage and murder to their hearts content. They would later then say "it was to teach them <insert faith here> a lesson!"... but you know what? They did the same with cantons of the same faith! They had to find a different excuse... but in the end, it was just a way to amass wealth and power in a country that was quite poor until modern times.

Just as a disclaimer: I am NOT saying religions have nothing to do with wars. What I am saying is that most of the time, religions are just an excuse or propaganda, and more secular reasons the main goal.

4) education =/= money.... yes, a developed country will give their inhabitants access to more wealth, and an improved way of life.

But really, who is more prone to grab his pitchfork and teach them protestants/catholics a lesson? The poor peasant living in the mountains, whose only hope to get access to wealth and power is to pillage its neighbours? Or the rich citizen of a big city, whose main interest is stability and peace to conduct his trading business?

wealth DOES make people less prone to violence. In this sense, yes, money does help, as long as it reaches the poor beggar in the street, not the extremist warlord.

Nationalism on the other hand has never led to peace. Europe is the best example. All the world wars started because of nationalism. In the case of the first, it was the nationalism of multiple countries that led to that slaughterhouse....

Values, national pride, and so on are fine and dandy... I would be the last to dance the "disarm the army" dance of the leftwing extremists... violence is human nature, thus having an army is just as needed as having a police and law enforcement, or an educational system.

Some problems though will not be solved by violence, unless you are not aiming for the "total war" (which today would be a nuclear war)... in the latter case, yes, you might be the last man standing, thus problem solved.

If this is not the scenario you are aiming for, you will have to, you know, work together with other people, nations and faiths, and actually start attacking root causes instead of fighting the leaves of the problem.

4) Muslims commit more violence than people of other faiths: Do we have access to scientific, unbiased material that shows your bold statement is actually true?

While it might FEEL to be true if you read the newspaper and watch all the violence-porn on CNN, that doesn't mean its actually a reality. Even a half truth is still half a lie. So until sombody can present scientific research in this area, I will not comment on that.

You really aren't reading what people write are you? I posted a link to polling(with no political affiliation) taken across the world among many different countries of the Muslim population, but I guess I just watched the fox news or CNN once and made an argument according to you. Scientific research has been provided.

You may be confusing the word Orthodox with the word peaceful. The orthodox Muslim, or the ordinary Muslim, still hold beliefs that most of the world today considers evil.

The debate has been completely derailed because you keep attempting to make points outside of the context of the original argument. We could discuss world politics to no end, but now we are discussing something completely different.

Ok so I'm not going to quote anything because of how long these quotes are getting, but my take.

Absolutely terrorists are coming from not having a decent life. If someone was living a good life, with a good job with family, kids, etc. which is not being threatened by anyone, then he/she has no reason to want to go and risk all of that for a cause that doesn't really make much sense suddenly. And absolutely many of those nations are struggling with the after effects of colonialism. It's not that these societies are inherently bad at dealing with oppressors but it just so happened that the West was stronger and they weren't. Erasing defeat from a culture takes an extremely long time. Difference members of these cultures react differently to this notion of being defeated, etc. Let's not also forget that terrorism all started with American involvement with fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Before that, the notion of radical jihad didn't really exist as we see it today. Iran is also a case of the same thing, where the West tried to install a dictator, and that fell apart. This problem was created mainly by a pure lack of foresight by policy makers, who never looked beyond the fall of the Soviet Union. It's interesting, if you look at the red scare back in the Cold War, it's almost exactly the same in some ways as the Muslim scare we have now.

To this I'm sure you will respond with the terrorists that have been born in Western countries. Some of them definitely lived without having a future in their original lives. There are exceptions, such as the San Bernardino case, where the guy was actually living a pretty good life. There will always be anomalies/outliers. Also, it's worth noting that the problem is that these people are being convinced that their country is not their own, and that they are oppressed.

Even then, the US contributes a fairly low amount to terrorists. India and Indonesia are also fairly similar in this way: there aren't many terrorists coming from these countries either but both have very large Muslim populations. That alone should be noteworthy to the point that Islam is inherently violent: if it's so violent, how is it that Indonesia, a primarily Muslim country, doesn't have a particularly large Jihadist movement as of yet (relative to its size). India has one, but again, relative to its size, it's pretty tiny (In India, it's usually Pakistan's ISI meddling with them, but that's a different topic).

Nobody wants to blow themselves up for their faith. It's the notion that there's something inherently wrong with Islam that is Islamaphobia at work. And Gian-Reto is right: the only reason that Christianity seems moderate is because most people aren't letting the whack-jobs get their way, otherwise there are plenty of whack-jobs, such as the ones who want to deny Darwin's theory, believe that homosexuality is Satan's work, believe that abortion clinics should be bombed, and are basically against any religion that is not *insert Christian denomination here*. The difference is that instead of those guys blowing themselves up, we see/hear them in the media. The Western notion of secularism is what works.