With the recent outbursts of anti muslim threads, people posting charts about how 99 of terrorists are muslim, and islam being callerd religion of hate or whatever, i gotta ask you guys why terrorists arent attacking Australia, China, India, Japan? Is it because USA/NATO invaded, occupied or bombed 14 different muslim countries since 80s, some multiple times? The list goes something like this: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) Syria (2014-). So considering there was no muslim terrorism BEFORE those invasions, and considering terrorists are only attacking the ones that attacked them first, could it be safe to say that their religion is only a thing that brings the people of those nations together against a common enemy? It is easy to bring up i violent quote from quran, just like it is easy to bring up a violent quote from bible, or any other religious book. And I know some muslm countries are in a war between them too, but so are the christian ones, for centuries people of all religions are in war, and im not talking about war here, just terrorism, isolated cases of terrorist attacks. Could it also be said then that people from middle east are more violent than the other people? Cause you can also make a chart then, that shows 99% of terrorists are from those countries in middle east that have been REKT by invasions, turned into a complete chaos by arming rebels, governments, various groups, practically just bringing a shitload of weapons to the region? Or is it just that Islam is a religion of war?