Alternatives to terrorism

[JR-]

Military resistance - probably oldest way of settling disputes between nations. Middle Eastern nations can't possible match military might of the West. Just by looking at military spending one can deduce that US alone can eat up entire middle east in a blink of an eye in a case of total war.

Concept of democracy in a perverse way reinforces terrorism. People elect their representatives to govern in their name, but bottom line, people are the bosses. By hitting them you are in a way showing them that are bad consequences of their choice and spreading fear so that they would not elect the same government again. On the other hand, are citizens or politicians of democratic nations totally innocent of this? Surely everyone of us have heard at least once by some people that German people after WW2 should have been punished more for "mistake" of electing Hitler. That's the excuse that's used often in defending some Allied or Soviet actions which prime purpose was spreading of terror, like Dresden bombing or fire bombing of Tokyo. I'm fairly certain that some Western politicians in 1999 defended NATO bombing of non-military targets with similar words, i.e. Serbian people must accept that there are consequences of their bad choice of government. Isn't that also some form of terrorism?

I'm asking this because I refuse to believe that some people are inherently evil and are willing to give their lives and spend insane amounts of money to spread death, fear and misery or that some religions (in this case Islam) is more prone to fundamentalists and radicals in comparison to other religions. There must be another reason in my mind and this is an attempt to find it.

What is it about Western Nations that the Middle East would like to resist so much that they would contemplate the use of military force?
Support for Israel - yes western support is one reason why the nation of israel still exists
Invasion of Afghan - did neighbouring countries deal with al-quada, no they did not
Invasion of Iraq - are 'they' really annoyed that we removed a belligerant dictator
Dependance on oil - so they have something to sell that we need to buy
Cultural interference - no culture exists in isolation, outlook poor for those that try to impose stasis
Political interference - we have propped up bad regimes, and brought them down, but they were their bad regimes
I don't have much sympathy in short.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the principle that civilians in democratic countries are a lot more legitimate as targets of outside resistance than civilians of tyrannical dictatorships, after all we elected the politicians that decided to go to war. To take that principle to its logical extreme would be to accept that 9/11 was in the eyes of the perps a legitimate act, and that the West on invading Iraq had no choice to but wage war with every possible attempt to avoid civilian casualties.
For all Rummie's faults 2003 was a far better outcome for Iraqi's than a Desert Storm style invasion.
This however is abstract freewheeling philosophy, and i do not condone blowing up skyscrapers full of civilians.

Do you refuse to believe: "that some religions (in this case Islam) is more prone to fundamentalists and radicals in comparison to other religions."?