It is still a very good example because they got rid of it, and are heading to better times now. In the Middle-East the direction is the opposite. Heck, even Iran used to be a relatively modern place until the ajatollahs came to power.

If you think about Cambodia (as opposed to e.g. Iraq, Libya etc.), the question was what happens after they get rid of a despotic dictator and their regime? In Cambodia, after getting rid of Pol Pot, it started slowly healing and heading to better times (and is still in that path, the biggest problem with modern Cambodia seems to be its border clashes with Thailand).

In Middle-East, the consensus seems to be that since there is no iron-hand regime keeping people in check, "of course" the void of power will be filled by crazy islamists, as if that is the only possible outcome there unless there is a dictator keeping the extremists (and everyone else for that matter) in check.

I have a hunch why that is: in e.g. Cambodia the Khmer Rouge wasn't supported by most people, it existed solely out of fear, a bit like Kim's regime in North Korea nowadays. In Afghanistan, Iraq, what have you... common people in many areas largely seem to support talebans, al-Qaida and even ISIS, and the ideas they represent. That's the real reason why the "void of power" is filled by what we see as extremists... because so many people there support that idea.

And to think that so many people who had been even born in western countries decided to move to Syria to help ISIS... to me that sounds similar as if Asians living in western countries would have moved to Cambodia in order to support Khmer Rouge regime, to help with their massacre.

I hope that is not your justification for terrorism. If it is, then the question is why e.g. buddhist or hindu dogs don't act similarly towards their (former) masters?

You could also look at it another way. Cambodia got rid of French colonisation in 1953. After that heavy conflicts started and it took more than 40 years (and a death toll of more than 2 million people) before the country was stabilised and a constitutional monarchy was established.

Judging from that example it will take several more years before things will be more stable again in states like Syria, Iraq and several others from the middle east and from northern Africa.

Am I the ONLY one here who read title as "europe is burning the terrorism thread" ?

How did you see any kind of justification in that writing? The logic of that event is simple. Some countries have been actively supporting terrorism to create chaos in other regions. German, American, English and French soldiers were seen training those groups and again those countries are still actively selling weapons to those terrorist organizations. Even from my days in the army 10 years ago, we were seeing those countries selling weapons and training and organizing terrorist organizations. I can easily say that 100% of training and weapon source of those groups are those 4 countries. I have watched those videos, read those documents and talked to those officers. Lots of people warned them those days would come, but nobody listened.

If you want terrorism to end, stop supporting it and stop supporting leaders that support it. Otherwise, this is just the beginning.

Maybe so. Since the roots of atrocities both in Pol Pot Cambodia and modern North Korea were in communism (and support from certain countries having a similar ideology, like North Vietnam, China and/or Soviet Union), maybe it was the general fallure of communism that helped getting rid of Khmer Rouge. North Korea is still in a deadlock situation, not sure how much because of support from China (even they seem to be getting fed up with Kim's instabilizing actions in Asia, so maybe their support is waning).

Maybe the problems in Middle-East will continue as long as Saudi-Arabia has oil and money to fund sunni extremists in the area, and Turkey meddling there too. And then Iran supporting the opposite side, shias. Maybe if these countries somehow lost either means or will to meddle in the area, the area would start slowly healing.

Why did you forget Saudi-Arabia (sunnis), Iran (shias) and even Turkey (with its constant feud with the Kurds, support for ISIS (until it bite back to Turkey) etc.?

I know it is sexy to blame western countries for all the problems muslim world has, but the real instabilizing culprits are those. The western countries are on the side of this.

I'd also like to point out that while Western countries have also maybe supported all kinds of dubious groups or leaders in South America or SE Asia to have more leverage in the area (Cold War era etc.)... yet we don't see some terrorist groups from those areas attacking westerners, especially in their own countries. Why is there this difference compared to Middle-East?

LOL! Now that you say it.... :o)

EDIT: Actually, the thread title was inspired to me by the song "London is buning" by The Clash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCw9_avTlYs

Because I dont personally have solid evidence about those countries that i have seen with my own eyes.

That is not a muslim world problem. I have fought on the front lines against terorism between 2003-2006. Everyone thinks we were fightings kurds right? Nope. Majority of the people we killed were from other nations. Do you think ISIS is an islamic organization? While half of them is not even muslim?

I am not a "west is bad" kind of guy. Not at all. I am just correcting the usual mistakes people do with such events. I asked simple questions in previous topic but nobody answered them.

1. What happened to oil prices when ISIS became a thing?
2. Who is buying that oil?
3. Who benefit from the drop of oil prices, who was harmed?
4. Where is ISIS buying their weapons?

These are simple questions that is not a secret. If you can bravely answer them, you will see the source of problem.

One or two days ago, I remember reading about some guy from Shell in Syria who claimed he had evidence of the ties between ISIS, the oil sector and USA. I even think there was a pdf available on /pol on 4chan. Don't know if it's a fake or not but anyway, it's more or less a common shared idea that the Western world (its leaders, not its population) has a great deal of responsability in this whole mess.

wow.... they didn't just "get rid" of Pol Pot. It was the Vietnamese Communists that invaded Cambodia and ended the genocide.

Irrelevant in the same way as whether "Libya" or "Iraq" got rid of their dictators on their own, or with the help of others. "They" still got rid of the leaders they didn't necessarily like that much.

Irrelevant to the topic yes, but not irrelevant to the things you said in your post!

Ban any religion which promotes violence?

If Bible says "if your brother entices you secretly to serve other gods, do not yield to him or listen to him, but kill him" then ban christianity an the bible OR make them cut out this passage and never be spoken again. Same for any religion.

I don't want children to be tought those things are the universal truth and the way of life.

To me it matters how much a religion seems to get on with the times. For instance, for Christianity in Finland, I recall the old debates here whether a woman really can be a priest (my understanding is that the Bible suggests no?), yet nowadays it is quite normal at least here to have female priests.

Also, the Finnish state church seems to accept gays too and many priests are already ready to marry gay couples (some priests may be still reluctant to do so), even though my understanding is that the Bible is quite intolerant about gayness. I think we even had at least one transgender priest here (and the church said it is ok), even if some people didn't like it.

So, when I start seeing more women as imams and acceptance of gays in countries which are strongly identified as islamic, that's good enough proof to me that islam too becoming a modern religion, progressing with times. No matter what the old scriptures say. This is especially important for islam's position (and acceptance) in Western countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_as_imams

1. They've been dropping (mainly due to high supply)
2. USA, China, India, Japan (the biggest oil importers, according to the statistics).
3. Mainly oil importers, although value might be dubious for some, since it also cripples domestic oil production. The losers in this are mainly OPEC nations + Russia.
4. Apparently, at least to some degree Eastern Europe and the greater Middle East: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/27/weapons-flowing-eastern-europe-middle-east-revealed-arms-trade-syria