Is it fair to blame Muslims for terror attacks?

I think ISIS are not Muslim at all, they pretend to be and use it as a mask.. If they really were Muslims (pure Muslims as they claim to be) then they would be fasting right now, not bombing, they would most likely also be in Itikaaf... They probably have never read the Quran or understood the basic pillars and principles of Islam which require us to be empathetic towards and look after the poor and needy, not brutally murder them.

I know right,people seem to forget in the initial days of the invasion the Iraqi people welcomed the invasion and saw the coalition forces as liberators.Not to mention people forgot Saddam use of poison gas against the Kurds.

ISIS and al-Qaeda are both radical anti-western militant groups. Al-Qaeda was formed to wage insurgency against US troops in Iraq, and the security vacuum left when the US withdrew from Iraq in 2011 was exploited by ISIS - all a consequence of the actions of Bush and Blair. Or is blaming two white men too close to home for comfort?

Another point - with the Charleston shooting that was carried out by a WHITE man, I have not heard the word terrorist once.

Your first sentence is an oft-repeated platitude. The fact is that as well as containing peaceful verses, Islamic scripture is also overflowing with disgusting, violent, aggressive and hateful verses which groups like ISIS use to justify some of their most heinous acts.

Invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy every time a member of your religion does something you don't like is childish as well as futile, because it's essentially ignoring the problem at its root cause: the ideology.

Admittedly America did commit war crimes such as what is referred to as the "Highway of Death". So I'm not going to make America out to be perfect, but one shouldn't take the position of defending Saddam, because he is also guilty of having committed war crimes too. I don't think it is a defendable position to take.

Many people also are unaware of Saddam's actions against the Madan people (also known as the Marsh Arabs). The Madan people lived very traditionally in the marshes of Southern Iraq for thousands of years. Saddam didn't like them and so he drained some 7,500 square miles (according to wikipedia) of the marshes and turned it into a desert. He turned this:

Into this:

what is this tripe?

Islam is a religion of patience and peace, Muslims are humble, righteous and more rounded individuals..

Im tired of people blaming their problems on a special group of people. If its terrorists its muslim problem, if its something else its the migrants, other things it might be christians. You need to realise only sick people do this kind of stuff.

Put it this way; ISIS, along with its mindless supporters, aren't Muslims. They go against virtually everything Islam stands for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not Muslim, and I'm certainly not entirely religious, nor am I an expert of being religious,

You're right Islam should be and is in fact a religion of peace. The Qu'ran has many peaceful verses. It also has quite bloody verses too - but then again, so do many other religions. There needs to be a clear emphasis on the peaceful verses in muslim communities (like there already are), and more work needs to be done by all (muslims and non alike) to separate the likes of ISIL and, though this may sound controversial, most of Sharia law, from the perceptions people have of 'mainstream' Islam, as the more Islamophobia and division there is, the more vulnerable people will flock to extremism.

Are you joking me? You're unaware of the countless verses insulting non-Muslims, describing in detail how they're going to be tortured in the afterlife and all the verses talking about horrible Earthly punishments? I'm sorry to say you can't have read the Quran then. You might want to check out this short list:

Quran 5:33, 98:6, 3:91, 4:56, 8:39.

Only a bigot would say all Muslims are to blame for Islamic terrorist attacks, they're clearly not. But the problem with your post is that the definition of who a true Muslim is is subjective. In like manner, ISIS may accuse many Western Muslims of being apostates and will say that they themselves are the true Muslims.

if this were factually the case then the islamic world wouldnt be filled with the under-education poverty and poor records on human rights it is. and indeed there wouldnt be constant attrocities all over it committed by those quoting the 'peaceful doctrine' that islamists do

interestingly much of what you posted could indeed be referenced in part to the spread of islam - ie slavery in africa, wars of colonisation, terrorism, destruction of more advanced ancient societies, poor standards of education and womens rights etc
however much of your examples cant be tied to a specific ideology that repeats in different circumstance globally if - whereas islamic terrorism tends to occur regularly and over a widspread geographical area, crossing boundaries of ethnicity and race but with same result and under same influce of islamist dogma. it is also by far more common than any other issue you raise.

Though I completely agree with the sentiment, I must be picky about this otherwise someone who is against your argument (which I am not) might be instead. When you mention Hitler and the Nazis - these openly persecuted Christianity as their campaign carried on, so to prove your point you might want to change that.

The problem with this approach is that this is what we have at the moment. The vast majority of Muslims would not dream of putting into practice the literalist and retentionist ideology of the likes of ISIS derive from certain passages.

However, because the Quran (and sunnah, to a lesser extent) are treated as infallible and immutable by all Muslims, those passages are always available to those who choose to use them.
It's a bit like the gun control argument in the US. The vast majority of gun owners are stable, law obiding citizens, but as long as there is such easy access to guns, there will continue to be massacres.
The only way to absolutely stop such ideologically motivated attacks is to remove the justification from the ideology. And at the moment, all but the most progressive Muslims categorically reject even the idea of scriptural reformation and ideological enlightenment. So all the passages about killing disbelievers, using slaves for sex, wife beating, death for apostates, gays, adulterers, etc, etc, will have to stay. And because they are there, in the minds of most Muslims, they stilll apply today - they simply come up with a variety of reasons why they will never be implemented.
ISIS don't bother looking for those excuses.

How so? Considering he was in the process of committing genocide, I find it hard to believe the end would have been much better. Much like with Assad, there would have been a similar uprising, possibly another intifada like happened in 1991.