My dad was in the Royal Navy and the Malta Convoys, was torpedoed by Italian MTBs too.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that medling and interfering in Libya and Iraq have had consequences, and we need to remember these lessons in the future. Indeed the history of imperialism also has contributed to massive problems in the middle east. However that doesn't address the situation we're now in. Irrespective of Western geo-politics, Al-Qaeda and IS aren't going to go quietly, nor can they reasonably be negotiated with, because what they want, isn't ours to give.

The West like it or not, economically needs Saudi Arabia, and it cannot 'give away' parts of Syria and Iraq to the 'caliphate' - They're not ours to give and they'd be a disaster for the future of Iraq and Kurdish Iraq (let alone whoever comes out on top in Syria).

IS and Al-Qaeda aren't like Hezbollah or the PLO (or even Hamas political wing) in that they have reasonable objectives outside of their objectives and localised political impact.

Groups like IS have to be dealt with - and its pretty clear that is militarily and through law enforcement. They're not even like the Taliban in their political structure. Their military, political and ideological goals are the same thing. Given stability, they'd soon turn their eyes to expansion.

They're not good for Muslims, the middle east or the West.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

What your argument seems to boil down to is that in certain cultures it's considered acceptable behavior to murder scores of innocent civilians as a form of protest, or revenge, for grievances, era or perceived, attributable to the actions of another nation (or even just for fun. But for the sake of debate let's assume that their home nation does have real grievances against western nations. It's really not a revelation that some cultures find this sort of behavior to be acceptable. By now almost everybody knows that. Instead, the question is -- should we sit back and take it, or try to prevent terror attacks? If the latter , should our principal means of preventing attacks be to disengage entirely fro middle eastern affairs? Does anybody really think that if, starting right now, we ceased having anything to do with the Middle East , that would prevent future attacks? Even assuming you're correct that we've brought this on ourselves because of our past interference (which I think is partly correct, but certainly a very overly simplistic view) , I highly doubt that disengaging entirely and immediately would stop future attacks. So, short of inventing a time machine, going back to at least before w w I and refraining from any interference whatsoever, what should we do now to prevent future attacks? Everything you've posted so far has gone to the motivations of the attackers. But what would you propose to do going forward to keep ourselves safe ?

The policy gymnastics of the left are very entertaining. A little while ago their standard response to a UK terrorist attack was to say it is very rare, more people die from eating peanuts etc and these minor difficulties are worth it to have a choice of foreign food restaurants.
But now we are all going to be murdered in our beds because it takes a whole 8 minutes for the half a dozen policemen that we have left after Tory cuts, to deal with three fascists.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

I don't know about that. I think their personal greivences and their sense of persecution probably feed into it more than the eternal paradise thing. Things like the war in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan feed into that as well. Especially if you have ties to family in those countries (or others).

Islamists appeal for very reasons other groups do, because they are the political opposition in very corrupt and brutal regimes.

I doubt the appeal of IS isn't much different than that which attracted young idealistic 'revolutionaries' to far right or far left terror groups in the 70s and 80s. The notion of injustice, alienation in society, anger at the impotence to change them and the 'romance' of the revolutionary hero and a 'glorious death' that gives meaning to life.

The arrogance of youth, with automatic weapons and the gospel of the truth.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

So, if it was unwise to intervene in Iraq and Libya, why are so many people so keen on getting involved in Syria to the extent of toppling Assad? Is he more of a c*nt than Saddam or Gaddafi?