What complete and utter baloney, Emperor Julian. Your post is a complete contradiction.

First you claim that "the west" opposed those Muslim dictators who "knew how to confront Islam in their own territories", then attack "the west" for supporting the Shah of Iran, who was fighting against Islamic religious fundamentalism in Iran. The Shah often said that he wanted to turn his country into a European one, you know, the sort of place that every Muslim is now trying to barge into.

This meant confronting the Ayatollah's, Mullah, and Imams, who wanted Iran to remain a backward Muslim country forever, because it suited them. And it suited nobody else but them. Unless you include those ignorant people who think that supporting the world's foremost terrorist religion will get them a ticket to eternal life. The real villains here are the Islamic clergy, not the Shah or the "west." Naturally, just as in the rest of the world today, the "progressive" Left backed the Mullahs and Ayatollahs, because they hated the idea of individual freedom as much as the Mullahs.

Unsurprisingly to intelligent people, (which does not include you) the Muslim clergy turned on the "progressive" Left as soon as the Shah was deposed, and they were in control. Thousands of Leftists were rounded up and shot by firing squads. Some of these executions of Lefties were carried out on Khomeini's rooftop, and he used to like going upstairs to watch them. Today, you Lefties are just as stupid, stabbing your own civilisation in the back while egging on your civilisation's (and your own mob's) mortal enemies.

Britain, the USA, and the USSR, occupied Iran during WW2 because the Shah's father wanted Iran to join Nazi Germany. Same with the regime in Iraq, which invited Luftwaffe bombers into Iraq to bomb the Suez canal. You could say that "the west" interfered in these countries for it's own interests. But do you think that non interference in backward countries like Iran and Iraq, that were run by Arab and Persian Nazi sympathetic dictators, was preferable to losing the war to Hitler?

The murderous regime of the British, CIA and Israeli-installed Shah of Persia's torture apparatus Savak, and how its hatred by the public led to the accession of the current Moslem dictatorship, is described in detail at http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/savak.html.

It's not the only time British and American colonialist adventures (with Deppity Dawg helping from Canberra) have led to the brakes coming off the march of Islam. cf. Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan.

Jesus, EJ, talking history with you, is like talking economics to Sarah Hanson-Young or Lee Rhiannon. You have a simplistic ideological position that you think explains everything, and which through it's sheer (supposed) moral virtues over rides self evident reality or even logic.

Here is Iran history 101 for the ignorant like yourself. Iran was politically divided into three factions. There was the Soviet leaning Communists, the religious fundamentalists, and the Shah, who wanted Iran to become a successful, western style country. Communists regimes throughout the world are noted for having exactly the same brutal secret police setups as the Shah. Islamic societies do exactly the same. The only question that is relevant is which regime is better for any country?

It sure was not the Communists. Communism failed everywhere it was tried. The only Communist countries left on this planet are Cuba and North Korea. If you think that these are workers paradises then you must be nuts. Islam is a bigger failure than even Communism. The more Islamic a society is, the more of a craphole it is. Scratch Islam if you are looking for economic success and personnel freedom.

The only economic system you have left for backward and socially divided countries is a western orientated, largely free enterprise "right wing" regime which at least is capable of political reform. Examples would be South Korea and The Philippines, which were once brutal dictatorships but which through "people's power" evolved into reasonably stable and prosperous democracies.

Get it through your head that of the three brutal and murderous factions who could have ruled Iran, the Shah just happened to be the best option. The only role that "the west' has in the rise of Islam, is that it provides Islamic religious nutcases of the benefits of secular democracy as opposed to an idiotic Sharia theocracy.

Lego writes of Persia: The Shah just happened to be the best option.

That's the option, as I pointed out in my post of 28 June 2017 3:11:31 PM, that led directly to today's Moslem theocracy. None of Lego's typically (for him) spluttering ad hominem spray gainsaid it, or that the Shah was imposed by foreign colonialists.

Gee EJ. You actually managed to write two (unsupported by reasoned argument) sentences this time, to supposedly justify your peculiar worldview. Do you really think that that will impress any impartial reader who is looking for the truth?

I know why you write nothing but sneery one, two and three liners. You have never been interested in history, and you simply parrot whatever nonsense your peer group leaders have invented to justify their failed ideology.

But I was heartened when you wrote that the USA and Europe were "colonising" Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I hope that you are right. Because it means that the people of those dysfunctional, Muslim crapholes will finally get responsible secular government, the rule of law, gender equality, tolerance for homosexuality, religious freedom, and a functioning economy. The people from these countries will no longer have to leave these crapholes and come to western countries to live a decent life.

But I am sure that you are wrong. Muslims may covet the prosperity and freedoms of the West, but they will never submit to infidel European rule. They are intensely nationalistic people, and they would fight us as patriots. Of course, you would have to condemn them for not submitting to white rule, because lefties like yourself consider nationalism is be utterly reprehensible. And not submitting to responsible white rule would also be racist, and racism is leftism's Cardinal Sin.

But on second thought, I may be wrong. It is only white nationalism which is utterly reprehensible, in any other people it is a virtue. And it is only white racism which is completely, utterly, and totally wrong, in any other people it can be simply overlooked through double think

You asked at the beginning:

"Why do Manchester, Paris and London get targeted by Islamist terrorists and not, say, Zurich, Oslo or Warsaw? "

Same question was asked by the Jüdische Rundschau, a German language monthly magazine, Jewish Magazine:

Why is there no terror in Poland, Hungary or Japan?

If you read German:

http://juedischerundschau.de/warum-gibt-es-keinen-terror-in-polen-ungarn-oder-japan-135910809/

Otherwise translated by Google:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjuedischerundschau.de%2Fwarum-gibt-es-keinen-terror-in-polen-ungarn-oder-japan-135910809%2F

I can only hope that many Australians and New Zealanders read that article to confirm that they are on the right way with closed borders.

A German politician has said clearly what would happen, one year ago, and now we see here, he was right: Germany will be a different country.

Now, in 2017, Germany is a different country. His speech is only short and has English subtitles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yWtR7QxkmI