Well okay, since you did bite.
Some people are Islamophobes. Really, deep-down afraid of Muslims, and all that any Muslims do. Especially the killing non-Muslim bit.
Some people feel that there is nothing wrong with Muslims per se
, just that Muslims should do something about the violent psychopaths in their societies.
And some people feel that Islam doesn't have a monopoly on psychopathic/sociopathic violence; and in fact seems to trail most "Developed" nations in terms of capacity to kill. That Muslims using a purposefully-twisted "interpretation" of their ideology to justify their violent behaviour, is no different to any other group of humans that use purposefully-twisted ideologies to justify violence. (Goddammit!!)
OK? That's me describing a "Spectrum of Opinion". With two less-common perspectives as "outliers", and one that is probably close to an "average" perspective on Islamic violence.
Now what you feel should/could/must be done in order to "deal with the situation", will be determined by where your feelings are on that spectrum.
If your feelings are closest to the first perspective, then you may feel that a nuclear bombardment of the entire Middle East ("bomb 'em back to the Stone Age" &c.) is the way forward (or some similar Final Solution...).
If your feelings are closer to the third perspective, then you may feel that your own government should get its House in order, rather than violently attack other nations on the basis of their shortcomings.
And if the second perspective is closer to your own views, then your ideas and beliefs about how to respond to the on-going situation are likely to be equally moderate.
So what you've described as your perspective, is probably somewhere between the first and second perspectives, I guess closer to the moderate second than the extreme first.
Right. Put a pin in that for a second.
With regards our Planet's Environment:
Some people, like Ms. Thunberg, feel like the "House is on fire"; and that adults are just standing around saying, "Don't panic...". They favour all sorts of radical measures to avoid catastrophe.
Some people, like President Trump, feel like the World is full of pessimists and doom-mongerers, who should stop whining and get on with enjoying the World's bounty. They feel that "Business As Usual" (maybe with a bit of a tidy up...) will take care of things.
And there are some who feel that whilst there evidently are problems in Humanity's relationship with its Natural Environment, any "cure" must be proportionate and rational.
Another spectrum, see? And I guess you're probably somewhere between Trump and the median one; closer to the median than to Trump.
Now imagine if every time you put forward your reasonable, rational and researched opinions on the Middle East and Islamic Culture, you were treated like you wanted an Islamic Holocaust. Or perhaps more familiarly: imagine if every time you put forward your reasonable opinions on Muslims, you were dismissed as a racist.
Wouldn't be very intellectually honest of the person you are sharing your views with. It would seem like they were trying to over-simply and mischaracterise what you were saying, as a way of avoiding having to address the rational and salient points you are making.
And it certainly wouldn't feel very fair, would it? You'd probably find it quite annoying to have your sensible opinions responded to as though they were extremist nonsense.
A 17-year old Swedish girl - particularly one who's been bunking off school for the last year - is more likely to be motivated by her Emotions to express her Self (emotionally), than by a comprehensive and complete understanding of all the Science involved.
And the 98% of the World's Scientific Community who have been researching, reviewing and making evidence-based recommendations for the last few decades, are unlikely to express themselves in a way that makes for compelling News reporting.
But you are using the behaviour of radicals to dismiss the opinions on non-radicals.
Greta is as much of a Media Side-Show as President Trump.
Who gives a fuck what either thinks? Neither is going to ever see their demands fully accepted and achieved.
Trump is there so that Climate Activists can tar all those who don't quite see the Full Emergency, as Anthropocidal Maniacs in Denial.
And Greta is there so that those who aren't convinced that there even is an Emergency, can dismiss those suggesting Change as radical extremists.
Do you see?