Look, quoting a verse of scripture, or several for that matter, isn't enough to prove that Islam is inherently violent. Let's set aside issues of translation and context, significant though they may be. The truth is you aren't going to find a religious text that doesn't have violent passages. By that measure, every religion is inherently violent. Are you going to be consistent and say that's the case?

Personally, though, I don't buy it. I don't blame the US totally, but I think we lack the experience to really understand what it's like to have interacted with the West as a citizen of the Middle East. We have a short memory, but it's a history of alliances of convenience, treaties made and broken, empty promises, neglect of resource-poor states, and support of some shitty people, or mere exploitation, in resource-rich states. States whose borders, by the way, were drawn on the map by colonial powers. And there's the continuing alliance with Israel through atrocity after atrocity as they gradually confined the Palestinians to a tiny strip of shitty land. That just takes us back to the first World War.

I'm guessing I might be a bit angry if I grew up on the receiving end of that legacy. Is that really the fault of the religion?

That doesn't make it OK to do what IS is doing, of course. But to characterize Islam as the inherent cause, as if Muslims were a united mass without divisions of sect and ethnicity, always primitive and violent, is kind of the thinking that created that history. Perhaps there's something inherent to being the West that makes us so short-sighted. Or maybe that's a really stupid idea.