Absolutely.. I dont think what you are saying is unfair at all. Passiveness certainly contains its own problems. The dutch are experiencing what you are talking about. They have a negative population growth, and an aging population, so they need to import a workforce to help maintain their industry and aging population. This is why we are hearing about conflict with Islamic immigrants hoping to retain their identity in a country that very much wants to retain their own. So even in a very liberal country there is nationalism, patriotism and growing conflict because of culture clash. It is hard for me to not feel more comfortable with the liberalness of the dutch, and hold disgust for Islamic traditions that involve suppression of women, but it is not my right to restrict a personal choice. Whether or not religion is a personal choice is really another discussion though.

I dont consider either culture better than another, and each have the right to exist. I guess I feel it is the responsibility of the migrant to adapt to the area they are moving into, while all should attempting to preserve areas respective traditions. I should note I am a progressive person, and like to see nations adopt values that accept outsiders instead of fearing them. I realize this is a conflict of interest, but also that it is a very human and almost abstract concept, since morality is subjective and traditions change (some nations change much more quickly; such as where I grew up in the USA). I do not have the same beliefs as my parents for instance. There is no way to make everyone happy during culture clash. Maybe I am naive in desiring/striving for an environment where we can all respect each other and get along. But its paradoxes like this that can potentially be answered by a population we consider "underdeveloped" today. Actually I would go so far as to say, many of us already have this philosophy, but it may take a lesson on implementation we are currently missing.

And to answer your question,( I will do my best) which becomes a political/statistical probability question with no right answer, since groups are not black and white and each group has conflict within itself about right and wrong...

The extremist from country X does not have the right to blow up anything in country x or y because he simply does not agree with it. This man is a criminal. 1 mans misinterpretation of a culture which leads to criminal activity (no-matter how heinous) is not a reflection of that culture. - If an entire country sponsors the attack of its own people/genocide, it is the worlds responsibility (not 1 imperialist countries responsibility) to stop them through diplomacy; or if force is the only option, the only option should be a unified assault by all nations that dont seek a similar genocide. This can exclude nations that value non-violence, as they are not a threat to anyone and are of little threat to being retaliated against. International conflict generally comes with corruption, imperialism and creation of militas, but there is less chance for creating enemies of a state, if all nations are equally vested/responsible for said attacks. I believe your right to swing your arm, ends an your neighbors face. You do not have the right to invade any foreign land. I dont like calling any values good, bad, better/worse; each exist for different reasons. But I believe peace can help sustain all people, without ideologically changing traditions for in vast majority of cultures. This is so difficult to even speak to in generalizations, since each clash is pretty unique. Comparing integration of first world societies is tough enough, let alone discussing adapting nuclear age societies with nomadic ones. If we are going to take an example where a "culture" is expansionist or wants to destroy another because of its tradition, ( I cannot think of an example that does not involve religion, which is not specific to any 1 culture, and each religion hold different values within its own sects) its demolition still is avoidable. The world can stop said invasion without destroying a nation. And if that nation wants to be a part of the global community they will have to be willing to part with violence. Can you think of anyone who isnt a war criminal who believes they should fight to the death for their right to kill?

thanks for the discussion, I appreciate it!