The problem is, at heart, that the Muslim world ossified in the 18th and 19th century. The West, on the other hand, did not; it advanced at the rate of knots.
The end result of this ossification was pretty much the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which had been the locus of the Muslim world for hundreds of years. When the empire finally fell after the first world war, it not only left an enormous power vacuum in the Middle East (which is still playing out today), but shocked Muslims into realising how far behind the Muslim world had fallen compared to Western advances across all fields. Losing a war tends to provoke a lot of soul searching on the part of the defeated.
And it provoked the start of the quest for a solution to reinvigorate the Muslim world, to return it to its former medieval glories, so that it could, at least, compete with the West.
For men such as Ataturk, the solution was secularism. For others, mostly Arab thinkers, the solution was pan-Arab socialism. For the Gulf states, the solution was tribal monarchies supported by strong foreign powers (so a kind of neo-imperialism). However, for some thinkers, the solution was a kind of religious-Bolshevism, or Islamic-Leninism.
One by one, the three former solutions were tried with varying success, but the problem is that a) single unifying theories of political and cultural solution tend to attract single unifying sources of power: i.e. a dictator or authoritarian force such as the Army, b) a single theory doesn't tend to solve such a complex problem as societal and cultural ossification.
So the last solution, that of Islamic-Leninism, started to become more attractive -- and this is what we now call Islamism. It is a revolutionary creed that promises utopia through a very familiar mechanism: a vanguard will awaken the masses through revolutionary acts and the masses will see the righteousness of returning to a way of living and being that was in existence during a 'time of perfection', and utopia will then follow.
Once you understand this, you basically understand the entire landscape on which Islamic terrorism is taking place. The "terrorists" see themselves as the vanguard; the terrorism is a revolutionary act; the masses are the Muslim ummah; the perfect way of living is the strict observance of Sharia law; the time of perfection is the time of the prophet; and utopia is the Caliphate.
Everything else comes kinda secondary to this primary motivator. Western interference in the ME just reinforces the belief that the Muslim world is weak and is in need of the revolutionary Islamist solution. Isolation, poverty, deprivation and corruption in Muslim communities and societies just reinforces the idea that the revolutionary Islamist solution is required ... and so on and so on.
But also, importantly, the fight is also against the other three stated solutions. Syria is the real battleground here where we can see that Assad vs Isis is actually a fight against the results of pan-Arab socialism and Islamism -- you can also say the same for Iraq and Isis.
The West, and Westerners, are a cause in so far as they constantly remind Islamists of what they believe is the inferior state of the Muslim world and Muslim communities. The West is the benchmark by which they measure themselves and find themselves wanting -- and this is why Muslims with the most exposure to the West (ie. those in western countries) tend to find Islamism extremely attractive compared to Muslims living in Muslim countries.
Could you get them round a table? No. This is a battle between ideas, not people.