Invictus: It feels like you're missing the point. It's how we've handled it in the past as well as in the present. Think of the Mujahideen during the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, for example. We funded them in an imperialistic manner in order to further anti-Soviet styles, and then those became the Taliban, among other groups. If they weren't as heavily funded and armed by Western Imperialism, the situation gave them a means of becoming stronger and furthering fundamentalism. Then the 90s and 00s rolled around, and a number of the governments, specifically Afghanistan and Iraq, in the area that are now most plagued by fundamentalists fell apart, furthering the ease with which terrorists could move in to try and seize control. With Afghanistan, a power vacuum was created following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the Taliban, armed by imperialism as was previously mentioned, took control themselves. Then, the West forced them out (still imperialism), but they responded with insurgency. They'd have died faster without those weapons. Then there's Iraq. Another government we deposed because we didn't like it. We installed a weak government, an unpopular one at that, that was easily over-powered by terrorists, where the previous government had terrorism handled. Those make it easy for such groups to contest for, if not gain, power. They then could become popular using the skills of propaganda. Terrorists were historically masters of propaganda at the turn of the century, especially Osama bin-Laden. Invasions and bombings from the West gave fuel for these sorts of things, so fundamentalist groups (not fundamentalism itself) saw a rise in popularity because those groups claimed they would defend Muslim people from the Western Imperialists. This made the people see governments run by these people as more legitimate. Though, such sympathies have since been on the decline after Muslims saw how terrible of people terrorists are. They still claim they're acting for justice, and some people still buy into that. Understanding how they started can help in understanding how we can destroy them.

Invictus, very black and white of you. It is possible that both IS and the US are evil empires which need to be stopped.

The Us vs Them mentality is the simplest view of the world you can possibly have.

Also it strikes me that a lot of the things you've said are just parroting the media; I don't know most of what you're saying about IS is true. The evil medieval you seem to think they are perpretrating, does it compare well to US ally, Saudi Arabia: "There are no jury trials in Saudi Arabia and courts observe few formalities"

"Those arrested are often not informed of the crime of which they are accused or given access to a lawyer and are subject to abusive treatment and torture if they do not confess."

I'm pretty sure that sounds medieval to me. But you're not calling for this illeberal state to be destroyed; the Saudi royal family are happy to sell oil to the US so it is not in US national/strategic interest to have them removed...

(i can go on about Saudi human rights: "capital punishment for homosexuality, religious discrimination, the lack of religious freedom and the activities of the religious police", but i think my point is made, ignoring the fact that the Saudis may be supporting IS.)

thanks god it's done

"don't know most of what you're saying about IS is true. The evil medieval you seem to think they are perpretrating, does it compare well to US ally, Saudi Arabia..."

ISIS just put out a manual which explained that kidnapping prepubescent girls, raping them and trading them like sheep was encouraged.
...

Keep up the good fight orathaic.

I don't know thast is true, have you any evidence besides Ann Coulter-esque rants?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/meast/isis-justification-female-slaves/index.html?hpt=wo_bn8