Are you saying Islam is just going to go by the wayside.lol

Islam isn't the problem; religious fundamentalism is. Your solution is exactly what I was advocating on September 11th, 2001, but it's a bit late for that now.

Contain what? The Wahhabist group that's publicized and wreaking havoc on the citizens of the Middle East? That can't work because their philosophy (Wahhabism) drives on with countries recognized as legitimate that carry it as their mantle, being Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. With individual groups who use it to further their causes, like Daesh or al-Qaeda, they try to spread it beyond Central Arabia, where it's culturally ingrained. Or did you mean containing the entire religion of Islam? That, well, it's kind of the second largest religion in the world and consists of nearly a quarter of the world's population and is present pretty much everywhere in the world.

@DamDan

I would be highly suspicious of the analogy, since the two religions have failed to parallel each other in the timings of several important aspects of their historical development. Islam was, for example, politically dominant in its sphere of influence within a century of its founding; Christianity took closer to three centuries. The most significant schism within the ranks of Islam occurred within its first century or two; Christianity's first major schism occurred 1000 years in and was followed by a second major split half a millennium later.

It's also not clear what current state of Christianity is that you (or your friend) think Islam might attain if it were to be contained and left alone -- Christianity certainly hasn't, for example, died out.

Stop supporting rebel movements against MENA governments. Close the Turkish border with Syria. Daesh would die instantly.

To add onto what OS said, there's also a difference on the amount of time before each religion incorporated humanism. Both got it from ancient Greek writings, and the infusion of it into the major thought within the followers of each marked what is historically considered a high point for each. However, this occurred less than 500 in the Muslim world, sparking the Golden Age of Islam, at which time Christians were pretty ignorant of Greek teachings, brought it back to Europe during the Crusades, and then left it be for a few hundred years until it actually worked its way into Christian thought as well, kicking up the Renaissance, over 1000 years after Christianity first came onto the scene.

Not to mention, humanism contributed to the second major schism in Christianity, whereas the same effect couldn't be quite as said in Islam.

How about treating Muslims and Middle East ancestry people with respect and economic equality. No more imperialism in their countries, and no more treating their immigrant communities in our countries like enemies of the state. Economic solidarity on a massive scale with the ghettoized Muslims of France, Belgium, etc. would have prevented the Paris attacks almost certainly. No more drone strikes.

Fact is, none of that is ever going to be implemented by any government, because governments don't know how to do anything but bomb and no-knock raid and shit like that. Everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer. International cooperation, and economic equalizing with Muslim communities? Unthinkable for them. The best we can hope for is that they co-opt those ideas and do a really shitty job of trying to implement a half-assed version of them.

"Islam isn't the problem; religious fundamentalism is."

No, imperialism and racism is.

Come to think of it, there was an early schism that caused infighting in Christiamity as well, but one of the was of that became unpopular and nearly died off. This was the schism between Arians and Trinitarians. The Arians being the precursor to the modern Unitarians.

Imperialism, racism, and religious fundamentalism are all problems, and they tend to support one another.
The army at racism support hold the unit in religious fundamentalism.
The army at religious fundamentalism support move to genocide from imperialism.
Like that.

Oh joy, Thucy and his perfect world idealism are back.

Unfortunately, I doubt that there is a foreseeable solution to conflicts in the middle east. If the UN pulls out military forces, then that would lead to the spread of their territory and influence. However, if the UN decides to take the traditional approach and destroy ISIS outright, as they did with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Another extremist group could move in take over what Daesh started.

<my2cents>
The crusades were not primarily aggressive nation-building warfare in the same sense that imperialists are accused of today. I find it fairly anachronistic to read today's anti-imperialism into events of the medieval past. The crusades were defensive warfare designed to repel the aggressive jihads that targeted Christian inhabitants of contested lands. I'm sure there were imperialistic motivations mixed in there, as history tends to be much more complicated than message boards say.

This much would be obvious if the history books were a bit more comprehensive, but it seems the reigning criticism of religious wars doesn't extend to the atrocities committed in the name of other gods.

Frankly, it disappoints me when otherwise intelligent people are so misinformed about the extent or nature of the religious motivations others might have. There are other motivations in mankind behind war, greed, and strive. If we can work so hard to understand why people want to self-identify as apache attack helicopters or somesuch nonsense, why is it so hard to imagine the nuances of religion? Is the idea of parallel impulses (imperialistic (baaaaaad) and defensive (good)) warfare somehow impossible when the word "religious" is applied to it?

I suggest a different notion: try to understand a religious war in the terms it uses to describe itself. My guess is that wahibis will still turn out to be monsters, and the crusades may end up being better attested than our biased history books make them out to be. </my2cents>

"How about treating Muslims and Middle East ancestry people with respect and economic equality."

Some of the richest countries in the world are in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia for example.

What did you have in mind when you say we should treat the Middle East with "economic equality"?

"The crusades were defensive warfare designed to repel the aggressive jihads that targeted Christian inhabitants of contested lands."

The Crusades were not just against the Middle East, those are just the best known Crusades. There were also Crusades against the Cathars in the South of France and the pagans of Northern and Eastern Europe.

There's also been an interesting trend. We complain about imperialism, but a lot of the world notices but doesn't call by name the idea that Saudi Arabia and Iran are competitive imperialist states vying for increased regional power. For example, in Yemen both are causing a huge mess. Saudi Arabia is founded on an inherently anti-Western philosophy which also leads them to prop up Wahhabist groups, yet they have significant deals with the West. The Republic of Iran was born of anti-Western sentiments, but the political trends show they're easing into a different direction. But at the same time you have Khamenei preaching about the high point of economic independence and self sustainability, yet supports gaining indirect political strength in Lebanon and Yemen.
When it comes to Daesh and Syria though, you see it come out complexly. Westerners dislike both possibilities. We accuse Iran of helping Syria (obviously they have an interest, they want to protect Shiites, and Assad's secularism helps that), and give light criticism of the Saudis for supporting Daesh (though pretty hypocritical about it, they're going to want Wahhabis to succeed). Unlike Iran, though, Saudi Arabia has natural philosophical allies in Qatar and the UAE. As a monarchy, the imperialistic positioning of Saudi Arabia will probably last longer than that of Iran, which has a youthful populace.
Of course, these have left those east of the Persians largely alone to deal with their own mess. Rival Wahhabis stuck up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, infiltrated the government of each in some way or another, and work to their own goal, fighting any Wahhabis that don't call themselves Taliban.

The goal of the first crusade was to capture Jerusalem, which hadn't been under Christian rule for centuries. All subsequent mideast crusades were about defending the capture of Jerusalem. Hard to argue it was defensive. And what of the pogroms on the way there? Was that defensive too?

Oh, posturings. I was thinking of a word to describe a certain idea about the actions of Iran and Saudi Arabia with their neighbors, but I couldn't quite get the word. The word positioning kept coming to mind, but it didn't feel right. The word was posturings.

Iran hasn't done anything to their neighbors. The ansarullah movement is indigenous, it has nothing to do with Iran. Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies are destroying Yemen. Iran has not intervened. Considering all the provocations made against Iran, they've acted with remarkable restraint. It was not Iran who executed a prominent Sunni cleric for the sole "crime" of speaking up. Saudi Arabia did that, and the west said nothing about it. It was not Iran who cut off diplomatic ties with practically the entire Sunni world. Saudi Arabia forced its allies to do that to Iran. They are about to do the same to Lebanon. Nigeria massacred a bunch of followers of Zakzaki and Iran did not retaliate. Israel just admitted to bombing Syria regularly and Iran has not retaliated. Iran does not intervene in Lebanon, despite its close fellowship with the Amal movement and Hizballah. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are arming militants all over the region. A pro-Turkish group (Army of Islam) just launched a chemical weapons attack on Kurds in Aleppo. Again the world is silent although supposedly chemical weapons was a causus belli just a few years ago. Once again Iran does not get involved. Iran could have intervened in Iraq to get rid of Daesh when they first started taking over western Iraq, they did not. Nor has Iran intervened to fight the Taliban when the latter have been killing Hezaras left and right.

Iran should not be lumped together with Saudi Arabia/GCC or Turkey. Iran is on a much higher moral plane than those vile regimes.

Iran is hardly a white knight. I give them far more credit than most Westerners, but I will say they are competitively imperialistic. Even if they do not openly arm Ansar-Allah, they openly endorse and support their activities. They fund and arm Hezbollah, which causes havoc in Lebanon. They also try to find all sorts of reasons to get involved in Iraq. I mean, what do you think the Quds Force exists to do?

Iran does not have close relations with Ansarullah. Ansarullah are Zaidis, not Twelvers, and have their own imamate. Their beliefs are actually very different than Twelvers, to the point where you could say they are closer to the Sunni. For example Zaidis do not celebrate Ashura, which is probably the biggest Twelver Shi'a holiday of the year. Iran could have exploited Zaidi unrest earlier, if they had any intention to, as the movement began in the early 2000s, but they did not. Iran has never considered Yemen in their sphere of influence. The Yemen began to be wracked with Al Qaeda linked violence in 2008-ish, the Ansar Allah movement began branching out to Hizballah and Iran. Even still Iran has been very cautious, actually their official condemnations of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen have been quite mild when compared to other things they condemn Saudi Arabia for, like their involvement in Syria. Their reticence has been politically prudent, because historically pro-Sunni countries like Pakistan have decided not to involve themselves in the war.

As for Hizballah, yes it is undeniable Iran supports them. I take great issue with your claim that they are "wreaking havoc" in Lebanon, they provided order in south Lebanon when the Lebanese state disintegrated in the face of the Israeli occupation, providing basic services and protecting the population from abuse. They successfully defended Lebanon from Israeli aggression again in 2006. This is why they gained nonsectarian support among Lebanese Muslims. They have never been a sectarian Shia party, despite their religious orientation. The longstanding neglect of the impoverished Shia Muslim population, along with its historic disenfranchisement with the unfair constitution, and the rise of armed Sunni Palestinian militias in Lebanon in the 1980s, led to the rise of Hizballah.

How many Lebanese do you know? There is a sort of contempt they have for Hezbollah. Iran's involvement there is imperialistic and unwelcome by the majority. It's akin to Russia's kicking up the Crimean War in the 19th century. If Iran's movements seem dialed back it's because they act as the figurehead of a religion that is the minority in most countries, so they're afraid of increased scrutiny, but they still act out of imperialistic aims.
I'm also fully aware of the religious difference between Zaidis and Iranians, which is what holds Khamenei back from sending arms to the forces of al-Houthi, but Iran are morally in favor of Ansar-Allah, and would most definitely choose them as allies in a resolution where they come out as in charge of Yemen, which Khamenei wants.
Pakistan won't get involved in Yemen on either side because while they want to have decent enough relations with Iran, they're too internally focused for their parliament to really do anything in other countries.

"Iran should not be lumped together with Saudi Arabia/GCC or Turkey. Iran is on a much higher moral plane than those vile regimes."

I think it is disgusting that western powers like Britain and the United States sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. It is one of the most backward and oppressive regimes on Earth, and allegedly the main backer of groups like ISIS. It makes no sense to sell them weapons. I suppose, nominally at least, they are supposed to be an ally, so perhaps there is some strategic purpose?

"they are supposed to be an ally, so perhaps there is some strategic purpose?"

I'm thinking of a three letter word... With two vowels...

Obviously he mean pie.

Yes, clearly. Saudi Arabia is the second largest exporter of pie to our country.

*the USA

Good old Wahhaberry pie.

with a helping of whipping cream on top

"How many Lebanese do you know? There is a sort of contempt they have for Hezbollah."

Rich Lebanese expats? Only the ones at one of the local shisha cafes. Yes I'm sure they hate Hizballah or any movement of the poor Muslim majority, which is why Christian political parties in Lebanon always want to make sure they vote. I trust them about as much as I trust Cubans in Miami talking honestly about the revolution or Ukrainians in Canada about the USSR.

" Iran's involvement there is imperialistic and unwelcome by the majority."

What involvement? To the extent Iran has actively participated in Lebanese affairs it was to broker a truce between the Amal movement and Hizballah in the 1980s. It isn't Iran who is telling people not to go to Lebanon in order to put pressure on the government, that would be Saudi Arabia. You can't call a state "imperialist" simply because they have friendly ties with a political party, especially one that was central to defeating invasions of Lebanon...

"It's akin to Russia's kicking up the Crimean War in the 19th century. "

A dubious interpretation of history. French provocations led to that war. It was the French who placed the ultimatums on the Ottoman Empire that led to the fracas.

Of all the major countries around Lebanon, Iran has had the *least* to do with any wars in Lebanon. Israel was/has been intimately involved. Syria was/has been intimately involved. Saudi Arabia was/has been intimately involved. Iran not so much.