So I tend to have a pretty careful view of Islam. I acknowledge that liberals go too far in trying to make out Islam as if it's progressive, (it's not) but also that many rightists are trying to use it as a broad nationalistic scapegoat. A more nuanced view is important - not a centrist one, but one that acknowledges people who subscribe to Islam are not a uniform mass, that many are somewhat irreligious, and that we need to ultimately view them as fellow proles. At the same time we need to realize it is a deeply reactionary set of beliefs.
The source behind this thread was spurned by a chat I had recently with a Christian Randian lolbert friend of mine (yeah I know).So we got into discussing the Middle East, & he at least agreed the situation was very complicated & that the US & the West had fueled many of these conflicts, through its influence & the earlier Sykes-Picot deal.
Things started to go south when i was talking about how Saudi Arabia directly teaches & funds extremist Muslim views. He disagreed, & said that "well that's just Islam." He went on to explain that he believes the US has done a good job of hitting military targets in the area, & that the wars were necessary. He said that the geopolitics while "complex," still necessitated US intervention. He went on to justify this by saying that if we were to fully pull out, (what I earlier suggested) then all "this" (we had a made nearby, & he made a circle around the Middle East) becomes the Islamic State.
I disagreed, but didn't have sources to back this up in person. He continued denying my point about the US fueling endless war & profiting via a war economy, saying that "while Western influences have contributed to the problem, it's far too messy now to pull out. Every time the Western world has removed itself from the Middle East - for example after WW1, in Iraq after the Gulf War, after Obama pulled us out of Iraq, etc - Islamism takes over. When left to their own devices, middle eastern states can't sustain themselves & tear themselves apart ethnically and religiously, all because of Islam. That's it's natural order. Al-Qaeda started because we left the middle east, ISIS started because we left Iraq. This will only sort itself out if Islam can have a major reformation, which it won't. These destructive struggles and mindless warring have been characteristic of the region since the time of Muhammad really."
Unfortunately I had to leave shortly thereafter, but the amount of idpol and bullshit there really stunned me. I didn't really conclude too much as I had to get going, but holy fuck. I would've brought up Zizek's point about the secular left in the Middle East just a few decades ago, or gone further in depth about America propping up and arming these terror groups. (which he rejected) I briefly mentioned Gadaffi having a pretty stable government, but he literally just laughed at that.