This is about the last time i'm going to waste any effort on you. You are so dedicated to what is essentially a bigoted point of view that now you are just arguing for argument's sake, and because you won't give up or even modify your point of view.
Ignoring the religious element in the Bosnian Serb agenda, especially the propaganda of Radovan Karadžić is either the product of brute ignorance or complete dishonesty. Furthermore, the Serbs were prepared to do the same thing in Kosovo, until NATO intervened. Saying it had little to do with religion is either stupid or disingenuous. Even if it hadn't been about religion, the question is whether or not Islam is dangerous, and motive doesn't matter in such a comparison. In a terrible series of wars, beginning with the Nine Years War in 1689 and continuing through the end of the second world war, millions and millions and millions of people have been killed. Islamic nations haven't cause a tithe of such suffering and death, nor instituted wars on anything like that scale.
The Revolutionary Guard has not intervened in Iraq. Iraqi Shi'ite militias had Persian military advisers and officers, which is not at all the same as the Revolutionary Guard intervening directly in Iraq. Once again, this is either ignorance of willful dishonesty.
ISIS invaded Al-Anbar last June. Al-Anbar is Iraq's western desert, so controlling that doesn't mean much in the larger scheme of things. But they didn't even overrun Al-Anbar. The government in Baghdad was on the ropes. Al-Maliki was on the ropes. His was a minority, Shi'ite tribal government. That sort of thing is not uncommon in the middle east, but what was uncommon was that he had managed to alienate almost all the other Shi'ite tribal leaders and politicians. That was why it was so easy for Obama to get al-Maliki pushed aside.
But ISIS didn't try to drive on Baghdad, they left a holding force and drove on Tikrit. They tipped their hand when they did that. Tikrit was Saddam's home town, his full name was Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. It showed that the leadership of ISIS was Iraqi--ex-pats who had been high in the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party, or in the Republican Guard. Did they then turn on Baghdad? No, they invaded Iraqi Kurdistan, and robbed some banks, killing all the Shi'ites they came upon. (They have stupidly squandered all the money they robbed from those banks, too, but this post will be too long as it is.)
Then, they left yet another holding force and turned back to the west to invade Syrian Kurdistan. Either they have no coherent operational plan, or they are a pack of military loons who wouldn't know a coherent operational plan if it bit them in the ass. Personally, i think both apply. All they have done is kill lots of people and destabilize a region which was pretty shaky to begin with. The one thing they didn't do is establish a reliable military base of operations. Basically, they are, as they were a year ago, a pack of fanatical brigands.
If they don't feel the bombing (a bit of journalistic fantasy the television news has been peddling), why have they been driven back in Al-Anbar and Iraqi Kurdistan? Why have they been driven out of Tikrit? Why did they fail to overrun Syrian Kurdistan? Murderous they certainly are. But they are not the big bogeyman that journalists (a clueless pack) have made them out to be.
At no time did i say that the object of all those movements was to kill other Muslims. Try to keep the idiotic straw men to yourself. All i said was that the overwhelming majority of the victims of ISIS have been other Muslims.
These Islamist groups, except for ISIS, have been around a lot longer than five years. Al Qaeda has been in business for almost 30 years. When they buy armored cars, they're pissing down a hole, because they don't have people qualified to maintain or repair them, so if they break down or their opponents hit them RPGs, they become so much scrap metal. The Germans in 1939 had logistical infrastructure and expertise. The Islamist don't even know what those words mean. The western reaction of clueless journalists and paranoid conservatives has been a Chicken Little exercise.
Your opinion should be humble, because it is based on ignorance and a very narrow and shallow view. This post of yours convinces me that you are
a hateful bigot. It is no longer worthwhile to even talk to you.