ISIS... The Real Story - Like it or Not

originally posted by: sacgamer25
a reply to: boncho

So the US sets up the moderate rebel force ISIS, but a radical guy comes in and takes over, and somehow the US gets to wash it's hands of the mess.

No, the blood remains on the one's who set this up. Without US help this could have never happened.

People are being beheaded by radicals who would have never had power if the US would stayed out.

These beheadings, if they are even real, are the fault of US government, and the one's pulling the strings.

The weapons IS has are from the Iraqi army dropping their uniforms and fleeing, so should we blame them, or the US for giving the arms to the Iraqis and training them. Or should we blame the religious leaders. OR should we blame Israel because without them maybe the Muslim battle cry wouldn't rally people to blindly accept a new caliphate, or should we blame the Russians because they fight with Russian arms too, or China?

The US isn't the only one involved in the ME.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

You really have no clue whats going on in the ME eh? Judging by your posts.

IS broke Iraqs border and literally plower the wall down. The Khurds are way to badass for them so they don't go near, but have a mild truce as of yet, with both sides being told not to instigate from the higher ups.

The Iraqi border patrol fled leaving their uniforms and weapons behind running away in their underwear. The ones that stayed back got massacred.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

ISIS isn't American sponsored, until you understand that, it's pointless in explaining anything else to you.

Okay, not sponsored then... Enabled. Armed. Empowered. Funded. Whatever.

Much like the error that ISIS is Al Qaeda you've made.

No, I said they were Al-Qaeda. Just like our generals, politicians, and media have said.

AAC

IS broke Iraqs border and literally plower the wall down. The Khurds are way to badass for them so they don't go near, but have a mild truce as of yet, with both sides being told not to instigate from the higher ups.

Higher ups. Western intelligence. Exactly.

AAC

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

IS broke Iraqs border and literally plower the wall down. The Khurds are way to badass for them so they don't go near, but have a mild truce as of yet, with both sides being told not to instigate from the higher ups.

Higher ups. Western intelligence. Exactly.

AAC

You don't know who the Kurds are do you?

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

ISIS isn't American sponsored, until you understand that, it's pointless in explaining anything else to you.

Okay, not sponsored then... Enabled. Armed. Empowered. Funded. Whatever.

Much like the error that ISIS is Al Qaeda you've made.

No, I said they were Al-Qaeda. Just like our generals, politicians, and media have said.

AAC

Oh right, I forgot, al Al Qaeda answers to the White House. Al Zawahiri has Obama on speed dial, why didn't I see this conspiracy?


www.ndtv.com...

You can say that ISIS (IS) recruited from Al-Qaeda stock, in that they grabbed up their bottom militants, but in that they are one and the same, they are not. The leadership do not see eye to eye, do not act the same, do not have the same goals, motives, techniques, etc.

The top brass in both sides are entirely different.

So if your comparison that IS and AL-Q are the same simply because they picked up some of their fighters, that's like saying the French foreign legion is a Dutch fighting force fighting for the Crown of Netherlands, simply because they have some dutch enlisted.

Or saying that the US army is Chinese because of the settled Chinese 2-5 generations in serving in the military. It's not only ignorant its just blatantly stupid.

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: sacgamer25
a reply to: boncho

So the US sets up the moderate rebel force ISIS, but a radical guy comes in and takes over, and somehow the US gets to wash it's hands of the mess.

No, the blood remains on the one's who set this up. Without US help this could have never happened.

People are being beheaded by radicals who would have never had power if the US would stayed out.

These beheadings, if they are even real, are the fault of US government, and the one's pulling the strings.

The weapons IS has are from the Iraqi army dropping their uniforms and fleeing, so should we blame them, or the US for giving the arms to the Iraqis and training them. Or should we blame the religious leaders. OR should we blame Israel because without them maybe the Muslim battle cry wouldn't rally people to blindly accept a new caliphate, or should we blame the Russians because they fight with Russian arms too, or China?

The US isn't the only one involved in the ME.

Iraqi Soldiers Fleeing ISIS Claim They Were 'Abandoned' by Senior Officers

Kamel, a corporal in his late 40s said that that senior officers at his station around 10 miles outside Mosul disappeared before the rank and file even knew the city was under attack.

Source

Collusion by officers in the Iraqi military. ISIS was based in Mosul and the region for years as far back as Saddam's regime days before they went into Syria. They had local commanders loyalty by the looks of it. Easy to win a fight when there is nobody fighting back.

Okay. Let's assume we were innocent in funding and supporting ISIS. Why were we even supporting Syria's overthrow of Assad?

If it was because Syria was so bad and using chemical weapons, why did it get discovered it was a lie, and western powers were caught red handed lying about the chemical attack?

Watch this and still apology for our actions.



AAC

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
Okay. Let's assume we were innocent in funding and supporting ISIS. Why were we even supporting Syria's overthrow of Assad?

If it was because Syria was so bad and using chemical weapons, why did it get discovered it was a lie, and western powers were caught red handed lying about the chemical attack?

Watch this and still apology for our actions.

AAC

You need to take things in chronological order.

Assad slaughtered peaceful demonstrators with heavy handed tactics. This started off the comdemnation by other nations and started the Civil war there. The chemical weapons and 3 or 4 letter factions fighting Assad and each other came much later.

a reply to: TinfoilTP
Do you purposely overlook the fact they were caught red handed staging a chemical attack?



AAC

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Collusion by officers in the Iraqi military. ISIS was based in Mosul and the region for years as far back as Saddam's regime days before they went into Syria. They had local commanders loyalty by the looks of it. Easy to win a fight when there is nobody fighting back.

They didn't find that when they met the Kurds though did they?

Us and Aus arm Kurds

*Warning, explicit language.

This is what the Kurds think of IS and the Caliph

Has anyone considered the loot factor?
Jihad means loot to these people also....(and it sounds like theres a lot to be had......)
I have some doubts this caliphate is a real deal.....or El badgagi a real caliph.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: sacgamer25

Assad played a massive role in letting ISIS get to what they are now too you know.

Singling out just the US is niave.

Assad? What the hell did he do to get ISIS to the position they are in today?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

You need to take things in chronological order.

Assad slaughtered peaceful demonstrators with heavy handed tactics. This started off the comdemnation by other nations and started the Civil war there. The chemical weapons and 3 or 4 letter factions fighting Assad and each other came much later.

Oh yeah, so if the protests were peaceful, who shot dead 7 Police Officers and torched the courthouse? Are you suggesting the Police committed suicide and the courthouse mysteriously ignited itself?

a reply to: DarknStormy

I think this link covers it nicely

now.mmedia.me...

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: DarknStormy

I think this link covers it nicely

now.mmedia.me...

I like this quote specifically:

Although ISIS only officially formed in April 2013, its roots lie in Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the same group Assad paid and equipped in the mid-2000s to fight the Americans in precisely the region of Iraq now occupied by ISIS. In 2003, on the regime’s orders, Syria’s ordinarily mild-mannered Grand Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Kuftaro issued a gladiatorial fatwa calling for attacks, including suicide bombings, against the Americans in Iraq. Those who came back alive after making the trip over the border – following training and funding from the regime – were promptly thrown into Damascus’ notorious Sednaya prison upon their return. Years later, on May 31, 2011, Assad suddenly pardoned and released dozens of Sednaya’s most dangerous inmates, who predictably went on to become leaders in Islamist rebel brigades, including extremist ones. This was at the same time the regime was imprisoning, torturing, and indeed murdering the secular and nonviolent democracy activists out in the streets. What was going on? As Aron Lund, editor of the Carnegie Endowment’s "Syria in Crisis" page, put it, “There are no random acts of kindness from this regime.”

This highlights exactly why the US is so irked at Al-Assad and want his ass out the door, as well as shed light on the difference of the Al-Q in Bagdad vs. the Al-Q from Afghanistan. The Afghani Al-Q is much different, and the Iraqi was more of a copycat group which arose out of the Iraqi war, which evolved into something else entirely.

*

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

I think they just want to erect a US/NATO military camp in Syria and need a local government to support it.

I don't know where to start....

ISIS is, and never was, a part of Al-Qaeda. They may have once pledged allegiance to them, but they were never an official branch. They were their own organisation. In fact, their name was never even 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq'. That was just a name the West used to refer to them, because they seemingly didn't want to call them by their true name at the time, which was Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn.

Regarding Al-Nusra. They were originally the Syrian Branch of ISI (ISIS/IS). It was only after disagreements between the two, did ISIS have a falling out with Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra. Incidentally, it was after this falling out that Al-Nusra became a Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, rather than ISIS. Furthermore, Al-Nusra has not merged with ISIS. Units of Al-Nusra have, yes. But the overall organisation is still very much separate.

I must also say that the Syrian constitution permitted the Syrian Army to act in times of unrest or terrorism. That means that in the early days of the Syrian civil war, Assad was never really in control of his army, as his power as president sat in his ability to pass aspects of the constitution. He only passed aspects of the constitution which allowed them to deploy in order to maintain stability. This is according to Assad though, so i would advise some sense of scepticism here:



The Syrian constitution names the President as commander-in-chief, so i am unsure as to the validity of the above. I must say that the Syrian constitution was also revised in 2012, further adding to the confusion. It then is possible that the constitution was different regarding Assad's power over the military, before 2012.