funny, but we've never trained them, financed them, etc. directly, but carry on with your bullshit story. they, including the al-nursa front (their initial syrian branch), were labeled terrorist organizations early on and did not work with the us government because of that.
Islam
- Thread starter murox
- Start date
funny, but we've never trained them, financed them, etc. directly, but carry on with your bullshit story. they, including the al-nursa front (their initial syrian branch), were labeled terrorist organizations early on and did not work with the us government because of that.
Not willing to get involved in?? Im a tax paying citizen and have been since 2004 when I first started working full time. I have been involved. My tax money have been used to pay for wars and torture
Like you said not directly, we used the Saudi and the Yemen before they was ran out of their country to do our dirty work
right, so we created them through two countries, even though we never directly worked with isis or isis organizations. got it. where's the roll eyes emoji?
there are plenty of places to lame blame with our foreign policy in the area over the decades, but to say that we created isis and deserve any significant portion of the blame is just absurd. the organization today known as isis was created way back in the 80's, largely to fight the soviets in afghanistan, but since that was over, they geared their attention initially towards attacking other arab states/states in the region.
the us has really not done much to stop isis from growing, but to say that we created it just a bullshit thing to say.
Either way, if we never removed Saddamn, there would be no ISIS. He controlled the crazies and either kept them in check or killed them
there'd be isis, there was well before we removed saddam. you could argue they wouldn't have become so prominent, but they'd still be there because their leader al-zarqawi was already hooked up with bin laden prior to the invasion of iraq.
That is what you said, and its FACT that we trained, financed, and equipped them to fight the soviets. Thanks for proving my point
Do you not realize Al-quida or whatever is left is at war with ISIS right and they hate each other.
that's not proving your point. al-zarqawi didn't get to afghanistan until 1989, after the soviets had withdrawn. he never fought, was trained, by us in that war, he became a reporter, then started up his organization that'd turn into isis in jordan really, as part of the millennium plot.
Not laying blame......But the above is nearly 100% false.
ISIS Military and primary leaders are made up mostly of former Iraqi Army......ISIS was not in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation.
do you not realize that bin laden paid for the first training camp of the organization that would become isis back about 15 years ago? that they were close allies for over a decade? they haven't hated each other forever.
my point was, isis was around prior to our invasion of iraq. they were partially funded and had a working relationship with bin laden and al-qaeda. you claimed that if we hadn't killed saddam, they wouldn't exist. that's just not true. they'd still exist, they may not be called isis, or be as large, or actually be part of some other organization, but they would exist. they were radicalized well before we took out saddam.
no, abu musab al-zarqawi founded "the organisation of monotheisam and jihad" back in the 90s. he hooked up with bin laden to get that off the ground. that's the organization that grew from jtj to isis today, though a few different name changes, leadership changes, ally/fallout with al-qaeda, etc.
isis started off with abu musab al-zarqawi as the leader of jtj (the organisation of monotheism and jihad), which in the early 2000s became al-qaeda in iraq, which became the islamic state of iraq, which became the islamic state of iraq and the levant.
The majority of ISIS leadership is former Officers of Saddamn Army and the Bathe Party. ISIS broke out of the Free Syrian Army and combined with AQI
that's great, and true, but you said we created isis, which isn't the entire story. isis existed long before we overthrew saddam, the organization now known as isis was actually responsible for killing a us diplomat in 2002, before we invaded iraq.
the group we well funded, largely because of a solid relationship with al-qaeda, and were already radicalized well before we invaded iraq.
there are members of al-qaeda still in iraq, but the organization that was referred to as "al-qaeda in iraq" is now isis. they announced in 2006 they were no longer "al-qaeda in iraq," but that had merged with a couple other groups and were now "the islamic state of iraq."
You should read the article linked earlier in this forum......It'll clear up a lot of things for you.
so, you agree with fever, that "we" created isis and deserve all the blame for that?
i've said in this thread that yeah, we're responsible for some of what isis has become to this day, but to say that we're responsible significantly or that we created them is just silly. the group is largely made up of former saddam crazies these days yes, but the group was radicalized, killed an american diplomat, part of a plot to attack many us people, well financed, all before we invaded iraq in 2003.
again, we've made many missteps over the years where you could maybe lay a little of the blame on us for isis, more so in the last decade, but we weren't responsible for their creation as an organization.
I never said that......Nor does the linked article.
Our invasion of Iraq certainly made things worse but I certainly wouldn't say we "created" ISIS or al-Qaeda.
that's what i was arguing with fever, he stated we created isis and should apologize, or something, for it.
my point, which i guess i did a poor job of getting across, was the ideology of isis existed well before we invaded iraq. we didn't create it (we definitely didn't do enough to prevent it and probably did fan the flames at times). had we never invaded iraq and ousted saddam, isis would still exist. it may not be called isis, or be based out of iraq, but the thousands of radical fanatics of that ideology would still exist, they'd just be part of al-qaeda, some other organization, etc.
it's a group of radical people that are power hungry and opportunists. they're greedy, for power, money, everything, and using their religion as a basis for their actions to get power, money, etc.
The people carrying out these acts of terror care nothing about money, power, or worldly possessions. They are religious zealots who truly believe their justly reward will come to them after death. (I say we hasten this process) And one way of earning that reward is by killing infidels. And then dying for their cause. Period.
If it was about money, power, etc they would be much easier to defeat. Unfortunately we currently have a President who seems to think in this clueless manner. His recent speeches seem to indicate that we just need to show them "no harm", offer them free room and board (maybe an obummer phone), and the problem of their hatred or their belief in our deaths as being necessary will die out.
the sheep convinced to carry out the attacks may think that because they've been brainwashed into thinking that, but the leaders are about power, money, etc.
they have a luxury hotel in mosul for fighters/leaders to stay [1], they took over a former qatar royal family palace [2], they eat lavish meals, they have total control over large swaths of land and exert their power over the peasants as they choose, etc.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-262-room-luxury-hotel-in-mosul-10227777.html
[2] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/islamic-st...sion-becomes-isis-luxury-headquarters-1505990
just to clarify what i said, surely there are some that believe they're fighting for a religious cause, even some leaders, but i'm going to say the power to do whatever the hell you want, make whatever rules you want, enforce whatever rules, etc is a draw to a lot of them.
Unless you dip bullets in bacon grease...then that lovely concept of 75 virgins or whatever, goes right out the window.
This is the most accurate description of what we are facing.........
Yes.....It's a little of one (Greed, Power, Money) but is mostly about their religion (A return to the "true" teachings of the Koran) and the ultimate end of times.
They truly believe that many of the things that are occurring are fulfilling the prophecies and leading towards the ultimate battle and end of times.
They actually want us to put soldiers on the ground and fight them in Syria, because it is prophesized.
In the end, we may have to give them what they want.
This Syrian refugee crisis and ISIS gaining ground, massive amounts of land and territory, would not...I repeat, would not have happened if we would have left a reciprocal force in Iraq instead of our current commander in chief pulling them out.
And, oh, remember his famous don't cross that line empty promise? THE JV team? ISIS became a global threat and they were a contained regional threat, mainly in parts of Iraq. Now we have a large territory under their control and they are getting oil money and so on. Bigger than Al Qada ever was. Now we are likely going to make a deal with the Russians to root these bastages out of there. That means likely Russia because the predominate player in the region with their finger on 60% o the world's oil.
And, oh, remember his famous don't cross that line empty promise? THE JV team? ISIS became a global threat and they were a contained regional threat, mainly in parts of Iraq. Now we have a large territory under their control and they are getting oil money and so on. Bigger than Al Qada ever was. Now we are likely going to make a deal with the Russians to root these bastages out of there. That means likely Russia because the predominate player in the region with their finger on 60% o the world's oil.
Last edited:
We left Iraq without a reciprocal force because we couldn't get an agreement with Iraq that would protect them from Iraqi law. The military commanders did not want to stay without that agreement. You know this but continue to ignore it.
We certainly could have pushed back harder against this demand......But we were done.
Obama had promised a withdrawal and the American public was looking for any excuse and supported the withdrawal. Just like the original "invasion" under Bush, it was a mistake. Interestingly enough it's a mistake we've made many times.
I truly believe Obama knows what has to be done but he doesn't have the stomach for it. Is the American public ready for more flag draped coffins?
Maybe we could have pushed back harder. Does anyone know how hard the pushback was at the time? I don't. It was not a mistake to leave there. It was a mistake to go there and it's a mistake that were still involved like we are.
Are you of the opinion that we should stop bombing , withdraw our military advisors and let France & Russia deal with it?
What's your solution?
We should've never went to Iraq, it was a complete waste of time. Yes we should quit bombing but no we shouldn't just let France and Russia deal with it.
The last thing the Government wants is to lose a battle to ISIS and have US soldiers kept as hostages or beheaded
