Topic: ISIS initially was supported by the west, to... - page 2. (Read 4502 times)

You're going too far saying ISIS was supported by the West. Only a very limited group of people in the West have shown a little support in the early days of that movement. There are also some young unskilled and unemployed muslims who support ISIS all over Europe, but those people don't belong much to the West, despite they're living there.

I don't know much about how ISIS is funded, but I'm sure most of the money comes from the Persian Gulf.

But today the situation is a little bit different.
The Americans prefer attacking by air and not by land.
That time, the Kurds are acting as their "far arm" in the area,
reducing the political (and economical) cost
of the US intervention

Actually it is more complicated than that, currently IS or Islamic State (it's no more ISIS) is serving Assads interests from two perspectives :

-The first one is that it shifted the interest from Syria to Iraq
-The second one is that it is fighting other groups in Syria such as the Islamic Front (which is fighting Assad in Syria)
Although things are changing right now as Assad is using the the opportunity of the US air strike to do air strikes on his own on IS, to get back some of the cities that are under their control

Now was IS group, created trained and financed by the west? Yes but in indirect way, obviously groups that formed afterwards IS, got their support from the west and thing, but what happened in my opinion is that the support was not sufficient by a long shot and was cut after a while for political reasons, the fight with Assad become very long and winning wasn't visible as it, which triggered fights for leaderships withing the resistance and triggered and put an opportunity to the extreme extremism which is the IS.

What I don't understand is how the hell the US keeps making the same mistake over and over again and never learns from it was history, the situation in Iraq or Libya, or Afghanistan, is similar to what happened in Vietnam 40 years ago, after the US left Vietnam they've decided and thought that supporting south Vietnam was enough to get a grip an all territories except what happened was the total the opposite and this is exactly what's happening in those countries / region

John McCain and his neocon-MIC brethren new damn well that whether or not these terrorists could topple Assad, they'd eventually be training and radicalizing others in the region while putting all these weapons in their hands. Eventually, something like this invasion in Iraq would happen and create more PR for the neocons to get more Americans or at least reclaim some of their lost republicans into accepting intervention again in Iraq. They know they can keep firing up these types of people and there's no shortage of them in the middle east. Note how they're always for using some type of military force all the time and whenever they can get the chance. Usually, behind the scenes they have the CIA slipping in the back door and funneling arms and training to gin up a situation. This has been happening for decades.

bring down Assad in Syria.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/isis-trained-by-us-government/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-islamic-terrorists-are-supported-by-the-us-israel-and-saudi-arabia/5396171

http://rt.com/op-edge/168064-isis-terrorism-usa-cia-war/

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
In my opinion, the USA and many other western countries
funded the ISIS to stop Assad's rule on Syria. But it didn't end as expected.
While Assad managed to stay, ISIS expanded in Iraq and it suddenly became
a threat to the west.

I am really curious about your view on this.