Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

How much are western (U.S.) policies to blame?

Isis is a biproduct of the state of the world. The U.S. foreign policy is more likely to be one of many of its agendas. I have very strong doubts that an organization as radical as Isis was adapted by using one model. I also have very strong doubts that they are Muslim. Instead, they seem like a bunch of murderers for hire, that are hiding behind religion to commit inhumane acts. Bottom line. Money, power, and territory are likely to be the main catalysts behind their cause.

US and allies invade Iraq and create an ineffectual and weak government that can't control it's own territory and IS get a foothold. Britain and France bomb Libya and oust the government and allow it to be taken over by useless tribal factions and IS get a foothold. US and allies fund and arm 'rebel' groups in Syria and destabilise the government to the point that they can't control their territory or borders and IS get a foothold.

Seems relatively simple to me. Would IS have been tolerated by Saddam or Gaddafi?

I think US foreign policy in the region (as well as Soviet influence and many others) contributed a lot to the circumstances and therefore also caused, in some part, the basis of ISIS' current success. And the Iraq war did create a power vacuum in the area, that causes issues now.

That's not to say it is only the US's fault or anything like that.

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1780-we-built-their-death-squads-isiss-bizarre-origin-story.html

We won't stop meddling so long as it benefits certain lobbyist groups. It's telling that we intervened militarily in 2 of those 3 countries and now have heavily protected oil interests in Iraq and Libya while the country descends into chaos. We extract the oil, erode the government's ability to enforce tax on it and then charge them for 'developing' their oil infrastructure. Infrastructure that we destroyed in the first place.

Originally posted by jaden101
We won't stop meddling so long as it benefits certain lobbyist groups. It's telling that we intervened militarily in 2 of those 3 countries and now have heavily protected oil interests in Iraq and Libya while the country descends into chaos. We extract the oil, erode the government's ability to enforce tax on it and then charge them for 'developing' their oil infrastructure. Infrastructure that we destroyed in the first place.

I cannot help wondering if the bombing campaign to get rid of ISIS is more aimed at getting rid of Assad.

ISIS is a product of crazy people willing to blow themselves up for religion.

ISIS are legit crazy. They've filmed some gruesome ways of executing innocent people. Shotgun to the head, mass beheading by the beach, rocket launcher while tied on a pole, immolation and drowning in a cage, young kids pulling the trigger to people's heads, drive-by shooting on innocent civilians, strapping and detonating C4 around the necks, random killing of civilians in the streets, etc.

I wouldn't say it's the foreign policy per se. It has more to do with American capitalists wanting to gain a foothold on oil & gas resources within Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
I cannot help wondering if the bombing campaign to get rid of ISIS is more aimed at getting rid of Assad.

It's quite interesting to see the shift in BBC news coverage on Syria in the wake of the latest offensive on Aleppo today.

2 years these groups were referred to as 'Rebels' and were fighting against the oppressive Assad regime. Now they are 'islamist groups' trying to 'seize control' of the city.

The new narrative is clearly trying to butter the public up for a deal WITH the Assad regime to fight against IS.

It's a bizarre situation. There's even documented offensives where US drones have given air support to Al Qaeda fighters opposing IS.

Vice have also just published a journalist who interviewed top IS commanders which is extremely interesting in that it shows many of their top leaders are former Baath regime top brass and how their ideology splintered with Al Nusra front.
https://news.vice.com/article/my-journey-inside-the-islamic-state

Originally posted by jaden101
It's quite interesting to see the shift in BBC news coverage on Syria in the wake of the latest offensive on Aleppo today.

2 years these groups were referred to as 'Rebels' and were fighting against the oppressive Assad regime. Now they are 'islamist groups' trying to 'seize control' of the city.

The new narrative is clearly trying to butter the public up for a deal WITH the Assad regime to fight against IS.

It's a bizarre situation. There's even documented offensives where US drones have given air support to Al Qaeda fighters opposing IS.

Vice have also just published a journalist who interviewed top IS commanders which is extremely interesting in that it shows many of their top leaders are former Baath regime top brass and how their ideology splintered with Al Nusra front.
https://news.vice.com/article/my-journey-inside-the-islamic-state
Al-Nusra is a strange case because it's effectively only Al-Qaeda in name. It barely receives any orders (if it does at all) from Al-Qaeda's central leadership, it's prioritized toppling Al-Assad over attacking foreign (especially Western) targets, and there are mixed signs that it may actually be on the way to becoming, not moderate, but "less-extremist" due to its pragmatism.

Also, I really don't think America will ever deal with Al-Assad directly to fight ISIS. For one thing, it doesn't need to, and for another, Al-Assad's forces are patently incapable of fighting ISIS--they've done no better than their Iraqi counterparts have, and if ISIS didn't prioritize fighting the Kurds and other rebels over the government, Al-Assad would be in serious trouble right now.

Working with Al-Assad would 1) piss off the Sunni Muslim world and 2) really not change anything because Al-Assad, apart from not being strong enough to defeat ISIS also doesn't really give a shit about fighting them because so far they've only taken backwoods parts of Syria with Sunni majorities.

Really, though, if I had a vote I'd say **** the Arabs--Sunni and Shi'ite alike--and I'd just throw our lot in with the Kurds all the way. For one thing they're actually civilized people, they've shown they're prepared to fight and die for what's theirs, and when they take over an area things seem to run okay.

Originally posted by jaden101
It's quite interesting to see the shift in BBC news coverage on Syria in the wake of the latest offensive on Aleppo today.

2 years these groups were referred to as 'Rebels' and were fighting against the oppressive Assad regime. Now they are 'islamist groups' trying to 'seize control' of the city.

The new narrative is clearly trying to butter the public up for a deal WITH the Assad regime to fight against IS.

It's a bizarre situation. There's even documented offensives where US drones have given air support to Al Qaeda fighters opposing IS.

Vice have also just published a journalist who interviewed top IS commanders which is extremely interesting in that it shows many of their top leaders are former Baath regime top brass and how their ideology splintered with Al Nusra front.
https://news.vice.com/article/my-journey-inside-the-islamic-state That's a very interesting take on it. I don't know though, I can't see how after everything they can deal with Assad. Although stranger things have happened... I do agree the narrative has changed so maybe you're right.

This is exactly what Assad wanted. ISIS gained a strong foothold by Assad willingly ignoring them so he could blame the U.S. for interfering in his dictatorship and not letting him suppress them.

That being stated, the main problem is the US was too idealistic. We thought that merely by killing the dictators, the Middle East would just naturally form a peaceful democracy, not realizing that the power vacuum could be taken up by radicals driven to extreme religious zealotry by the prior dictatorship, especially when the religion is known for advocating human rights violations and theocracy. We just thought we'd kill the bad guys and thus the good guys win, without the forethought that the destruction left behind could manifest into something worse.

Now ues, geopolitical military-industrial complex profiteering definitely played a huge role, but the main problem is the extreme zealotry of the people themselves allowing these groups to take power. The U.S. is secular, so any form of religious extremism or interference of church and state is immediately vilified, but because theocracy is a viable option in the mid east, it's embraced, epitomized by the Saudi government, the heartland of Islam, having sharia law.

Originally posted by Lestov16
This is exactly what Assad wanted. ISIS gained a strong foothold by Assad willingly ignoring them so he could blame the U.S. for interfering in his dictatorship and not letting him suppress them.

That being stated, the main problem is the US was too idealistic. We thought that merely by killing the dictators, the Middle East would just naturally form a peaceful democracy, not realizing that the power vacuum could be taken up by radicals driven to extreme religious zealotry by the prior dictatorship, especially when the religion is known for advocating human rights violations and theocracy. We just thought we'd kill the bad guys and thus the good guys win, without the forethought that the destruction left behind could manifest into something worse.

Now ues, geopolitical military-industrial complex profiteering definitely played a huge role, but the main problem is the extreme zealotry of the people themselves allowing these groups to take power. The U.S. is secular, so any form of religious extremism or interference of church and state is immediately vilified, but because theocracy is a viable option in the mid east, it's embraced, epitomized by the Saudi government, the heartland of Islam, having sharia law. A lot I agree with, some I don't I'll come up with a proper reply later, however one thing stands out, you say the US is secular, Bush said it was God who told him what to do......

I don't agree that the US is secular. It's still predominantly a Christian nation. The intolerance of Christianity by this generation of Americans do not reflect secularism between religion and government.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I don't agree that the US is secular. It's still predominantly a Christian nation. The intolerance of Christianity by this generation of Americans do not reflect secularism between religion and government.

I agree with you on that.

Likewise.

Originally posted by Lestov16
This is exactly what Assad wanted. ISIS gained a strong foothold by Assad willingly ignoring them so he could blame the U.S. for interfering in his dictatorship and not letting him suppress them.

That being stated, the main problem is the US was too idealistic. We thought that merely by killing the dictators, the Middle East would just naturally form a peaceful democracy, not realizing that the power vacuum could be taken up by radicals driven to extreme religious zealotry by the prior dictatorship, especially when the religion is known for advocating human rights violations and theocracy. We just thought we'd kill the bad guys and thus the good guys win, without the forethought that the destruction left behind could manifest into something worse.

Now ues, geopolitical military-industrial complex profiteering definitely played a huge role, but the main problem is the extreme zealotry of the people themselves allowing these groups to take power. The U.S. is secular, so any form of religious extremism or interference of church and state is immediately vilified, but because theocracy is a viable option in the mid east, it's embraced, epitomized by the Saudi government, the heartland of Islam, having sharia law.

Assad would be perfectly correct in blaming the US and it's allies given the level of funding and arms funneled to 'rebel' groups, much of which went to groups now either part of or allied with IS. As recently as last September there were calls for more arms and funding for IS

I'm beginning more and more to believe that the constant instability brought about by Western action in these countries isn't an unfortunate byproduct of good intentions gone wrong but actually the intention itself. The US has no interest in strong stable government of any kind be they secular or religious in the middle east. Unstable countries are more easily exploitable plus it serves the secondary purpose of funnelling the extremist groups into these countries instead of them scattering across the globe where they can attack US interests.


Most of the governments in Arab spring countries aren't fundamentalist Islam. Tunisia isn't. Egypt was for only a short period before the Muslim brotherhood was ousted. This was a more telling case of the intentions of western countries because we supported democracy in Egypt until that democracy returned the Muslim Brotherhood then we supported a military coup. This was obviously not due to military involvement but there was massive diplomatic pressure put on to remove the Muslim brotherhood from power against democratic will

As for Saudi Arabia being the heartland of Islam. Only in so much as that's where Mecca is. It's patently not representative of Islam. In fact only 20% of the world's muslims live in Arab countries. Indonesia has the most muslims followed by India which isn't even an Islamic country. Islamic countries have elected more female heads of State than most western democracies. Bangladesh, the third most Populus Muslim country in the world has been led by female prime ministers for 23 years. Egypt has a higher proportion of female legislature than either the US or UK. Saudi Arabia doesn't even closely resemble any other Muslim country.

Originally posted by jaden101
Assad would be perfectly correct in blaming the US and it's allies given the level of funding and arms funneled to 'rebel' groups, much of which went to groups now either part of or allied with IS. As recently as last September there were calls for more arms and funding for IS

I'm beginning more and more to believe that the constant instability brought about by Western action in these countries isn't an unfortunate byproduct of good intentions gone wrong but actually the intention itself. The US has no interest in strong stable government of any kind be they secular or religious in the middle east. Unstable countries are more easily exploitable plus it serves the secondary purpose of funnelling the extremist groups into these countries instead of them scattering across the globe where they can attack US interests.


Most of the governments in Arab spring countries aren't fundamentalist Islam. Tunisia isn't. Egypt was for only a short period before the Muslim brotherhood was ousted. This was a more telling case of the intentions of western countries because we supported democracy in Egypt until that democracy returned the Muslim Brotherhood then we supported a military coup. This was obviously not due to military involvement but there was massive diplomatic pressure put on to remove the Muslim brotherhood from power against democratic will

As for Saudi Arabia being the heartland of Islam. Only in so much as that's where Mecca is. It's patently not representative of Islam. In fact only 20% of the world's muslims live in Arab countries. Indonesia has the most muslims followed by India which isn't even an Islamic country. Islamic countries have elected more female heads of State than most western democracies. Bangladesh, the third most Populus Muslim country in the world has been led by female prime ministers for 23 years. Egypt has a higher proportion of female legislature than either the US or UK. Saudi Arabia doesn't even closely resemble any other Muslim country. A quite brilliant post.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
How much are western (U.S.) policies to blame?

Go ahead and address causation and human limitation while you're at it. The point is, a bunch of fundamentalist goat ****ers need to be droned.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Go ahead and address causation and human limitation while you're at it. The point is, a bunch of fundamentalist goat ****ers need to be droned. might be worth reading Jaden post which addresses most issues far more eloquently than I could.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
might be worth reading Jaden post which addresses most issues far more eloquently than I could.

Or it might be worth noting that placing blame doesn't solve the existing issue.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Or it might be worth noting that placing blame doesn't solve the existing issue. You have to discuss the past to look to the future with something like this.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
You have to discuss the past to look to the future with something like this.

Or you know, be an idiot.

Can't believe peaceful little Janus is suggesting we drone anybody. But I agree. But that's a short term solution thought up by one who seeps hate when "religion" is involved so that might be a tad too emotional

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Or you know, be an idiot.

Aww bless.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
You have to discuss the past to look to the future with something like this.

Perhaps not. But given that your suggested course of action is what caused the existing issue do you really think more of the same will fix it?

Originally posted by jaden101
Perhaps not. But given that your suggested course of action is what caused the existing issue do you really think more of the same will fix it?

I don't think I've suggested a course of action have I. Quite frankly, I don't have one. I would rather we withdraw from the middle east and looked to an alternative system to capitalism, which doesn't work. That's not going to happen though. Anyway, that's probably one of my last posts on this forum as I am out of hospital tomorrow and I can't see myself coming here much when I am back walking around. Have a good one, your posts made a lot of sense to me.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
I don't think I've suggested a course of action have I. Quite frankly, I don't have one. I would rather we withdraw from the middle east and looked to an alternative system to capitalism, which doesn't work. That's not going to happen though. Anyway, that's probably one of my last posts on this forum as I am out of hospital tomorrow and I can't see myself coming here much when I am back walking around. Have a good one, your posts made a lot of sense to me.

Quoted the wrong person. 😂

Originally posted by psmith81992
Can't believe peaceful little Janus is suggesting we drone anybody. But I agree. But that's a short term solution thought up by one who seeps hate when "religion" is involved so that might be a tad too emotional

Actually, I don't like drones. I but like ISIS even less. What they're doing to people, women, children etc. It's just brutal.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Aww bless.

I kid. But if you go far back enough, most major issues in the Middle East and even the world are a result of stupid imperialism and borders never figured out since the time of mass colonisation. And while the Ottoman Empire had some mighty huge humans rights crimes under its belt, it did stabilize the region far better than we could ever hope to do at this late hour.