Who Made Isis?

[Antares]

Muhammed raped little kids.

Nuff said

so did catholic priests

So that makes it ok, got it.

You sick fuck.

Yes that was my point....that its ok....you retard

I've no doubt that's what you meant.

 

[BluesLegend]

Who Made Isis?

Obama. Next easy question.

and yet you still failed the question. You are embarrassing to the nation.

You are an embarrassment to the founders, as is most of your libcom ilk.

 

[SmedlyButler]

I'm writing this post for a variety of reasons. The first is I don't know where ISIS came from. I can take a few guesses but I actually don't know.
Second, I think it's important that people understand the underlying reasons of terrorism in order to find the best way of dealing with terrorism, which in my opinion is not going around bombing the hell out of people in the first place.

ISIS started life as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad run by Abu Masab al-Zarqawi in 1999 two years before 9/11 and four before the invasion of Iraq.

al-Zarqawi was a guy who went to fight for the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, but arrived too late, but still met ibn-Laden. His reasons for going to Afghanistan in the first place? Well he was a street fighter and an alcoholic, the sort of guy who fighting for insurgents and others is probably his sort of thing.

But what turns a guy like this into the leader of an insurgency group? Well, the need for someone to be an insurgent against. The guy went to Afghanistan in 2001 and fought against the US troops there.

Bush claimed there was a possibility that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq, and therefore al Qaeda was linked to Saddam before the invasion, as help in justifying the invasion. Turns out that declassified shows there was no link at all, it was just made up. Saddam was even trying to arrest this guy, he didn't want al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Then the Iraq invasion happened in 2003 and al-Zarqawi's group grew. In 2004 he pledged to al-Qaeda, which was now in Iraq, thanks to Bush.

The power vacuum in Iraq allowed these groups to grow and to gain support.

Then the US support for the Arab Spring happened, which led to the Syrian uprising, which in the beginning was supported by people, especially, like McCain, who wanted to fund such groups without much of a clue what they were actually funding. Not much different to funding the Mujaheddin that helped start this off in the first place.

Basically, ISIS is a product of incompetent US foreign policy over a period of time ranging from the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets, who also helped a little, through Reagan's presidency, then onto Bush Dubya's presidency they grew and grew because of complete incompetence in Iraq, which would seem to be the biggest factor in the rise of ISIS, alongside the support for the Arab Spring.

It's not a case of blaming one president, for it was not only presidents who played a part in this, and there were quite a few, from both parties, who played a major part in this, but to blame US foreign policy in general for helping to create the conditions with which such a group could grow and thrive.

I agree with most of that and as I said yesterday it's a good example of the law of unintended consequences. It's also a damn good exposition of why war and support for war should be truly "the last resort" and why, at the behest of the American prosecutor, the Nuremburg Tribunal declared “The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

 

[Plasmaball]

Who Made Isis?

Obama. Next easy question.

and yet you still failed the question. You are embarrassing to the nation.

You are an embarrassment to the founders, as is most of your libcom ilk.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...come up with something new

 

[Plasmaball]

Muhammed raped little kids.

Nuff said

so did catholic priests

So that makes it ok, got it.

You sick fuck.

Yes that was my point....that its ok....you retard

I've no doubt that's what you meant.

i know hence why you are a retard

 

[frigidweirdo]

We aren't talking about Indians or Christians.

You are defending Islam as being "misunderstood", they are not.

They were founded in blood and have always sought it since.

The Islamic aberration is that some are TRYING to live in peace, Islam itself has NEVER been a "peaceful" religion, not EVER.

There's a difference between "being misunderstood" in the sense of a naughty child being misunderstood, and misunderstood in the sense of what's going on here. I have no sympathy for these people, how I see how the US reacts to all of this and makes the situation worse every time because the govt, and many people, simply do not understand what they are doing.

But it seems you use this "Islam is not being misunderstood" as some way to deflect from the fact that most people who are actually misunderstanding the whole situation, simply don't have a clue.

Bush wanted the common enemy for this very reason, to pacify the people, so the Republicans can be tough on all of this. Now you're telling me we need to be tough on them, they're bad and evil and, well that's all and they need to be blown out of the sky. You're playing the role set out of you, I'm going to assume you vote Republican because you appear, and I don't mean offence here, to be the sort of person who gets led very easily by the Republicans and their war machine.

Islam started life a long time again in blood. And what about Christianity? People just make the assumption that Christianity is all nice and doesn't have crazies who make war. Come on. While Christianity has changed and people are less likely to go around killing in the name of the Christian God, doesn't mean they have the morals to stop going around killing people, using people in their political games and so on.

Why the distinction between one and the other? It's simple really, they're bad because they're our enemy, we're good because we're us.

It follows the whole cowboys and indians things. We're the cowboys, we're good. Indians are the enemy, bad.
Yet the cowboys were committing GENOCIDE and the indians were protecting their homelands from the evil invaders who would stop at nothing to get what they wanted.

Sometimes things aren't as they seem. Bush and his cronies spent a long time making sure that Islam was seen in a certain way, and they still are, Bush has gone, the people behind the scenes are still there, still coming out with the nonsense.

The same people said: Obama is Muslim. In a country with freedom of religion, so what? Oh, but that's like Joe McCarty saying that Kennedy is Communist. Key buzz words that people like you instantly take notice of, like being remote controlled.

You do realise that when the British went into Afghanistan in the 1800s, Afghanistan was mostly secular Islam. Now it hardly exists there because of what has happened in history has meant that secular Islam was stuck between a rock and a hard place, the rock was extremist Islam and the hard place was western powers. It couldn't survive there. Jihad was a necessary evil to combat the British.

Over time it has continued to be a necessary evil, because they just keep getting pounded on, especially for OIL. The new religion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Democrats will defend Islam as long as they can. Votes.

Are they defending Islam?

Last I heard there was freedom of religion in the US.
Last I heard there were 1 billion Muslims and if even half were terrorists, you'd have major, major problems, like, you'd be dead right now.

Bush used Islam as the new common enemy.

Communism was the previous common enemy, the Republicans lost their ability to control the people when the USSR disappeared. They needed a new common enemy desperately, and Bush made it happen.

Hardly a surprise that everything he said included "war on terror" and "al-Qaeda" in it. He was making sure the people associated these with bad, evil etc. It worked. It worked so well that far right groups in Europe stopped being overtly anti-Semitic and anti-black, they didn't need to be, they could be as racist as they liked against Islam. The UK had the EDL, who claimed to be fighting extremist Islam, would abuse normal Muslims and were made up of football hooligans who didn't have 2 brain cells to rub together.

All of a sudden Europe and the US were best buddies fighting against the nasty evil common enemy.

Funny thing is, in 2003 al-Qaeda wasn't a force of any kind in Iraq, they were being hunted by Saddam. Bush's insane policy of causing a massive power vacuum in Iraq helped al-Qaeda grow there, which in turn helped ISIS grow and when Syria kicked off.

It's funny. US attack Iraq, which was keeping down the enemy in al-Qaeda/extremist Islam. The US did away with it.
US wanted to attack Syria, which is now supporting US action in Syria and Iraq against ISIS.

The US doesn't know who to support, doesn't think through consequences. The right have their new common enemy, we'll see potentially 50 years of insecurity and problems, all so the Republicans in Washington can find it easier to control people and get re-elected.
Well thank you very fucking much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't know where ISIS came from.
ISIS started life as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad run by Abu Masab al-Zarqawi in 1999 two years before 9/11 and four before the invasion of Iraq.

I stopped reading your post there. Obviously you do not know but pretend to know. Islamic State was created after US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, as the puppet government began degrading humanity in that region and the need for Sharia Law (god bless) saw the need to be enacted. Later, as with all movements, IS has been hijacked and derailed by international bankers using money. Prophet will soon appear to liberate the region and the world.

Maybe you can't read. I didn't say ISIS was formed in 1999, I said Jama'at al-Tawhid was formed in 1999.

You stopped reading before you even started.

This is, actually, one of the BIGGEST problems on this site. People like you who don't bother to read what people write, you just assume you know it all before you even start.

Try reading what I wrote this time, and try responding back in a normal adult fashion. It's not hard, well it shouldn't be if you went to high school.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't know where ISIS came from.
ISIS started life as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad run by Abu Masab al-Zarqawi in 1999 two years before 9/11 and four before the invasion of Iraq.

I stopped reading your post there. Obviously you do not know but pretend to know. Islamic State was created after US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, as the puppet government began degrading humanity in that region and the need for Sharia Law (god bless) saw the need to be enacted. Later, as with all movements, IS has been hijacked and derailed by international bankers using money. Prophet will soon appear to liberate the region and the world.

Uh sure....you of course mean the Mahdi, correct?

No.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Democrats lied and undermined Bush every day.

How? We want evidence.

 

[pvsi]

I always loved that song. sometimes a link is so much better than a response to an idiotic post.

You feel the the 12th Imam will be here soon?

I don't watch Saudi networks like FOX NEWS so I am not familiar with their latest circus plots

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The real question should be 'who allowed ISIS to fester to this current level?' The answer is obama policy of prematurely extracting US forces from the region. Duh.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The real question should be 'who allowed ISIS to fester to this current level?' The answer is obama policy of prematurely extracting US forces from the region. Duh.

It's the question because you think it leads to the answer you want?

Without Bush ISIS would never have existed. Obama's policy has been one of trying to withdraw from the Muslim world to reduce the problems Bush caused. It's impossible because Bush messed up so badly (in the sense that this is clearly what he wanted) that it's an unstoppable train. We have this problem for at least the next two decades now, having to live in fear because of Bush.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The real question should be 'who allowed ISIS to fester to this current level?' The answer is obama policy of prematurely extracting US forces from the region. Duh.

It's the question because you think it leads to the answer you want?

Without Bush ISIS would never have existed. Obama's policy has been one of trying to withdraw from the Muslim world to reduce the problems Bush caused. It's impossible because Bush messed up so badly (in the sense that this is clearly what he wanted) that it's an unstoppable train. We have this problem for at least the next two decades now, having to live in fear because of Bush.

No, my answer was in regards to the real concern that ISIS has become. The Bush blamers are just looking to excuse obama.

 

[BluesLegend]

Who Made Isis?

Obama. Next easy question.

and yet you still failed the question. You are embarrassing to the nation.

You are an embarrassment to the founders, as is most of your libcom ilk.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...come up with something new

I see you are a troll, hence you are not worth my time go ply your trade elsewhere.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, my answer was in regards to the real concern that ISIS has become. The Bush blamers are just looking to excuse obama.

Part of the reason for posting this thread was so people can see how to avoid mistakes in the future. Seems the main reason for making to same the same fatal errors over and over is that everyone sees it as a blame game, which president did this or that, when often it's just a general US govt thing. Each contributes, some more some less.

As a person who doesn't like either side of the political fight, I'd say this. Bush made this whole situation, Obama attempted to withdraw America from the whole affair, it was never going to happen, Bush had made too much hatred.

So, Obama's blame in all of this is that he tried to do the right thing, but the right thing couldn't work. In fact nothing could probably work to be honest. ISIS would have existed either as ISIS, ie, being allowed to ferment in Syria as it did, or if Obama had attacked Assad as McCain wanted, then they'd have been in charge, similar to Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place. Obama

 

[Plasmaball]

Who Made Isis?

Obama. Next easy question.

and yet you still failed the question. You are embarrassing to the nation.

You are an embarrassment to the founders, as is most of your libcom ilk.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...come up with something new

I see you are a troll, hence you are not worth my time go ply your trade elsewhere.

Guess you are a one hit wonder...typical

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We aren't talking about Indians or Christians.

You are defending Islam as being "misunderstood", they are not.

They were founded in blood and have always sought it since.

The Islamic aberration is that some are TRYING to live in peace, Islam itself has NEVER been a "peaceful" religion, not EVER.

There's a difference between "being misunderstood" in the sense of a naughty child being misunderstood, and misunderstood in the sense of what's going on here. I have no sympathy for these people, how I see how the US reacts to all of this and makes the situation worse every time because the govt, and many people, simply do not understand what they are doing.

But it seems you use this "Islam is not being misunderstood" as some way to deflect from the fact that most people who are actually misunderstanding the whole situation, simply don't have a clue.

Bush wanted the common enemy for this very reason, to pacify the people, so the Republicans can be tough on all of this. Now you're telling me we need to be tough on them, they're bad and evil and, well that's all and they need to be blown out of the sky. You're playing the role set out of you, I'm going to assume you vote Republican because you appear, and I don't mean offence here, to be the sort of person who gets led very easily by the Republicans and their war machine.

Islam started life a long time again in blood. And what about Christianity? People just make the assumption that Christianity is all nice and doesn't have crazies who make war. Come on. While Christianity has changed and people are less likely to go around killing in the name of the Christian God, doesn't mean they have the morals to stop going around killing people, using people in their political games and so on.

Why the distinction between one and the other? It's simple really, they're bad because they're our enemy, we're good because we're us.

It follows the whole cowboys and indians things. We're the cowboys, we're good. Indians are the enemy, bad.
Yet the cowboys were committing GENOCIDE and the indians were protecting their homelands from the evil invaders who would stop at nothing to get what they wanted.

Sometimes things aren't as they seem. Bush and his cronies spent a long time making sure that Islam was seen in a certain way, and they still are, Bush has gone, the people behind the scenes are still there, still coming out with the nonsense.

The same people said: Obama is Muslim. In a country with freedom of religion, so what? Oh, but that's like Joe McCarty saying that Kennedy is Communist. Key buzz words that people like you instantly take notice of, like being remote controlled.

You do realise that when the British went into Afghanistan in the 1800s, Afghanistan was mostly secular Islam. Now it hardly exists there because of what has happened in history has meant that secular Islam was stuck between a rock and a hard place, the rock was extremist Islam and the hard place was western powers. It couldn't survive there. Jihad was a necessary evil to combat the British.

Over time it has continued to be a necessary evil, because they just keep getting pounded on, especially for OIL. The new religion.

Native Americans were warring and killing each other. They don't get a pass.

As far as Islam, they, ISIS, are trying to restore their caliphate. This is who they are. Read the koran. It states that they must kill the infidel or other non converts. There is nothing difficult to understand of their intentions. Mohammed preached the sword while Jesus taught peace. Again, this isn't difficult to understand.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama. Next easy question.

and yet you still failed the question. You are embarrassing to the nation.

You are an embarrassment to the founders, as is most of your libcom ilk.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...come up with something new

I see you are a troll, hence you are not worth my time go ply your trade elsewhere.

Guess you are a one hit wonder...typical

No I just find trolls like you boring.

 

[Antares]

We aren't talking about Indians or Christians.

You are defending Islam as being "misunderstood", they are not.

They were founded in blood and have always sought it since.

The Islamic aberration is that some are TRYING to live in peace, Islam itself has NEVER been a "peaceful" religion, not EVER.

There's a difference between "being misunderstood" in the sense of a naughty child being misunderstood, and misunderstood in the sense of what's going on here. I have no sympathy for these people, how I see how the US reacts to all of this and makes the situation worse every time because the govt, and many people, simply do not understand what they are doing.

But it seems you use this "Islam is not being misunderstood" as some way to deflect from the fact that most people who are actually misunderstanding the whole situation, simply don't have a clue.

Bush wanted the common enemy for this very reason, to pacify the people, so the Republicans can be tough on all of this. Now you're telling me we need to be tough on them, they're bad and evil and, well that's all and they need to be blown out of the sky. You're playing the role set out of you, I'm going to assume you vote Republican because you appear, and I don't mean offence here, to be the sort of person who gets led very easily by the Republicans and their war machine.

Islam started life a long time again in blood. And what about Christianity? People just make the assumption that Christianity is all nice and doesn't have crazies who make war. Come on. While Christianity has changed and people are less likely to go around killing in the name of the Christian God, doesn't mean they have the morals to stop going around killing people, using people in their political games and so on.

Why the distinction between one and the other? It's simple really, they're bad because they're our enemy, we're good because we're us.

It follows the whole cowboys and indians things. We're the cowboys, we're good. Indians are the enemy, bad.
Yet the cowboys were committing GENOCIDE and the indians were protecting their homelands from the evil invaders who would stop at nothing to get what they wanted.

Sometimes things aren't as they seem. Bush and his cronies spent a long time making sure that Islam was seen in a certain way, and they still are, Bush has gone, the people behind the scenes are still there, still coming out with the nonsense.

The same people said: Obama is Muslim. In a country with freedom of religion, so what? Oh, but that's like Joe McCarty saying that Kennedy is Communist. Key buzz words that people like you instantly take notice of, like being remote controlled.

You do realise that when the British went into Afghanistan in the 1800s, Afghanistan was mostly secular Islam. Now it hardly exists there because of what has happened in history has meant that secular Islam was stuck between a rock and a hard place, the rock was extremist Islam and the hard place was western powers. It couldn't survive there. Jihad was a necessary evil to combat the British.

Over time it has continued to be a necessary evil, because they just keep getting pounded on, especially for OIL. The new religion.

What a disappointment.

You show promise but you submerge it in the common dogma of the day, oh well.

I figured you for more than the run of the mill conspiracy type,my mistake.
Islam is the enemy of the modern world, NOT because they are "angry" at it/us but because it is completely at odds with it/us.
Our way of life, our culture, our basically "free" society.

Very simply,we are antithetical to their way of life, that's it.
There is no mystery, no grand scheme, no hidden conspiracy.