No. obama, clinton, kerry and mccain built isis. They built it, financed it and armed it.
The Turks and the US State Department.
If you know how they were financed, you know the whole game. They marketed their oil through Turkey, and Erdogan’s son was in charge. When we were forced to make a show of attacking ISIS, they avoided for a long time attacking the oil convoys.
I have always noted that huge stockpiles of weapons and vehicles were brought in right before we pulled out of Iraq, and those stockpiles were abandoned to ISIS without a fight. They were the best armed army in the region.
Beyond that, Turkey provided ISIS with their safe rear zone, and their lines of supply. The rest of the war in Syria was directed by the Turks. And supplied by us through them. This war has been sold as a civil war but it could be ended tomorrow.
America’s invasion of Iraq created ISIL.
That’s funny. The entire ISIS base of operations was guided by the United States and Turkey. This kind of revisionism is sad and designed to manipulate the masses into believing a lie. The CIA, guided by Hillary Clinton, working with Turkey, financed, armed and trained ISIS to overthrow Assad. When they got out of control, (Which jihadists do) then they had to save face and go after them. meanwhile Turkey was supplying ISIS with arms, ordinance, medical help and logistics. The CIA continue to make sure air drops with supplies made it to ISIS and gave them air support until Obama left, and everything came to a grinding halt.
Really, it was potentially a brilliant idea. Use our enemies to go after our other enemies. Recruit Al Qaeda to take down Assad, and use ISIS to drive a physical wedge between Iran and Syria, isolating them from one another.
What seemed brilliant on paper didn’t work out so well in reality, as both halves of our proxy army started slaughtering Christians on camera for recreation. This was something that didn’t bother the Turks or the US State Department, but it was a PR disaster among ordinary Americans. I think the Saudis realized that before Obama did.
You would think that we could have simply told our proxies, in exchange for our help, money, and weapons, Christians living in your midst must be protected at all costs, or we’ll rain hell down on you from on high. But no one ever told them this out loud (was Obama going to deliver that message? Erdogan?) and so the Syrian civil war became a bloody disaster that no American could support. Obama and the Turks succeeded in doing what no one else could do, converting Assad into the good guy.
Assad did not build ISIS and Saddam did not harbor AQ. Those two are or were meglomaniacs, they’d be nuts to import and support radical islamists who would be a threat to their governments. Remember Bin Laden called Saddam “the socialist”. You aren’t going to support those who will turn their guns on you. It’s a lesson we learned with the Muj in Afghanistan when they formed AQ.
One point.
The sectarian aspect of the “uprising” in Syria did not need Assad’s help; that aspect was there already.
The party foundations of the regime in Syria began with less sectarian aspects to it, and included officials from all religious segments. Over time, as the Assad family turned the regime into a family fiefdom, the families and clans of the Alawite sect (the branch of Islam the Assad family is part of) gained more prominence than other groups in the hierarchy of the Assad regime. Being legitimately paranoid about opposition and rivals, trust (as happens so often) devolved a lot to those the regime felt shared most common interests with it - the Alawites.
Fuller sectarian divide, with push and pull from both sides, came with two major earlier civil uprising against the Assad regime, each led (as the last one) by the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria.
The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon led to a working alliance of Hezbolla (a fundamentalist Shia Muslim militia force in Lebanon), Iran and the Assad regime. It revived what had for awhile been a rocky relationship between Assad and Hezbolla during Syria’s long occupation of Lebanon (during part of that era Assad backed a Lebanese rival to Hezbolla). Of course that alliance added to the sectarian divide inside Syria when viewed from the Sunni side, particularly the Sunni Muslim Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
And the 2011 Syrian uprising. Yes, there were “moderate” Syrians working in the uprising, but they always were far less represented, weaker militarily, less-well organized and at any time over powered by the alliance of groups whose leaders had come from the ranks of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood - all Sunnis.
Assad’s actions vis a vis the Syrian uprising did not foster the sectarian divide in Syria. It was already there.
No, the USA and Israel built ISIS. That’s why both American and Israeli weapons keep somehow ending up in ISIS’s hands.
I call Bravo Sierra. Saudi Arabian money helped create along with the malfeasance of the Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department. All one has to do is look at the so-called Arab Spring and its players to see who was behind the move to establish a Saudi-controlled caliphate.
Why the hell would Assad build ISIS? This bit of MSM/Deep State propaganda is surely intended for the most stupid among us.
Assad is a minority Alawite, fighting for his survival against a radical Sunni majority. We all know Saudi Arabia, with help from the United States (ie. Obama, Brennan, McCain) has used Saudi-sponsored fighters to try and force Assad out. What then is ISIS? You can connect the dots.
Seeing the name Charles Lister negates anything this BS article purports.
This thread is full of all kinds of conspiracy theories about who created and/or built ISIS.
Actually ISIS created and built ISIS.
They did have outside help, some malicious and intentional (the ISIS oil pipeline from Syria to Turkey with Erdogan’s help), and financing from prominent Sunni nations in the Gulf.
They arose out of an earlier Al Queda affiliate in Iraq, after that affiliate was nearly decimated in northern Iraq at the early part of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, in an alliance between the U.S. and the Kurds. What later became ISIS wandered around Iraq from 2003 on, striking some terrorist action when it could, grouping and regrouping as it became less powerful, and by the time Obama and Maliki were dickering over how not to sign a SOFA agreement (which would have kept a U.S. pulse on the security situation in Iraq) ISIL/ISIS was a mere fragment and not a significant threat in Iraq.
Then the long churning and long in development regime change agenda against Assad had its debut as the “Syrian opposition”. It seems the west’s role (along with some of the Gulf States, the Saudis and Turkey) was even more badly figured out than was the west’s aid to the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It’s as if they all figured that “this time” Assad would just lie down and take defeat from a mass civil uprising, and would not call on every marker he could from Hezbolla, Iran and Russia.
The resulting destabilization of Syria was not made by the west for ISIS, but yes ISIS stepped into the maelstrom for the opportunities it provided - working experience, recruitment, opportunistic acquisition of weapons and other equipment, use of captured oil and oil fields, and a theater of war that was chaos - many groups all vying for “top dog” positions against Assad and in that taking aim at each other from time to time. It was ripe for an outfit like ISIS.
How did the U.S. “aid” ISIS? By the things it bungled, or allowed to be bungled which came primarily from its intent and desire to NOT function as a nation at war, but relying on third parties whom it pretended it could vet responsibly. That was the same mistake it made in Afghanistan, against the Soviets.
So point one. Obama and Maliki jointly dropped the ball on the security situation in Iraq. That gave ISIS opportunity one - it was able to step up recruitment in Iraq as Iraq’s defense posture slacked off and Mailki started creating Iraqi Sunni opposition to his government as he governed more and more like a Shia leader than an Iraqi leader.
Point two. The blunder that sent Syria (which had been a contained and manageable security situation for the west) into massive destabilization gave ISIS an active war theater to move into as a means to becoming stronger and gain a force that could go back to Iraq stronger than it left.
How did the U.S. aid ISIS? It blundered and it was as bad as the blunder that had ceded the military effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan to Sunni Muslim militias.
When you think you are using someone else to help fight something, and you really don’t give a damn about what is at the heart of their interests, you better be prepared to recognize them as potential adversaries, if not already adversaries. Alliances of convenience are dangerous and mostly so when you ignore just who that alliance is with. That, a whole lot more than by design, as far ss how the west has blundered into situations that proved to be a gain for violent fundamentalist Sunni outfits.
Most of the conspiracy theories have a lot of implied innuendo and little facts.
No ISIS is a product of McCain, Hillary, CIA, the Saudi government, etc.