>>They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: That is not ISIS but Al Nusra - ISIS was not in Syria a

>>They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: That is not ISIS but Al Nusra - ISIS was not in Syria at the time (at least not openly in such large numbers). Both organisations are quite different in composition, tactics and ambition (ISIS in Syria depends a lot on foreign fighters whereas Al Nusra is more grassroots) >>In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria. Basically my original point. ISIS is an UNINTENDED consequence of western dicking in Iraq and mostly middle-eastern (with strong western support) dicking in Syria. (When will they learn?) I don't think any country actually intentionally supported them. >ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9 For the longest time i thought they were a bunch of religious nutjobs too. But lot of their actions didn't make much sense from that perspective (For example from 2013 -2015 why were they more focussed on attacking other anti-assad rebels than assad himself?). After reading this, it started making more sense:- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file... The above article has some holes as well, but it still seems to be the theory that makes the most sense. The whole religious nutjob thing was largely a show put on for the benefit of their followers and enemies. The core of the organisation seems to be made up of Baathists, and their tactics and modus operandi reflect that background. Of course noone would actually support a Baathist resurgence so they adopted a religious cloak to hide their true nature.