2 ms·

1. US/CIA did not support a coup, no coup was attempted or has taken place in Syria, this is not even a point of controversy. Instead the US provided support to

1. US/CIA did not support a coup, no coup was attempted or has taken place in Syria, this is not even a point of controversy. Instead the US provided support to factions after a civil war had started. Revolution does not imply coup. 2. As another poster noted, ISIS started in Iraq not Syria. 3. The Syrian factions which the US supported are opposed to ISIS and fought several early battles against them. Some US allies in the region sent aid to ISIS, but the US worked to limit and stop that aid. 4. The Pentagon is not backing Assad and still provides aid to anti-Assad groups.

Consultant32452 10y ago
1. The CIA has been funding Syrian opposition forces since 2006, well before the civil war began in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#Paramilitary_raids.2C_2004.E2.80.9308 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#Parami... Wikileaks has reported that the US government has been covertly funding the Syrian opposition since 2006.[40] 2. Yes, ISIS started in Iraq, by not primarily by Iraqis. As I said, the Syrians who had been trained, armed, and radicalized by the CIA fled to Iraq when the coup failed and started ISIS. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isi... A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria. 3. See #2 above, we clearly funded and armed what became ISIS. 4. You're right on this one. The reports of the two parties backed by the CIA and Pentagon fighting each other had me mixed up. That doesn't change the rest of the stuff above for which I've provided citations.
- EthanHeilman 10y ago
  1. Funding the opposition, is not the same as fund a coup or arming factions in a civil war. The US funds opposition movements in many countries. The link you give is about the US performing a raid into Syria against an Iraqi insurgent network. 2. What happened in Syria is a civil war not a Coup d'etat. >"the Syrians who had been trained, armed, and radicalized by the CIA fled to Iraq when the coup failed and started ISIS." The civil war was going well for the rebels all throughout the rise of ISIS, so I'm curious when you thought this was happening? All sources agree that ISIS was formed in Iraq and then infiltrated into Syria. "the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups - they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state”" Lets parse that carefully as it is deceptively written: * "the US and its allies" that is, the US had one policy and its allies had another, but the author chooses to group them together to blame the US for activities undertaken by US allies which the US actively opposed and ran counter to US interests. * "supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups" while true the US was going out of its way to arm the less extreme elements (unlike some US allies). * "they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state”", that is, a DIA intelligence assessment considered the possibility that the Sunni population of Iraq might break away from Iraq. They didn't support this possibility, just said it could happen (and it did). This state need not be "The Islamic State", but author choose the name "Islamic State" to make it sound like the US supported the Islamic State. The author of that piece is being willfully misleading. Note that it was published in the Opinion section of the guardian. Even with all that the author supports my claim that ISIS started in Iraq.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- EthanHeilman 10y ago
  BTW thanks for an interesting conversation. I wish there was a better format for it than reply threads. It would be really helpful be able to address and counter-address claims. So much gets lost in the confusion of the format.

Consultant32452 10y ago

1. The CIA has been funding Syrian opposition forces since 2006, well before the civil war began in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#Paramilitary_raids.2C_2004.E2.80.9308 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#Parami... Wikileaks has reported that the US government has been covertly funding the Syrian opposition since 2006.[40] 2. Yes, ISIS started in Iraq, by not primarily by Iraqis. As I said, the Syrians who had been trained, armed, and radicalized by the CIA fled to Iraq when the coup failed and started ISIS. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isi... A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria. 3. See #2 above, we clearly funded and armed what became ISIS. 4. You're right on this one. The reports of the two parties backed by the CIA and Pentagon fighting each other had me mixed up. That doesn't change the rest of the stuff above for which I've provided citations.

EthanHeilman 10y ago
1. Funding the opposition, is not the same as fund a coup or arming factions in a civil war. The US funds opposition movements in many countries. The link you give is about the US performing a raid into Syria against an Iraqi insurgent network. 2. What happened in Syria is a civil war not a Coup d'etat. >"the Syrians who had been trained, armed, and radicalized by the CIA fled to Iraq when the coup failed and started ISIS." The civil war was going well for the rebels all throughout the rise of ISIS, so I'm curious when you thought this was happening? All sources agree that ISIS was formed in Iraq and then infiltrated into Syria. "the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups - they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state”" Lets parse that carefully as it is deceptively written: * "the US and its allies" that is, the US had one policy and its allies had another, but the author chooses to group them together to blame the US for activities undertaken by US allies which the US actively opposed and ran counter to US interests. * "supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups" while true the US was going out of its way to arm the less extreme elements (unlike some US allies). * "they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state”", that is, a DIA intelligence assessment considered the possibility that the Sunni population of Iraq might break away from Iraq. They didn't support this possibility, just said it could happen (and it did). This state need not be "The Islamic State", but author choose the name "Islamic State" to make it sound like the US supported the Islamic State. The author of that piece is being willfully misleading. Note that it was published in the Opinion section of the guardian. Even with all that the author supports my claim that ISIS started in Iraq.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
EthanHeilman 10y ago
BTW thanks for an interesting conversation. I wish there was a better format for it than reply threads. It would be really helpful be able to address and counter-address claims. So much gets lost in the confusion of the format.