3 ms·

That's just not true. It's precursor, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, predates the Iraq war. It is true that the downfall of Saddam gave them opportunity, you can'

That's just not true. It's precursor, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, predates the Iraq war. It is true that the downfall of Saddam gave them opportunity, you can't definitively say similar opportunity wouldn't have come about in an Arab spring uprising just as there was in Syria. Islamist and Jihadists groups are all throughout the region and sub Saharan Africa. To claim that these are just American reactionaries is a self centered western view.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
There does definitely seem to be a pattern with Western intervention in these states and the emergence of hardcore religious militant groups. The Western interventions tend to piss everybody off and flood the country with cash, guns, and training opportunities, and it's easy to hit up wealthy princes in UAE and Saudi for cash for your militant group when it's a matter of driving the US out.
sudosysgen 6y ago
It's precursor would never have been able to pose any challenge to the Syrian military if it wasn't for the weapons the US and it's allies pumped into them. The Syrian Army would still have been able to destroy the Jihadists if it wasn't for the US waging war against the Syrian Army, by the way of airstrikes and missile strikes. I can definitively say that Iraq would not have collapsed into a failed state if Saddam had been deposed organically. Hell, if it wasn't for the occupation of Iraq by the US up to and including this very day its possible the Iraqi state would have been able to rebuild itself, one way or another. That being said, a large amount of terrorist groups in the Middle East find the roots even earlier, in the US support of jihadis against the Soviets. And wouldn't you know it! The founder of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, was financed and trained in order to go fight against the USSR in Afghanistan. Financed by who exactly? By Bin Laden, of course. Which himself got his money and material for who? Wouldn't you believe it, it's the old red white and blue again.
- onepointsixC 6y ago
  Your story is nonfactual. The first US airstrikes in Syria were in 2014[1], the first US airstrikes against the Syria Government were in 2017[2]. Both long after the Syrian Armed forces had lost control of the situation. The mass defection of Syrian Army soldiers and officers to the Free Syrian Army guaranteed that the conflict was going to a bloody mess with arms falling into hands of all parties, long before the US started supplying arms. And no, you can't for certain say that Iraq would have fared better, as Iran would have fueled Shia sectarianism all the same in Iraq as it did post US invasion. Iran in fact was Sadam's greatest concern before his WMD bluff backfired. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_t... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_attacks_on_Syria_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_attacks_...
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    >Your story is nonfactual. The first US airstrikes in Syria were in 2014[1], the first US airstrikes against the Syria Government were in 2017[2]. Both long after the Syrian Armed forces had lost control of the situation. Yes, and that has contributed to make the ISIS mess even worse. In that way the US is responisble for that. >The mass defection of Syrian Army soldiers and officers to the Free Syrian Army guaranteed that the conflict was going to a bloody mess with arms falling into hands of all parties, long before the US started supplying arms. The Free Syrian Army, which was also incidentally funded and armed by the US. >And no, you can't for certain say that Iraq would have fared better, as Iran would have fueled Shia sectarianism all the same in Iraq as it did post US invasion. Iran in fact was Sadam's greatest concern before his WMD bluff backfired. In which case either he would have been overthrown or the country would have fragmented. In both cases, the state or states would have been able to crush ISIS.
  - thrwway34 6y ago
    His story is factual, but those facts are opposite to the truth.
fiblye 6y ago
A lot of it traces back to anti-Soviet forces. Many modern terror groups are offshoots of militant forces funded and trained to fight against the Soviets. What major western country had the resources and motivation to destroy Soviet influences at any cost necessary is, of course, a mystery to this day.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Tack on the geopolitical quagmire of Pakistan taking advantage of the opportunity to ensure India would never hold sway in Afghanistan, the Saudis trying to counter Iranian influence in Afghanistan, and the Iranians trying to counter Saudi influence in Afghanistan. Just one big snowball landing at the doorstep of one of the planet's poorest countries.

phobosanomaly 6y ago

There does definitely seem to be a pattern with Western intervention in these states and the emergence of hardcore religious militant groups. The Western interventions tend to piss everybody off and flood the country with cash, guns, and training opportunities, and it's easy to hit up wealthy princes in UAE and Saudi for cash for your militant group when it's a matter of driving the US out.

sudosysgen 6y ago

It's precursor would never have been able to pose any challenge to the Syrian military if it wasn't for the weapons the US and it's allies pumped into them. The Syrian Army would still have been able to destroy the Jihadists if it wasn't for the US waging war against the Syrian Army, by the way of airstrikes and missile strikes. I can definitively say that Iraq would not have collapsed into a failed state if Saddam had been deposed organically. Hell, if it wasn't for the occupation of Iraq by the US up to and including this very day its possible the Iraqi state would have been able to rebuild itself, one way or another. That being said, a large amount of terrorist groups in the Middle East find the roots even earlier, in the US support of jihadis against the Soviets. And wouldn't you know it! The founder of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, was financed and trained in order to go fight against the USSR in Afghanistan. Financed by who exactly? By Bin Laden, of course. Which himself got his money and material for who? Wouldn't you believe it, it's the old red white and blue again.

onepointsixC 6y ago
Your story is nonfactual. The first US airstrikes in Syria were in 2014[1], the first US airstrikes against the Syria Government were in 2017[2]. Both long after the Syrian Armed forces had lost control of the situation. The mass defection of Syrian Army soldiers and officers to the Free Syrian Army guaranteed that the conflict was going to a bloody mess with arms falling into hands of all parties, long before the US started supplying arms. And no, you can't for certain say that Iraq would have fared better, as Iran would have fueled Shia sectarianism all the same in Iraq as it did post US invasion. Iran in fact was Sadam's greatest concern before his WMD bluff backfired. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_t... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_attacks_on_Syria_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_attacks_...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  >Your story is nonfactual. The first US airstrikes in Syria were in 2014[1], the first US airstrikes against the Syria Government were in 2017[2]. Both long after the Syrian Armed forces had lost control of the situation. Yes, and that has contributed to make the ISIS mess even worse. In that way the US is responisble for that. >The mass defection of Syrian Army soldiers and officers to the Free Syrian Army guaranteed that the conflict was going to a bloody mess with arms falling into hands of all parties, long before the US started supplying arms. The Free Syrian Army, which was also incidentally funded and armed by the US. >And no, you can't for certain say that Iraq would have fared better, as Iran would have fueled Shia sectarianism all the same in Iraq as it did post US invasion. Iran in fact was Sadam's greatest concern before his WMD bluff backfired. In which case either he would have been overthrown or the country would have fragmented. In both cases, the state or states would have been able to crush ISIS.
- thrwway34 6y ago
  His story is factual, but those facts are opposite to the truth.

fiblye 6y ago

A lot of it traces back to anti-Soviet forces. Many modern terror groups are offshoots of militant forces funded and trained to fight against the Soviets. What major western country had the resources and motivation to destroy Soviet influences at any cost necessary is, of course, a mystery to this day.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
Tack on the geopolitical quagmire of Pakistan taking advantage of the opportunity to ensure India would never hold sway in Afghanistan, the Saudis trying to counter Iranian influence in Afghanistan, and the Iranians trying to counter Saudi influence in Afghanistan. Just one big snowball landing at the doorstep of one of the planet's poorest countries.