The Rise of ISIS, explained in 6 minutes

JANFU said:

Explain why they received such massive support from many Sunni's. The Iraqi PM laid that fertile ground.
You know it as well as I.
It was only a matter of time before it exploded.

Click to expand...

No...actually the sunnis laid the ground well before then. Keep in mind, the majority of iraqis were ****e muslims living under a sunni led dictatorship. And when the first post invasion elections were held, sunnis largely boycotted the voting. The sunni insurgents did not want to share power, they wanted it all.

ObamacareFail said:

No...actually the sunnis laid the ground well before then. Keep in mind, the majority of iraqis were ****e muslims living under a sunni led dictatorship. And when the first post invasion elections were held, sunnis largely boycotted the voting. The sunni insurgents did not want to share power, they wanted it all.

Click to expand...

Yes, afetr the Awakening there was still much support left. My point is ISIL is descended from AQ and there was a split with iSIL taking the lead

ObamacareFail said:

Do you really think consideration of invading Iraq started with Bush?

Click to expand...

(chuckle)

Dude, Saddam had used gas on the Kurds by then. Again, I've shown plenty of proofs to back up the Vox video. EVERYBODY hated Saddam; we hated Gaddafi too, but we had no talk of invading a sovereign country.

JANFU said:

Yes, afetr the Awakening there was still much support left. My point is ISIL is descended from AQ and there was a split with iSIL taking the lead

Click to expand...

No doubt about that. Murderous extremist nut jobs will be murderous extremist nut jobs....however Bush did not create them.

jet57 said:

(chuckle)

Dude, Saddam had used gas on the Kurds by then. Again, I've shown plenty of proofs to back up the Vox video. EVERYBODY hated Saddam; we hated Gaddafi too, but we had no talk of invading a sovereign country.

Click to expand...

You did not do alot of listening back then, sport. And keep in mind, most of the democrats you worship voted to approve the invasion of Iraq. They did not want to be left out of the credit for any success. It was only when the insurgency started that they suddenly acted as if they were against it all along.

ObamacareFail said:

No doubt about that. Murderous extremist nut jobs will be murderous extremist nut jobs....however Bush did not create them.

Click to expand...

Morning
My opinion is the war in Iraq created the environment for AQ to expand. Then under PM Maliki with death squads approved by him and-or his turning a blind eye to the mass murders of Sunni's, the corruption and on and on.

ObamacareFail said:

You did not do alot of listening back then, sport. And keep in mind, most of the democrats you worship voted to approve the invasion of Iraq. They did not want to be left out of the credit for any success. It was only when the insurgency started that they suddenly acted as if they were against it all along.

Click to expand...

You are on the money on there.

JANFU said:

Morning
My opinion is the war in Iraq created the environment for AQ to expand. Then under PM Maliki with death squads approved by him and-or his turning a blind eye to the mass murders of Sunni's, the corruption and on and on.

Click to expand...

Islamic extremism created both Al Queda and ISIS. The war in Iraq did not create them. Isis merely took advantage of a weak iraqi military and our moronic president not leaving a contingent of troops behind.

ObamacareFail said:

You did not do alot of listening back then, sport. And keep in mind, most of the democrats you worship voted to approve the invasion of Iraq. They did not want to be left out of the credit for any success. It was only when the insurgency started that they suddenly acted as if they were against it all along.

Click to expand...

That's a slight. I like very very few Democrats and some Republicans, so you can stop that.

Now, I think that Barbra Lee (whom I can't stand) was about the only one who voted against it. But of course she turned about to be right didn't she...

Now 911 provided a very convenient circumstance for the Bush cabal to exercise the plan that I have proven was already in motion. I vividly remember the "patriotism" that was palpable, and the pressure to do something about it. The weak and stupid Dems didn't want to be harassed for being "unpatriotic", so they drank the koolaid along with the just about the whole of D.C. It had already been successfully argued that Saddam wasn't building something to make a mushroom cloud, and of course - even by the admission of Gen. Colin Powell - we'd all been lied to.

As for the back peddling - I agree with you 110%. It was shameful and yet another example of why I have equal disdain, for different reasons, for both Dems and Repubs.

No, I paid a lot of attention to that debacle and why we are suffering for it now. ISIS is a great example of what happens when you let sectarian zealots and ignorant followers have their way with the world. The other time was The Crusades.

And p.s: be careful with the "insurgent" thing. This country was started by "insurgents". The Young Turks were "insurgents" against the Ottoman empire. Insurgents just don't like interlopers.

ocean515 said:

Your claim, like that of the very ideologically driven Vox, is not supported in any way by historical facts.

The ME has been a powder keg of conflict for many millenniums. If one were not driven by ideological imperatives, they might settle on Saddam's attempt to corner a vast portion of the known global oil reserves by invading Kuwait as the flash point creating Daesh, since that resulted in a global response and occupation by Westerners.

One could point to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and identify that as the catalyst for the Daesh. The historical context list could go on and on.

Yet, Vox can only point to it's ideologically predetermined conclusion: Bush, and the response to 9/11 created Daesh.

As I wrote, it would refreshing to view an actual historical overview of the true events that gave rise to Daesh, you know, something that might include Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, etc., etc..

Click to expand...

The video started off with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I'm against excessive blaming of the Iraq War for ISIS, but it's undeniable that it did set the stage for ISIS to become what it is today, whether or not that was inevitable. Furthermore, the video did what it was intended to do: provide a quick explanation of the immediate political causes of ISIS. Discussing eighteenth-century Wahhabism isn't really within that scope. Since Vox provided a fairly accurate summary that helps educate large numbers of people who are otherwise uninformed or apathetic with regards to ISIS, I'd say they did a good job.

MadLib said:

The video started off with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I'm against excessive blaming of the Iraq War for ISIS, but it's undeniable that it did set the stage for ISIS to become what it is today, whether or not that was inevitable. Furthermore, the video did what it was intended to do: provide a quick explanation of the immediate political causes of ISIS. Discussing eighteenth-century Wahhabism isn't really within that scope. Since Vox provided a fairly accurate summary that helps educate large numbers of people who are otherwise uninformed or apathetic with regards to ISIS, I'd say they did a good job.

Click to expand...

Everything in the ME matters in scope. The tribalism of Afghanistan is central to everything that goes on in the country. Starting with the Soviet invasion seems to purposefully eliminate major historical facts.

Does the video explain in any depth at all why the Soviets invaded?

Let's not get too caught up trying to reject the obvious, which others on this thread apparently will never be able to do. This Vox video was designed as propaganda with a result that was predetermined, and most likely, served as inspiration to make it in the first place.

ocean515 said:

Everything in the ME matters in scope. The tribalism of Afghanistan is central to everything that goes on in the country. Starting with the Soviet invasion seems to purposefully eliminate major historical facts.

Does the video explain in any depth at all why the Soviets invaded?

Let's not get too caught up trying to reject the obvious, which others on this thread apparently will never be able to do. This Vox video was designed as propaganda with a result that was predetermined, and most likely, served as inspiration to make it in the first place.

Click to expand...

Except the motivations behind the Soviet invasion (and Afghanistan in general) aren't particularly relevant to a basic understanding of ISIS. I agree that Vox omitted a lot of important information, including ISIS' rabid hatred of Shia Muslims, its relationship with the Syrian opposition, the role of Turkey and Gulf Arab donors, etc., but I understand that you can't cram complex international relations and historical analysis into a six-minute video. If the video was attempting to provide an in-depth analysis of how ISIS came to power, it did an incomplete job, but that was clearly not its goal. I'd prefer that people see this on their Facebook feed and watch it rather than continuing to think that ISIS is just a terrorist group that beheads people, and I don't really see how mentioning the Iraq War in a slightly negative light turns the video into worthless propaganda when it also points out how AQI was severely weakened during our presence there.

jet57 said:

That's a slight. I like very very few Democrats and some Republicans, so you can stop that.

Click to expand...

Fair enough....however I still find you left of center. And when you defend the like's of Hillary and other's who backpeddled on their earlier support for the invasion of Iraq, expect to be called on it.

Now, I think that Barbra Lee (whom I can't stand) was about the only one who voted against it. But of course she turned about to be right didn't she...

Click to expand...

History in the long run will decide whether the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do.

Now 911 provided a very convenient circumstance for the Bush cabal to exercise the plan that I have proven was already in motion. I vividly remember the "patriotism" that was palpable, and the pressure to do something about it. The weak and stupid Dems didn't want to be harassed for being "unpatriotic", so they drank the koolaid along with the just about the whole of D.C. It had already been successfully argued that Saddam wasn't building something to make a mushroom cloud, and of course - even by the admission of Gen. Colin Powell - we'd all been lied to.

Click to expand...

That is a copout of enormous proportions. From about The democrats were hawks in regards to Iraq at a minimum at least 2 years before Bush was even elected president. You may not remember that, however I do. And the video I posted backs that up. As for 911 being used as an excuse, I don't buy that. If anything, it just made us less patient with despotic regimes like the Saddam regime, who was already in blatant violation of the treaty it signed to end the 1991 war. Just their shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone was enough to justify war. In any case, I hate war as much as you do, however to be bluntly honest, another war with Iraq was inevitable. Besides violating the terms that ended the 91 war, they were still threatening our allies in the region as well as half the world's known oil reserves. And whether you want to accept it or not, the regime was still working to gain nukes and still maintaining the ability to crank of production of weapons of mass destruction.

As for the back peddling - I agree with you 110%. It was shameful and yet another example of why I have equal disdain, for different reasons, for both Dems and Repubs.

Click to expand...

I have no use for establishment politicians on either side.

No, I paid a lot of attention to that debacle and why we are suffering for it now. ISIS is a great example of what happens when you let sectarian zealots and ignorant followers have their way with the world. The other time was The Crusades.

Click to expand...

That's why we enacted the first amendment to our constitution. Our government cannot declare any specific religion or force us to practice religion. We are not a clerical state. No state should be. We are free to choose our own religion or none at all.

And p.s: be careful with the "insurgent" thing. This country was started by "insurgents". The Young Turks were "insurgents" against the Ottoman empire. Insurgents just don't like interlopers.

Click to expand...

Not the same thing....at least in regards to Iraq Our country was started by insurgents whose goal was to get us out from under King Richard's monarchial rule. We were being taxed without representation. We were also seeking freedom of speech and religion. The insurgents in Iraq were strictly sectarian along religious lines. Their goal was forcing everyone in Iraq to abide by their version of religion and strict sharia law.

MadLib said:

The video started off with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I'm against excessive blaming of the Iraq War for ISIS, but it's undeniable that it did set the stage for ISIS to become what it is today, whether or not that was inevitable. Furthermore, the video did what it was intended to do: provide a quick explanation of the immediate political causes of ISIS. Discussing eighteenth-century Wahhabism isn't really within that scope. Since Vox provided a fairly accurate summary that helps educate large numbers of people who are otherwise uninformed or apathetic with regards to ISIS, I'd say they did a good job.

Click to expand...

Too many make the mistake of leaving out past history for the sake of blaming a specific modern event for nut job jihadist groups like ISIS. Ocean is correct.....the roots to such groups as ISIS and Al Queda forming should be followed back to significant historical events that contributed. The modern left wing concept of "let's not rock the boat" is the equivalent of sticking our heads in the sand.

OrphanSlug said:

Or, it could have something to do with a completely unrealistic idea for Iraq resulting in permanent occupation and all the complications that yields. I would ask you to point out exactly what the OP video got wrong, or at least misrepresented, something.

Click to expand...

It looked like it covered both debatable sides. The invasion of Iraq after 9/11 and the early pull out. We need to continue to be on the offensive with them.

MadLib said:

Except the motivations behind the Soviet invasion (and Afghanistan in general) aren't particularly relevant to a basic understanding of ISIS. I agree that Vox omitted a lot of important information, including ISIS' rabid hatred of Shia Muslims, its relationship with the Syrian opposition, the role of Turkey and Gulf Arab donors, etc., but I understand that you can't cram complex international relations and historical analysis into a six-minute video. If the video was attempting to provide an in-depth analysis of how ISIS came to power, it did an incomplete job, but that was clearly not its goal. I'd prefer that people see this on their Facebook feed and watch it rather than continuing to think that ISIS is just a terrorist group that beheads people, and I don't really see how mentioning the Iraq War in a slightly negative light turns the video into worthless propaganda when it also points out how AQI was severely weakened during our presence there.

Click to expand...

I would suggest such motivations are very relevant. The history of alliances and tribalism dating back hundreds of years gives context to everything that has happened, and continues to happen. Vox, which is a very agenda driven operation, has prepared a slice of history designed to present a singular conclusion. It's inaccurate, extremely biased, and certainly doesn't serve any historical purpose. What else could it be viewed as?