Would ISIS have attempted to overthrown Hussein if the U.S. military hadn't done it first?

I'm not at all supporting the invasion of Iraq. It was despicable on so many levels. But you can't say the world would have been different if the elements of ISIS would have been left to fester under Hussein instead of the aftermath of the war.

ISIS did not spring from the head of Zeus.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

being that the leadrship of ISIS are from the from the Republican Guard and former Iraqi Army.
ISIS built up to the power it is today because the Sunnis that were thrown out of power when the US invaded Iraq. At that time ISIS hadnt any money to support their terrorist org. and they were tiny.


That was until insurgents were paid by the Bush admin to not attack our troops $400M to make it seem like The Surge™ was working.

willing to create havoc?

So many DU'ers think the US and western countries are the only ones playing stupid games in the ME.

The ME has PLENTY of corrupt actors with very deep pockets.

Their predecessor group was founded in 1999: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama%27at_al-Tawhid_wal-Jihad

created this entire clusterfuck. du gets weirder by the day.

"1. Did ISIS exist, even in an unorganized way, during the reign of Sadam Hussein?"

"4. Actually yes they did - Their predecessor group was founded in 1999: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama%27at_al-Tawhid_wal-Jihad"

And God forbid a democrat disagree with another democrat huh? Cuz that would be wrong, oh so wrong.

The poster answered the question that was asked. Nothing more, nothing less, and without editorializing I might add.

That is two editorials right in the subject line - that duers are 'making excuses for ISIS', and that such excuse making is 'insane'.

You responded to a post that said in its subject line: "Actually yes they did."

status quo and how we got here. I didn't want a separate post.

Thank you all for your comments.

Same tribes. They could convert overnight to Jainism and there would still be a war over there. They want to be on top. The Shittite tribes want to be on top. We handed the whip hand to the Shiite tribes. Let's see who wins. But let's see from here, and stop causing trouble over there.

GW's stupidity was just the lightning rod.

People like to pretend what we did was a good thing for Iraq, instead of admitting to the clusterfuck in the ME we created under George Bush and Dick Cheney.

ISIS would have been crushed like all the other radical groups, Sadam was secular and hated radical Islam.

STILL continued to fund terrorists in part to save their own corrupted hold on power?

rec

It's the usual fear and loathing of stating even a hint of agreement about anything that the other side believes.

This fear is legitimized by the cadre of small minded binary thinkers whose opinion somehow manages to remain influential. Somehow the simple statement that a lot of awful acts of terror seem motivated by Islam requires an appeal to the CRUSADES.

Moreover, equivocation and evenhandedness are seen as virtues when they can be used against arguments which derive from patriotism and nationalism. If a redneck wearing a bald eagle t shirt expresses a desire to wipe out ISIS, some people would rather join ISIS or be killed by them than agree with a redneck. Whoops - I meant rather than BE SEEN agreeing with a redneck.

This is the mentality which causes people to appeal to a comparatively tiny number of outrageous acts committed by Americans (Timothy McVeigh) to supposedly put an increasing number of recent horrors in some false perspective. It's also why the horrors of psychos like Dylann Roof are seized upon so quickly and righteously ("Terror!! They better call it terror! It's right wing domestic TERROR!!!&quot : as we have learned, one Roof can be used to put God knows how many Parises and Brussels in "perspective."

Of course, those who can walk, chew gum, and accept reality all at the same time accept that each of the examples I've cited are equally bad. Even so, I'll get accused of Islamophobia and "right wing talking points" in 3...2...1...

Radicalism rarely is good policy

People need to be the priority, not philosophies and schools of thought. I can't defend the man with the lash who beats the other man for being gay. I can only stand up for the man being beaten and against the forces that empower that lash. Those are my priorities. What are yours?

Homopohobes, anti-semites, racists, xenophobes, sexists, misogynists, et cetera are horrible people regardless of where they find their inspiration.

Middle Eastern genies.

People are in some serious denial about the effects of our government's violent, self-serving conduct in the Middle East. The atmosphere of hate makes rational appeals futile.

in pursuit of self-serving geopolitical goals.

Does it in any way alter the fact Islam has historically been a supremacist imperialism?

It's acceptable to brutalize countries that are populated by Muslims.

But I guess to the truly devoted, obama's warring is by default much more righteous than bush's. in January he'll become the first two term president ever to spend his entire eight years at war. yay!

when it's our guy doing it, donchya know? Seriously, this is a problem the people who live with ISIS have to handle themselves. An outside military force will be the enemy of both.

Nt

and i am not implying it did. It was aimed at the plethora of people here who think we need to fifht these people head on. It is time for other countries to start handling their own shit. We can't afford to try to be world cop anymore.

First, last and always crowd never cease to amaze me with the contortions they engage in to avoid blaming anyone else.

The fact Islam was a supremacist imperialism 1000 years before the US existed never gets mentioned.

Why did Muslim troops invade Spain, Greece or Vienna, Austria? Because of US aggressions?

It is astonishing and somewhat sad to me, that presumed liberal thinkers can believe that the brutal, violent Western policies of resource dominance in the ME have had no effect on civil society there. It indicates some serious pathology in the American worldview.

Islam was spread at the tip of the sword
Most of today's Muslim countries were coerced into conversion.

Why you would exonerate the Muslim imperialism of the past to heap scorn on the much milder form of modern imperialism (the US never had the will to annex other lands for centuries) is somewhat puzzling.

Could it be because criticizing 'American imperialism' never entails any consequence while criticizing 'Islamic imperialism' could?

Right now, you and I both bear responsibility for our government's conduct.

And Islam is an imperialism as bad as GW was.

Because they aligned themselves with Russia.

We have used imperialist Islam to do so.

Who do you think the mujahadeen were? Who do you think the "moderate rebels" in Syria are?

Read any book by an expert on jihadi radicalization: islamism grew as the only sustainable opposition to the post colonial dictatorships: Said Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood were all the opposition there was against the corrupt regime of Egypt's generals. Same in Algeria. Libya.

But I grant you that Reagan did use Afghanistan's Talibans against the Soviets.

your toes. I am not sure I want you to research. You'd be stunned.

They are forever rambling about how people who don't like endless war are the "Blame America Crowd"

Is it an excuse for some activists to apparently always find fault with the US first?

The invasion of Iraq was a tremendous crime, spreading violence throughout the region, increasing extremism, causing one of the worst refugee crises in history, and directly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. You are not going to be able to blow all this off, as if it doesn't matter.

It does not alter the fact the islamist ideology has been pumped into literally tens of millions of people prior to the Iraqi blunder.

For decades, Saudi money has funded radical madrasas in Pakistan and Egypt, teaching hatred of the western kuffars on an industrial scale.

Iraq and the non resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli situation are just the flames fueled by oceans of radical hatred which has been deliberately stoked by the wahhabis.

As well as the literal desire to destroy and kill anyone who isn't exactly like them...in an effort to bring about the actual, literal apocalypse. Apparently the Messiah won't show up if any part of the planet is occupied by non-ISIS people.

window dressing so they can maintain their criminal enterprises. i.e. you can think of ISIS as the mob with a terrorist-wing...

You are buying into ISIS propaganda if you think it's all about the invasion.

A criminal organization is all about money. ISIS is about doctrine: their version of Islam.

The goal of ISIS is a worldwide caliphate
That's for that ideal that young people from all over the world join them
The ISIS leaders do not live in luxury, they want paradise

Oil revenues and Qatari subsidies are used to buy weapons and pay volunteers.

no victory is possible.

If we treat them as what they are: a criminal organization, we can roll them up over time like the FBI did the Mafia. Don't mistake the horsehead from what's really going on.

There is an ample body of evidence the key goal of ISIS is religious.

Case in point: the young people who leave their countries in the Muslim world or Europe repeatedly tell they go there to fight the jihad, not to get rich quick.

And if they kill us we blame guns, Christians, and the NRA.

But when it comes to other religions, they will defend them against any criticism.

No is is making excuses for ISIS. This is a method of arguing that is not effective and causes ill will. Take a position of absurd extremism and attribute it to the other side. Thinking you are making them look bad, and so extreme that it is beyond reason.

It's a bigger challenge not to do that and to deal with the arguments being made.

regarding the consequences of the Iraq invasion.

A consequence was that a whole lot of military or police trained (such as it was) youngish adult men were left unemployed by "debaathification" and also lots of military weaponry was left unsecured or they already had it in their possession. No work, no real security in the country, and these people with nothing but time on their hands, weapons, and anger. Sure a lot of what they are doing has nothing directly to do with anger at the US, but we put a lot of people out there ripe for the pickin' by the extremist groups, and ready for brainwashing.

So I don't think it's where the ISIS ideology came from at all - in that I agree with your OP - but I do think they gained a lot of recruits, and therefore power, from the consequences of the Iraq invasion.

since they had minimal involvement in the coalitions. Plus many of the victims in the France attacks have been Muslim too.

They just can't catch a break

ISIS is primarily made up of the Sunni minority of Iraq, which was also the group that made up the Baathist Party headed by Sadam Hussein. These people are further pissed off at the Baathists of Syria who failed to come to their aid when invaded by the US.

The Baathists ALWAYS oppressed the Shias who were the majority of Iraq.

Man, you REALLY need to read some of the history before you decide to give people a bunch of guff for telling the truth (at least, in part).

Quite frankly, the entire situation is far more complicated than either you or those you rail against are making it out to be.

TIA

Is my guess.

Acknowledging our own role in recruitment and foreign policy failings that lead to increased radicalization is not the same as excusing ISIS.

activities there.

On par with the likes of the The Jewish Partisans, or the Polish Underground, or the Viet Minh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7976141

Isis is fighting a cosmic war and is trying to draw western countries into the fray. Isis initially formed in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.

They are fighting a COSMIC WAR and they believe they are bringing about the end of the world.

Their predecessor group was formed in 1999. But back then they were just a ragtag band of jihadists of little threat to anyone outside Iraq and of no threat to the continuance of Saddam's regime.

In the aftermath of Paul Bremers decision to "de-Baathify" the Iraqi civil and military services.

http://theweek.com/articles/589924/brief-history-isis

While subjecting them to the hell of war and occupation.

What the fuck did people think would happen?

In the Republicans lust for oil

we take another approach?

When GOPers speak of ISIS, Taliban, or whatever, they are promoting bombing the hell out of any Islamic country and branding all Muslims the enemy and treating them as such.

Because of that, I think we need to be careful how we speak of ISIS. Some may find that apologizing or excusing ISIS, it's not.

ISIS is very clear: they want literal Islam = its expansion over the whole world.

In its full cream, full caffeine version, beheadings, stonings and all.

Now, you can spend time pondering over different approaches to ISIS, it's inconsequential.

We have a problem, but not with most Muslims. I'm against approaching it any other way.

As a % of the population they had sway over, ISIS is far more lethal than any western bomb.

Besides, bombs are being dropped on ISIS to clear out a jihadi training ground.

But I suppose 9/11, Orlando or San Bernardino were all provoked by the US in some way?

You stated the 2003 invasion of Iraq "destabilized the area allowing ISIS to spread," and I agree. However, it should be obvious the atrocities and the ideology of ISIS go far beyond a simple reaction to the invasion.

I wasn't aware anyone was making that argument, but considering the wide range of people who post on the internet I wouldn't be surprised (though I haven't encountered someone making what amounts to an excuse for ISIS).

Is it really a thing that has some traction around here?

in their way to dominance.

I honestly don't know.

done by Christians.

Everything bad in the world is therefore in their worldview a result of western imperialism and blah blah blah.

The latest line of bullshit is that they're propagating is that the misogyny and homophobia found in Islam isn't the fault of you know Islam but the fault of colonial era penal codes that established it. So yeah, before the British turned up in Yemen in 1839 the area looked like the Castro combined with Wellesley.

clearly.

Especially in Europe where Christianity is now completely fading away, the ghost teachings of Christianity still permeate political attitudes, including the guilt over the "original sin" of colonization, and "turn the other cheek" if a minority of Muslim immigrants reject gay rights or show hostility toward Jews.

People still have the psychological wiring for religiosity even if they're too rational to embrace a traditional religion, so those energies are directed elsewhere.

So instead of raging against depictions of Muhammad, you rage against depictions of Spider Girl's bum.

Or instead of admonishing people for eating pork, you admonish them for driving a car.

Religion and revolution were the opiate of the masses, but people need hope and dreams.

How to generate hope and dream with caring, reasonable, but ultimately dull policies?