Are they really due to Western foreign policies?

stardustypsyche · July 8, 2017, 3:27am

Then we can at last truthfully say that the actions of a self proclaimed Muslim had nothing to do with Islam.

adamski · July 8, 2017, 9:03am

I also believe that US warmongering in the Middle East and playing games involving Islamic fanaticism were partly responsible for the birth and survival of ISIS thus far. But ISIS is not the only Islamic criminal group in the world, nor is the USA the only victim. In this thread there are many examples where weak and nonviolent innocent people have been brutalized by the Islamic fanatics in many parts of the world. Here are two recent examples: Pakistan sentences man to death for blasphemy on Facebook https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/pakistan-man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-on-facebook Islamist Mob Goes on Rampage Over Facebook Post https://clarionproject.org/islamist-mob-goes-on-rampage-over-facebook-post/sukhamaya why does the USA support Isis and alqaeda affiliated groups against Assad?

webplodder · July 8, 2017, 10:47am

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle.

adamski · July 8, 2017, 12:19pm

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. Wahhabism is a friend to USA foreign policy

sbain · July 8, 2017, 5:00pm

Most likely to keep stupid people fighting with each other, so that the USA could sell weapons, and when possible get into the fight to use the multimillion dollar bombs. That keeps the weapons business healthy, where foreign despots and the US tax payers buy those weapons.

adamski · July 9, 2017, 8:10am

Most likely to keep stupid people fighting with each other, so that the USA could sell weapons, and when possible get into the fight to use the multimillion dollar bombs. That keeps the weapons business healthy, where foreign despots and the US tax payers buy those weapons. so you would then agree all the talk about intervention claiming the right to protect, democracy, freedom blah blah blah is bullshit?

loisl · July 9, 2017, 4:43pm

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West.

adamski · July 9, 2017, 8:31pm

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. What's your evidence for this?

sbain · July 10, 2017, 12:59am

Most likely to keep stupid people fighting with each other, so that the USA could sell weapons, and when possible get into the fight to use the multimillion dollar bombs. That keeps the weapons business healthy, where foreign despots and the US tax payers buy those weapons. so you would then agree all the talk about intervention claiming the right to protect, democracy, freedom blah blah blah is bullshit? Yes, I would agree. I also think that most US interventions in foreign countries have been wrong and have given bad results.

webplodder · July 10, 2017, 7:11am

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to blaming everything on western intervention, even when they do not actually intervene!

adamski · July 10, 2017, 7:43am

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to blaming everything on western intervention, even when they do not actually intervene! Give me an example

webplodder · July 10, 2017, 7:48am

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to blaming everything on western intervention, even when they do not actually intervene! Give me an example ISIS arose in the absence of any western intervention in Syria. It is only now that the west + Russia + Assad is fighting them after the event. ISIS arose as the result of a re-emergence of Islam fundamentalism to fight everyone else who did not subscribe to their philosophy, not just the west.

adamski · July 10, 2017, 8:09am

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to blaming everything on western intervention, even when they do not actually intervene! Give me an example ISIS arose in the absence of any western intervention in Syria. It is only now that the west + Russia + Assad is fighting them after the event. ISIS arose as the result of a re-emergence of Islam fundamentalism to fight everyone else who did not subscribe to their philosophy, not just the west. Isis grew out of the ruins of Iraq and Libya - a direct consequence of US imperialism. Thanks America. Isis was/is well supported by USA financially and with weapons for regime change in Syria. It was only when they turned back into Iraq for the creation of their caliphate were they seen as a problem. ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra (ISIS in Syria) and like-minded groups are US creations. They’re used as foot soldiers to advance its imperium – responsible for aiding Washington rape and destroy one country after another.

webplodder · July 10, 2017, 9:05am

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to blaming everything on western intervention, even when they do not actually intervene! Give me an example ISIS arose in the absence of any western intervention in Syria. It is only now that the west + Russia + Assad is fighting them after the event. ISIS arose as the result of a re-emergence of Islam fundamentalism to fight everyone else who did not subscribe to their philosophy, not just the west. Isis grew out of the ruins of Iraq and Libya - a direct consequence of US imperialism. Thanks America. Isis was/is well supported by USA financially and with weapons for regime change in Syria. It was only when they turned back into Iraq for the creation of their caliphate were they seen as a problem. ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra (ISIS in Syria) and like-minded groups are US creations. They’re used as foot soldiers to advance its imperium – responsible for aiding Washington rape and destroy one country after another. But why was ISIS not a factor in Syria before the Arab Spring and the suppression by Assad of revolutionaries? It was the frustration of those suffering under the government of Assad that triggered the emergence of ISIS, at least on a large scale. In fact, here in the UK, many young resident Muslims decided to go and fight for what they saw as the fundamental principles of Islam which were being suppressed by Assad's regime. Had the west intervened at the time it is not clear whether ISIS would have risen to as much prominence as they did. You cannot keep blaming everything on western intervention because there have always existed discontents between the various factions in the Middle East which are easily inflamed. You keep mentioning Washing but do not say anything about Assad. You're being a bit simplistic here. "The Shia Islamist axis used chemical weapons, artillery and barrel bombs to preserve its crescent of influence. Syria's Sunni Arab revolutionaries in turn sought international assistance, and when the world refused, they embraced a pact with the devil, al-Qaida." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/syria-iraq-incubators-isis-jihad

adamski · July 10, 2017, 9:18am

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to blaming everything on western intervention, even when they do not actually intervene! Give me an example ISIS arose in the absence of any western intervention in Syria. It is only now that the west + Russia + Assad is fighting them after the event. ISIS arose as the result of a re-emergence of Islam fundamentalism to fight everyone else who did not subscribe to their philosophy, not just the west. Isis grew out of the ruins of Iraq and Libya - a direct consequence of US imperialism. Thanks America. Isis was/is well supported by USA financially and with weapons for regime change in Syria. It was only when they turned back into Iraq for the creation of their caliphate were they seen as a problem. ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra (ISIS in Syria) and like-minded groups are US creations. They’re used as foot soldiers to advance its imperium – responsible for aiding Washington rape and destroy one country after another. But why was ISIS not a factor in Syria before the Arab Spring and the suppression by Assad of revolutionaries? It was the frustration of those suffering under the government of Assad that triggered the emergence of ISIS, at least on a large scale. In fact, here in the UK, many young resident Muslims decided to go and fight for what they saw as the fundamental principles of Islam which were being suppressed by Assad's regime. Had the west intervened at the time it is not clear whether ISIS would have risen to as much prominence as they did. You cannot keep blaming everything on western intervention because there have always existed discontents between the various factions in the Middle East which are easily inflamed. You keep mentioning Washing but do not say anything about Assad. You're being a bit simplistic here. USA saw the Arab spring in Syria as an opportunity for regime change thereby hijacking the revolution. Here from the world socialist website "The US military interventions in Iraq and Syria are not aimed at “annihilating" ISIS, itself the product of the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq, followed by Washington’s utilization of Islamist fighters as proxy ground forces in the regime-change wars in both Libya and Syria. While Raqqa has been surrounded by US-backed forces from the north, east and west, an escape route for ISIS fighters has been opened up to the southeast in order to funnel them into the province of Deir al-Zour, so they can fight the Syrian army there. Similarly, large numbers of ISIS fighters were allowed to flee Mosul, crossing the border into Syria for the same purpose. Washington’s strategic objectives in Iraq and Syria are not those of “fighting terrorism," but rather consolidating US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and preparing for war against the principal obstacles to this objective, Iran and Russia. For US imperialism, undisputed control over both the Persian Gulf and Central Asia would provide the means to cut off energy supplies to its global rival, China." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/15/pers-j15.html

loisl · July 10, 2017, 6:21pm

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to blaming everything on western intervention, even when they do not actually intervene! Give me an example ISIS arose in the absence of any western intervention in Syria. It is only now that the west + Russia + Assad is fighting them after the event. ISIS arose as the result of a re-emergence of Islam fundamentalism to fight everyone else who did not subscribe to their philosophy, not just the west. Isis grew out of the ruins of Iraq and Libya - a direct consequence of US imperialism. Thanks America. Isis was/is well supported by USA financially and with weapons for regime change in Syria. It was only when they turned back into Iraq for the creation of their caliphate were they seen as a problem. ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra (ISIS in Syria) and like-minded groups are US creations. They’re used as foot soldiers to advance its imperium – responsible for aiding Washington rape and destroy one country after another. But why was ISIS not a factor in Syria before the Arab Spring and the suppression by Assad of revolutionaries? It was the frustration of those suffering under the government of Assad that triggered the emergence of ISIS, at least on a large scale. In fact, here in the UK, many young resident Muslims decided to go and fight for what they saw as the fundamental principles of Islam which were being suppressed by Assad's regime. Had the west intervened at the time it is not clear whether ISIS would have risen to as much prominence as they did. You cannot keep blaming everything on western intervention because there have always existed discontents between the various factions in the Middle East which are easily inflamed. You keep mentioning Washing but do not say anything about Assad. You're being a bit simplistic here. USA saw the Arab spring in Syria as an opportunity for regime change thereby hijacking the revolution. Here from the world socialist website "The US military interventions in Iraq and Syria are not aimed at “annihilating" ISIS, itself the product of the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq, followed by Washington’s utilization of Islamist fighters as proxy ground forces in the regime-change wars in both Libya and Syria. While Raqqa has been surrounded by US-backed forces from the north, east and west, an escape route for ISIS fighters has been opened up to the southeast in order to funnel them into the province of Deir al-Zour, so they can fight the Syrian army there. Similarly, large numbers of ISIS fighters were allowed to flee Mosul, crossing the border into Syria for the same purpose. Washington’s strategic objectives in Iraq and Syria are not those of “fighting terrorism," but rather consolidating US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and preparing for war against the principal obstacles to this objective, Iran and Russia. For US imperialism, undisputed control over both the Persian Gulf and Central Asia would provide the means to cut off energy supplies to its global rival, China." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/15/pers-j15.html You are an expert at magnifying one side of an issue and ignoring all the rest. You are a typical empty-headed ideologue.

adamski · July 10, 2017, 9:46pm

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to blaming everything on western intervention, even when they do not actually intervene! Give me an example ISIS arose in the absence of any western intervention in Syria. It is only now that the west + Russia + Assad is fighting them after the event. ISIS arose as the result of a re-emergence of Islam fundamentalism to fight everyone else who did not subscribe to their philosophy, not just the west. Isis grew out of the ruins of Iraq and Libya - a direct consequence of US imperialism. Thanks America. Isis was/is well supported by USA financially and with weapons for regime change in Syria. It was only when they turned back into Iraq for the creation of their caliphate were they seen as a problem. ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra (ISIS in Syria) and like-minded groups are US creations. They’re used as foot soldiers to advance its imperium – responsible for aiding Washington rape and destroy one country after another. But why was ISIS not a factor in Syria before the Arab Spring and the suppression by Assad of revolutionaries? It was the frustration of those suffering under the government of Assad that triggered the emergence of ISIS, at least on a large scale. In fact, here in the UK, many young resident Muslims decided to go and fight for what they saw as the fundamental principles of Islam which were being suppressed by Assad's regime. Had the west intervened at the time it is not clear whether ISIS would have risen to as much prominence as they did. You cannot keep blaming everything on western intervention because there have always existed discontents between the various factions in the Middle East which are easily inflamed. You keep mentioning Washing but do not say anything about Assad. You're being a bit simplistic here. USA saw the Arab spring in Syria as an opportunity for regime change thereby hijacking the revolution. Here from the world socialist website "The US military interventions in Iraq and Syria are not aimed at “annihilating" ISIS, itself the product of the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq, followed by Washington’s utilization of Islamist fighters as proxy ground forces in the regime-change wars in both Libya and Syria. While Raqqa has been surrounded by US-backed forces from the north, east and west, an escape route for ISIS fighters has been opened up to the southeast in order to funnel them into the province of Deir al-Zour, so they can fight the Syrian army there. Similarly, large numbers of ISIS fighters were allowed to flee Mosul, crossing the border into Syria for the same purpose. Washington’s strategic objectives in Iraq and Syria are not those of “fighting terrorism," but rather consolidating US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and preparing for war against the principal obstacles to this objective, Iran and Russia. For US imperialism, undisputed control over both the Persian Gulf and Central Asia would provide the means to cut off energy supplies to its global rival, China." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/15/pers-j15.html You are an expert at magnifying one side of an issue and ignoring all the rest. You are a typical empty-headed ideologue. You can't make a coherent counter argument

webplodder · July 11, 2017, 8:17am

I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right? As far as I know ISIS arose from the lack of western support for the oppressed Assad dissenters. They felt betrayed by the west and various factions took matters into their own hands and became Muslim extremists. Blame Assad, not the west, this started out as an internal struggle. That's the stated excuse, yes. There is a lot more to it than the lack of support from the West. To focus on lack of supprt from the West is to lose sight of all the other crucial factors that are involved. The formation of Isis was inevitable considering the actual situation in the area. It would have happened with or without "support" from the West. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to blaming everything on western intervention, even when they do not actually intervene! Give me an example ISIS arose in the absence of any western intervention in Syria. It is only now that the west + Russia + Assad is fighting them after the event. ISIS arose as the result of a re-emergence of Islam fundamentalism to fight everyone else who did not subscribe to their philosophy, not just the west. Isis grew out of the ruins of Iraq and Libya - a direct consequence of US imperialism. Thanks America. Isis was/is well supported by USA financially and with weapons for regime change in Syria. It was only when they turned back into Iraq for the creation of their caliphate were they seen as a problem. ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra (ISIS in Syria) and like-minded groups are US creations. They’re used as foot soldiers to advance its imperium – responsible for aiding Washington rape and destroy one country after another. But why was ISIS not a factor in Syria before the Arab Spring and the suppression by Assad of revolutionaries? It was the frustration of those suffering under the government of Assad that triggered the emergence of ISIS, at least on a large scale. In fact, here in the UK, many young resident Muslims decided to go and fight for what they saw as the fundamental principles of Islam which were being suppressed by Assad's regime. Had the west intervened at the time it is not clear whether ISIS would have risen to as much prominence as they did. You cannot keep blaming everything on western intervention because there have always existed discontents between the various factions in the Middle East which are easily inflamed. You keep mentioning Washing but do not say anything about Assad. You're being a bit simplistic here. USA saw the Arab spring in Syria as an opportunity for regime change thereby hijacking the revolution. Here from the world socialist website "The US military interventions in Iraq and Syria are not aimed at “annihilating" ISIS, itself the product of the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq, followed by Washington’s utilization of Islamist fighters as proxy ground forces in the regime-change wars in both Libya and Syria. While Raqqa has been surrounded by US-backed forces from the north, east and west, an escape route for ISIS fighters has been opened up to the southeast in order to funnel them into the province of Deir al-Zour, so they can fight the Syrian army there. Similarly, large numbers of ISIS fighters were allowed to flee Mosul, crossing the border into Syria for the same purpose. Washington’s strategic objectives in Iraq and Syria are not those of “fighting terrorism," but rather consolidating US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and preparing for war against the principal obstacles to this objective, Iran and Russia. For US imperialism, undisputed control over both the Persian Gulf and Central Asia would provide the means to cut off energy supplies to its global rival, China." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/15/pers-j15.html You are an expert at magnifying one side of an issue and ignoring all the rest. You are a typical empty-headed ideologue. Sorry, I don't take conspiracy theories very seriously. Neither should you.

adamski · July 12, 2017, 11:54am

the free market loving corporate media not interested

sbain · July 12, 2017, 9:47pm

Interesting observation! I also think that much of the US mass media serves the objectives of who pay them, as opposed to caring about what is supposed to be their mission - disseminating news.

Topic		Replies	Views
Isn't the World Facing the Islamic Music? Humanism	75	338	May 16, 2018
Islamic Fanaticism is a Worldwide Problem Humanism	24	257	July 10, 2016
Do you see Islam as a threat? Religion and Secularism	16	113	March 12, 2013
Question Religion and Secularism	50	210	May 14, 2015
All religious extremists are alike Religion and Secularism	48	184	October 31, 2014

Are they really due to Western foreign policies?

Related topics