Is this the same or subsequent to the $billions of US donanted equipment ISIS got from the Iraqi Army?
In addition to. Which is in addition to having created the Sunni insurgent groups in the first place by invading Iraq.
That sounds more like unintended consequences rather than a deliberate plan.
So, looking at the main points:
- US foreign policy created al queada
- US foreign policy created ISIS
- US foreign policy armed ISIS
- US foreign policy additionally armed ISIS
Looks like you’re on a roll here, guys. Seems the best answer is to keep on attacking the OP.
If you call it unintended consequences does that make it okay?
Indeed, it’s more an indication that some sort of plan might have to be thought up at some point.
You claimed it was deliberate.
All of those were side effects of pursuing the stated aims in each of those cases. The OP insinuates and even directly asks if secretly those were the real aims. There’s a huge difference.
Listen, you can put the answer in a spoiler tag, if you want, so nobody sees it who doesn’t want to, but does this have anything to do with Obama being a Muslim? Kinda cut to the chase, you know?
I already did.
I said the post was extremely stupid and bordered on racism.
It’s similar to the 911 truthers and people terrified of “the Trilateral Commission”.
Now, since you’re using as your source a chump who’s a proponent of conspiracy theories regarding the Sandy Hook tragedy, please tell us if you believe Swann’e moronic claims that there was more than one shooter at Sandy Hook?
Thanks in advance.
Okay or not if you call it unintended consequences the answer to the first question quoted becomes a no. For that question to be a yes it requires intent.
Sure. But how many times do they get to make the same “stupid” mistakes without it seeming intentional? The same people* who urged us into Iraq, and didn’t foresee the “unintended consequences” are now advising Jeb Bush on foreign policy.
*Paul Wolfowitz, John Hannah, Stephen Hadley…
But that could well be because the mainstream of the Republican party is not in the business of results or facts, and hasn’t been for quite a while now.
Their current business is about political “purity” - spout the right memes, quote the right bulletpoints, blame the right scapegoats (spoiler : it’s librulz ! It’s always librulz !) when whatever you’re doing inevitably goes pear shaped and you’re good to go. As long as your ideological credentials are up to snuff, the rest of your credentials is entirely surplus to requirements and in fact in many cases the ideological credentials are in direct conflict with, and trump, the requirements.
For example, to take part in the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, the important thing is that you believe global warming to be a hoax - and since actually knowing fuck all about science or the scientific process, space or technology naturally conflicts with that imperative, well, just send whatever blowhard y’all got and call it good 'nuff.
Or, in other words, there might be malice in there - but there seems to be a hella lot of stupid to account for.
I think this is one of those questions best understood by first putting on one’s tinfoil cap.
A word of advice: The problem of US funds getting into the hands of the so-called Islamic State is very real. Funding Syrian Rebels under the umbrella of the FSA is problematic, at best, since the FSA is mostly a fictitious entity. But positioning the debate in the form of a conspiracy theory by the “military-industrial complex” is just going to bring ridicule and dismissiveness. You’re new here. Don’t expect to barge into the party with some wild ideas and expect everyone already at the party to take those ideas seriously.
You contradict yourself. 
Yes, the US is a nation of total fuck-ups, fucking up the rest of the planet.
Either that or…
The US is currently the most evil country on the planet.
Those two options aren’t mutually exclusive. Some might say, together, they paint a fairly compelling picture …
The vacuum of power left in the wake of the (US-led) overthrow of Saddam Hussein was ripe for the ultra-radical ISIS guys and now the (US-funded) Syrian rebels are joining the ISIS cause and the peanut gallery in this thread is suggesting the US had nothing to do with the (US-led) military use of force against ISIS?
Well done.
Well said. After all, if you blow up a dam, nobody is going to blame the water for causing havoc.
Who is saying that? The OP claimed that ISIS was created deliberately by the US, and many are disagreeing with that. But that’s an entirely different thing.