posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:01 AM
originally posted by: Tiberon
I always felt like ISIS was some sort of safety valve, to get the jihadi's out of western nations and into the middle east so that we could fight them
over there and not here type of thing.
No it is not. Do you really think the few people they kill a year on average are a problem? More people die in car crashes in a g8 country than due to
terrorism worldwide. There would be no Jihadis in the first place if elements within Nato would not want them to be. The reason for ISIS are twofold.
When the whole Syria thing kicked off America overplayed its hand with their own personal terrorist organisation. Instead of using Al-Qaeda as the
boogeyman they were directed outright to go into Syria, which would have meant Nato fighting alongside Al-Qaeda. The Military did not go just along
with it and was like WTF ! we are supposed to support Alquaeda now?
So why would NATO need ISIS? Say you want to be an aggressor to push through your agenda but you cant be an aggressor. What do you do? You seek to
become a cherished liberator instead of an hated aggressor. How would you do that? Simple, you send your guys to train and equip "freedom fighters"
who then go on to become "ISIS" . Now you direct ISIS to smash anything you dont like. Iraq getting too chummy with Iran need government change? ISIS
smash. Assad in the way? ISIS smash. Now you have ISIS in the country, very hated very unpopular, now you can move in your hundreds of thousands of
troops, your superior airforce and your tanks to sweep away the army for a couple thousand fighters dozen tanks and no planes you built up. In the
meantime ISIS took out anything you did not like and after you take out ISIS you are in the country as a liberator rather than an invader and the
population feels you are there to protect them from ISIS while you promise if an insurgency should make you leave ISIS will come back to rape and
pillage. Works every time.
edit on 17-2-2015 by Merinda because: (no reason given)