To be fair to ISIS

[NotAllThere]

Tl;DR It's all a US/CIA plot

I take no credit for the above, but please go ahead and call me a tin-hatter, conspiracist etc. ...

It's tin foil hatter.

[LucidDementia]

It's tin foil hatter.

That too.

[darmstadt]

The Islamic militant group ISIS, formerly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and recently rebranded as the so called Islamic State

It started out good but as I got as far as the first sentence and, yep, it was already wrong...

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004...After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence".

[LucidDementia]

It started out good but as I got as far as the first sentence and, yep, it was already wrong...

In what way is the statement wrong?

Cut all ties in 2014 - long after ISIS was in full flight? Typical response really, ignore entire story on the basis of incorrectly debunking one sentence. Especially considering that sentence is merely pre-amble and little or nothing to do with the realities of the piece.

In fact:

The switch is seen as an attempt to redirect the Islamist effort towards unseating President Bashar al-Assad rather than waste resources in fighting other rebels, and could be intended to shift the strategic balance at a time when government forces are increasingly active on the battlefield. It could also embolden Nusra in its dispute with ISIL.
Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/03/us-syria-crisis-qaeda-idUSBREA120NS20140203#OE3EDs1cjwFGMEiP.99

Which, if you read the piece, will show why your point although arguably valid, is moot.

[darmstadt]

In what way is the statement wrong?

Cut all ties in 2014 - long after ISIS was in full flight? Typical response really, ignore entire story on the basis of incorrectly debunking one sentence. Especially considering that sentence is merely pre-amble and little or nothing to do with the realities of the piece.

In fact:



Which, if you read the piece, will show why your point although arguably valid, is moot.

If the first sentence is wrong then how can you believe the rest? ISIS/ISIL/Daesh were never Al Qaeda but a totally separate organisation originally, joined them and then got kicked out. If it has nothing to do with the realities of the piece then why write it? How can an argument be valid yet moot?

[d000hg]

Who could have imagined a thread titled "To be fair to ISIS" would descend into such farce.

[LucidDementia]

If the first sentence is wrong then how can you believe the rest? ISIS/ISIL/Daesh were never Al Qaeda but a totally separate organisation originally, joined them and then got kicked out. If it has nothing to do with the realities of the piece then why write it? How can an argument be valid yet moot?

First of all the piece speaks of "Al Qaeda in Iraq", not Al Qaeda. By your own admission they "joined them and got kicked out" ten years later. If you had read the entire piece you would understand why you point could be arguably valid and yet moot. But you didn't.
Again, this is typical response these days, still attacking one sentence without context instead of addressing what is right there for you to the point of spoon-feeding.

If you don't want to know that's fine, I don't really blame you.

[LucidDementia]

Who could have imagined a thread titled "To be fair to ISIS" would descend into such farce.

Please explain to me how looking into what ISIS really are and where they came from is "farce".

[NotAllThere]

Please explain to me how looking into what ISIS really are and where they came from is "farce".

If you have to ask, you've missed the point. Which is that nobody (except you) cares or thinks that it is in anyway of any importance or significance, even if true. And even if it is important and significant, we can't do anything about it, so really - who cares?

[darmstadt]

First of all the piece speaks of "Al Qaeda in Iraq", not Al Qaeda. By your own admission they "joined them and got kicked out" ten years later. If you had read the entire piece you would understand why you point could be arguably valid and yet moot. But you didn't.
Again, this is typical response these days, still attacking one sentence without context instead of addressing what is right there for you to the point of spoon-feeding.

If you don't want to know that's fine, I don't really blame you.

Nope, sorry but your first sentence states:

The Islamic militant group ISIS, formerly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and recently rebranded as the so called Islamic State, is the stuff of nightmares.

Which is utter and complete bollocks. They were never known as Al-Qaeda, there were a separate organisation affiliated with Al-Qaeda, they were ISIS before, during and after this time, so if your first sentence isn't correct then is the rest?