ISIS Terrorists Credit the Iraq War for Their Success

 

We’ve noted for months that the ISIS terrorists wouldn’t have been able to take over Iraq if we hadn’t launched the idiotic Iraq war and “regime changed” the country.

But don’t take our word for it … the ISIS barbarians just agreed.

Breitbart reports:

The Islamic terrorist group known as the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS) … just released an online magazine called “Dabiq” for its English readership for Ramadan. In the magazine … ISIS goes after only one American politician—Senator John McCain (R-AZ), for a June 12 floor speech of he delivered about ISIS:

“…the crusader John McCain came to the Senate floor to rant irritably about the victories the Islamic State was achieving in Iraq. He forgot that he himself participated in the invasion of Iraq that led to the blessed events unfolding today by Allah’s bounty and justice.”

Walid Shoebat – the self-described former Islamic terrorist who converted to Christianity – says:

It is true, the war in Iraq that was started by Bush led to the enabling ISIS to commit the massacres and violence it is doing now. ISIS knows that Saddam would have not tolerated them ….

All I can say is, I miss Saddam.

And Chris Maume writes at the Independent, “It was better to live in Iraq under Saddam.”

Postscript:  We’ve made every single country we’ve regime changed worse.

Category: Think Tank, Weekend

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

13 Responses to “ISIS Thanks John McCain for Making their Rise to Power Possible”

  1. Whammer says:

    On principle, I won’t read anything at Breitbart. I suspect that, given the quotes above about how McCain was such a supporter of Bush’s war, the Breitbart denizens have found a way to make it all Obama’s fault.

  2. mathdock says:

    The story isn’t that simple of course, but it’s difficult to forgive the American decision makers who didn’t keep the focus on Afghanistan in those early days after 9/11. That Saddam’s sons were killed so they couldn’t assume power at any future point was important, and we don’t understand how things change in the Middle East if the Kurds themselves become independent as they have desired for gazillions of years, but attempting to stop it is just more of the insanity. Oh, the things we suffer at the hands of mere boys who want their Big Oil and Big Guns & Planes, no matter the cost.

  3. 4whatitsworth says:

    Well if Clinton would not have been such a pussy Bin Laden would have been dead and the entire 911 fiasco would probably have not happened, ISIS would not even exist. In addition there would have been fewer causalities on all sides.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/31/clinton-says-he-could-have-killed-obl/13442517/

    • wesl says:

      Nah, the house would have impeached Clinton for killing innocents as collateral damage. Although the math is correct on the deaths, the politics is not.

    • DeDude says:

      As usual from the right wing there are more than a couple of silly presumptions. First of all it is far from certain that if Clinton had actually OK’ed a missile strike as soon as he was asked to do so, then Bin Laden would have been dead. Yes it is possible but it is not in any way certain. Second the idea that if Bin Laden would have been killed then 9/11 would not have happened – are you freaking out of your mind??? The second in command of Al Quida was MUCH more competent than Bin Laden. Do you really think he would have allowed those idiots to fly planes into WTC at a time when the buildings were half empty because of local elections? Do you think he would have allowed there to be hours between the projected impact of planes with targets? The fact is that if Clinton had managed to kill Bin Laden then 9/11 would have been much worse and Dufus would have still wasted 2 trillion US taxpayer dollars on creating an opening for ISIS.

    • Low Budget Dave says:

      As usual, Republicans find a way to blame every one of George Bush’s failures on Clinton. If “getting Bin Laden” was as simple as bombing factories that he owned, then Bin Laden would have been killed many times in the ten years following the missle attack.

      Even if Clinton had killed Bin Laden, it still might not have prevented 9/11. Even if he had prevented 9/11, Bush would still have invaded Iraq. As documents now demonstrate, Bush and Cheney had decided to conquer Iraq’s oil fields long before 9/11. The attack on the WTC did not provide an excuse, so much as a convenient cover for a pre-determined war.

      Not only was the war an obvious pay-off to the military-industrial complex that largely runs Washington, but everyone knew that the war would lead to terrorists and extremists (eventually) controlling Iraq. George Bush Senior outlined the problem in his book “A World Transformed”.

      GHWB wrote extensively about how to handle aggression in a post-cold-war world. There is some evidence that Bill Clinton talked to GHW Bush, and adjusted his decisions accordingly. There is no evidence that GWB even read the book, much less learned anything.

      That, in a nutshell, is how GWB turned international respect and a massive surplus into international condemnation and a massive deficit in just a few short years.

      To imply that one week of delay by Bill Clinton changed history, but eight years of war and torture by GWB had no consequence, is not only silly and absurd, but reeks of an intent to lie. You are trying to re-write history to justify your errors.

    • Livermore Shimervore says:

      4whatitsworth, This is such a stupid argument of yours. Bill Clinton’s administration handed over all OBL intelligence to Bush & Cheney. Who promptly said “[Bin Laden is not capable of mass terrorism, only a state [like Iraq] have the resources to pull of large scale attack on Americans]”. And despite hair on fire warnings in the summer of 2001 to the Bush Cheney White House that chatter in the Al Qaeda networks was off the charts, they continued dismissing this threat as only a regional threat. In that time they failed to deploy any counter-terror measures to protect major U.S. targets. So if Bill Clinton failed to take OBL out, then the Bush people didn’t even show up for work. And when they did wake up on 9/11 their response was to prepare for a completely unrelated war in Iraq that would only breed more terrorism by destabilizing a country that was held together with balsa wood. Not to mention leaving OBL to breathe the air of freedom for another 9 years. “OBL? I don’t even think about him”- George Bush Jr.

    • jbegan says:

      Clinton explained why he didn’t kill Bin Laden ‘before 9-11′ thusly:

      “I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him.”

      20-20 hindsight is useless. But perhaps a more telling story was when Clinton met Bush in the Oval Office to hand over the keys to the executive wash room and told Bush that Al Qaeda was the US’s most critical problem. Bush responded, ‘No..It’s Iraq”, and damned if we didn’t end up in Iraq based on 9-11…Go figure.

  4. orsogrigio says:

    ISIS is not the only case: how many Libians, e.g., would be living right today if Mr. Gheddafi was still in his seat ? and the same holds for all the “Middle Eastern Springs” around. The little tyrants there were executing dozens of their subjects a year. Now the ‘new democracies’ have dozens … of thousands.not executed, plainly killed. A big progress, isn’t it ? What really amazes me is the fact that’s likely that a form of ‘stability’ in the area will be conquered in many years, and with huge human losses. All of this has and will be done also for the sake of oil. When this ‘stability’ will be reached, will oil still be a richness ? Most likely not, in 10 or 20 years many things will change. So ?

  5. 873450 says:

    Dick Cheney is laughing all the way to the bank.

    President Obama finds himself sucked into quicksand in Iraq, forced to defend Cheney’s corrupt puppet against attacks by Islamic terrorists that did not exist in Iraq until Cheney invented them.

  6. Slash says:

    “Rant irritably” LOL. Yes, that certainly sounds like McCain.

    If you want to read more detail about exactly how we created ISIS, go to PBS and watch/read Frontline’s “Losing Iraq”

    U.S. political fail = when people speak fondly of living under a brutal dictatorship that you removed

  7. Joe says:

    Dubya’s first inclination to every national or international event was to reduce taxes. There are times when ya kinda wish he’d stuck with it.

  8. kaleberg says:

    Surely I’m not the only one who assumed that the Iraq war was about making Iraq safe for Al Qaeda.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.