Create is the incorrect Word

U.S. Foreign Policy gave rise to ISIS. The pullout of Iraq was actually a kicked out. So, Iraq is partially responsible for the rise of this terrorist group. After the mission accomplished of destroying Libya, some of the terrorists moved to Syria. Some time in 2014, these terrorists from Syria and the leftovers of al-Zarqawi’s terror group joined hands. And we have that famous Toyota trucks scene in summer of 2014. Introducing ISIS to the world.

The “elephant in the room” is President Obama’s decision to withdraw US troops from Iraq for purely political purposes. This resulted in the rise of ISIS.Without an iota of doubt " YES" but How? Through covert means to fight it's war by proxy. This mind less organisation was created financed and armed by making use of fault lines among Muslims. Thomas L Friedman written in NYT's column" America does not want war with Islam but wants war within Islam" Is not it enough or I further substantiate my answe?

• No, the Illuminanti did. The future New World Order is in control now. They control all world events, wars, financial collapes, and overthrow of governments. Ever hear of the Rothschild family? Well they own 90% of all the world banks including the U.S Federal Reserve. And you thought you were a real citizen in your country.
• ISIS is created out of the other Islamist movmeents such as Al Queda and Boko Haram.  The fact is there is a pervasive and global death cult in Sunni Islam and ISIS is just ONE such expression of that.
  We can’t take the responsibility away from the greater Islamic world.
  Now,  with the collapse of Iraq and then Assad of Syria also lost power it did create an environment for a very thuggish element to enter.  The US can accept a good bit of responsibility for Iraq.  But not Syria.
  So without ISIS or some expression of extreme fundamentalist Islam  there probably would have been crime organizations step in and set up house.
• No, the US did not create ISIS. They created themselves, largely on the basis of the lie that Shrub II used to invade Iraq, the subsequent bungling of both the elective war and the so-called nation building that ensued. Obama wanted to end the war and the occupation, but he has found out that the forces of death and destruction are very powerful and well outside the reach of a community organizer. Something similar, albeit on a much smaller scale, is happening in Chicago, much to Obama's dismay.
  Nobody knows why the US started, and continues to maintain all of this warmaking. Obviously, our military toy industry has gained financially from the mayhem, and the MIC is owned by politically connected insiders, who have demonstrated since at least Vietnam, that they have a multi-generational power over the warlike direction that our country is taking.
  The American population will continue paying for all of this war making, since the majority seems to have concluded, roughly summarizing, that war taxes are a relatively small price to pay for the war being waged abroad, not at home.
  Still, the question, why elective war and not elective peace, has not been answered at all by the politically correct speech which dominates the online discussion in the country. Note that PC speech is not just about which bathroom people use, it's also about the desirability of war making and the illogical justification for that war making. PC speech is one of the divisive tools that separate people from agreeing on what the US should be doing.
  People pretend to knowledge about evolution, but in the world of social engineering for different purposes, the most powerful tool of our corrupt leadership is divide and conquer. Again, social engineering covers way more topics than, say, gender studies.
  Anyhow, with the chaos in the ME, ISIS has found a fertile ground to grow in. Notice how our vaunted war machine has been effectively stymied, although there is some indication that, after clearing; holding and building could be the avenue for peace, economic freedom and order in the ME. When our civilian and military leaders tell each other the truth about the facts on the ground, and when they agree on a logical solution to those pressing problems, then maybe they will find and implement a solution.
  In the meantime, ISIS will work assiduously to finish the stated goal of Bin Laden, who sought to destroy our country, which is probably the best thing that humanity has created so far. Our next President may brag about their experience or their secret plans, but they will find that their words have no power, unless they describe reality accurately, and institute actions to help bring about world peace.
  Hard not to close with a sarcastic remark:
• We merely provided the environment and many weapons and personnel unwittingly in our idiot policy in Lybia championed by the supposed most qualified to be president, having failed as Sec State.
  ISIS was a fringe group with few followers in Iraq. But the Arab Spring turned to nightmare by US in Lybia proved a better recruiting environment including many rebels trained and armed by us.
  Proof once again that our huge and massively beyond our defense needs military merely gets us thinking we can do whatever we want, turning hope into disaster and a world more hateful toward us.
• of course, the USA did not create ISIS, which is an expression of Saudi Wahhabi Islam and received start up money from the Saudis. ISIS uses the same strategy modeled by Mohammed in his conquest of Arabia, albeit with modern weapons. Muslims have been waging exactly the kind of merciless war ISIS is waging now since Mohammed led them in attacks on caravans and cities 700 years ago.
  This is how Muslims conquered the Middle East, by beheading the men and taking the women as sex slaves. It’s how they conquered a big chunk of India. It’s how they swept across North Africa into Spain. It’s how they conquered parts of Italy and all of Sicily. It’s how they murdered their way through the Byzantine Empire into the Balkans.
  And, this, is how the Muslims think they can conquer the world.

Read More »

US intentionally created ISIS

It is called cause and effect, for every action there is a reaction, some things are clearly foreseeable, some take a bit more knowledge of the beast, forsight and psychology. When Germany lost the war, many people still ask why did we pay to rebuild it, the fact is that we did not want Communism or any other questionable entity to move on in. It would cost less to rebuild and convert them our way than fight them again. Bush was not a military strategist, obviously neither were his advisors, that had vague knowledge of their opponents and their mind set. We were fortunate years ago to have military minds like Patton, McArthur and presidents who were war heros, they had experience and knowledge that they put to use. Had we educated ourselves better on just how our enemy thinks and feel as well as their culture, many reactions or effects of our actions would clearly be anticipated. Just like you as a normal citizen getting in a fight at a club or bar or anywhere, if you are fighting with any random white guy, you can usually expect it to end there, if you are fighting with a gang member, or member of any radical family, culture or group, it is likely retaliation by one or more of the group is inevitable. This with out much thought can be anticipated, but when you sit behind a desk, telling others what to do, you have no idea how it is really done, nor can you really anticipate anything.

US Middle East policy in the last decades is criminally stupid.
It is now obvious that the societies in the Middle East are not developed enough for a democratic governance (except Israel) - and this should have been obvious to experts long before taking many of the stupid decisions.

The only stable form of government in the Middle East countries is some form of dictatorship. And it's really simple- you can have either a secular dictator, a religious dictator, or a chaos created by islamic psychopaths.
Obviously, having a secular dictator is by far the best choice. Why, having the best option already available, US decided to fix something that wasn't broke, is a mystery.

Iraq under Saddam and Syria under Assad were stable countries.
The overall situation in Syria and Iraq today is - without any doubt - far worse, compared to the time when dictators ruled.
There isn’t even a single human being in Syria that feels better today compared to 3–4 years ago. There isn’t even a single human being in Iraq that feels better today compared to the period before the US invasion.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush-senior was clever enough just to kick his ass out and stop there. Not so for W., the boy was obviously not the smartest one in the family.

Yeah, but not an intentional creation. The issue was persisting in the region for some time then, but even if the Bush administration had a good intention or not, the fact rests about the invasion that the Bush administration had failed in formulating a plan for the aftermath and that has made a mark in human history. The administration failed to see the after effects of the war and didn't adopt counter measures. They found Iraq under some leadership and it's not up to me to say whether it was good or bad but they left Iraq with no leader, law or order. This was a prime factor in creating the radical group we now call ISIS.

Yes and no. I read in an article that daesh have been around since the 1940s in some form, but USA gave it a power vacuum to grow in. Most middle estern countries seems to need a unifying force to hold them together, a popular king and/or a huge security apparatus. When USA got rid of all the soldiers, secret police anat, they took their skills else were.

Another country just dropped a shit load of bombs on your house your mom dad brother and sister are all over the room blown into a million pieces you don't have a house you can't go to anyone for help you have to survive there is a couple guys with guns near where you live and they are trying to kill the bad guys who blew up your family so you decide you want to join them.

This is what happened 15 years ago we dropped bombs on the fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers grandparents etc of these Iraqi kids. The kids saw all their loved ones blown to pieces by the god ole USA. The kids are now grown and want revenge they have nothing else no school, no food, no cloth, no family, and no home, there is good ole Isis trying to kill the USA and give them $1000 a month food cloth and a place to live. I would take it if I was that kid wouldn't you?

US intentionally created ISIS when it’s not. A better question would be “Is the U.S. responsible for the creation of ISIS?” The answer would be indirectly because it was a series of mistakes made by the powers that be in both Iraq and the US that created fertile ground for this to happen but I’ll try to keep this short as to where they came from. I’ll also leave it as a general summary of what’s commonly agreed upon instead of detailing it as some of the more detailed answers either try to direct the reader to a certain line of thinking or is based off of conspiracy or hearsay. I also won’t go into whether or not Syria is the way it is because that’s a different subject and frankly. The events that lead to its civil war were already there and were going to happen anyway. It wouldn’t have mattered if a foreign power influenced it or not.

ISIS, ISIL, IS, Da’esh, whatever you want to call them these days, was not directly nor intentionally created by the US. IS is actually an evolution of the Islamic State of Iraq, which used to be called Al-Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. They were an extension of Al-Qaeda when they were stronger but not anymore. They got to where they are now because of the civil war in Syria and because al-Maliki kept pushing for sectarian policies that alienated Iraqi Sunni’s and Kurds but mostly the Sunni’s. Long story short, after transferring any and all US bases, out posts, facilities, airfields, etc. to the Iraqi’s (at Maliki’s request/demand,) the prisoners at various POW camps were released, including Camp Bucca. al-Baghdadi hooked back up with the ISI with new friends. Then ISI became ISIS when they allied with the FSA out of necessity to gain power and influence, then betrayed them and nearly annihilated the more secular elements of the FSA. Crushed or absorbed it’s more jihadist brigades, then went back to Iraq to conquer more territory.

On a side note, this is the second (and most successful) time they’ve attempted to establish a caliphate. The first time was during the Iraq War in 06. At the time they were called ISI and they tried to establish a caliphate by declaring Ramadi as their capitol. This lead to the Second Battle of Ramadi.

Read More »

ISIS Still USA

If you're asking did the US form, equip and train ISIS my answer is an emphatic no. Still, there are conspiracy theorists out there who might contend otherwise. But then there are some who believe 9/11 was a government plot. Ah well.

I do believe, however, that the US had a big hand in creating the conditions that enabled ISIS to emerge. This is a classic example of how to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.

When the US led Coalition drove Saddam from power they moved quickly to establish an interim civil government structure pending the formation of a permanent Iraqi political authority. They made several decisions that might have seemed right at the time but they backfired spectacularly. 

First they decided to purge the Ba'ath party from the government. Now under Saddam the Socialist Ba'ath party had been used by the minority Sunni Muslims as an instrument to extend their power throughout the regime.  Basically membership in the party was a prerequisite for holding coveted positions in the Iraqi civil service. 

Consequently, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)  had eliminated the core of experienced senior bureaucrats, thus seriously undermining the continuity of vital services to the Iraqi people. Simultaneously, this move alienated the Sunnis, who were fearful that they would lose their privileged status and be subject to a Shiite dominated government.

The CPA committed another misstep as they tried to cobble together a new constitution and provisional Iraqi political authority. Here they attempted to insert into prominent positions a number of Iraqis who had been living in exile in the United States. By doing this they managed to alienate everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, who rejected these people as outsiders and American backed outsiders at that.

Third, they committed possibly the most fatal error by disbanding the Iraqi armed forces. Thousands of trained soldiers were tossed into the street with no employment prospects. By this time there were already a number of resistance  organizations forming. Among them was an organization calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). A solid number of the disbanded soldiers drifted into various largely Sunni factions, including the ISI. 

By about 2008-10, the resistance was in full swing  The ISI began to build momentum, extending into Syria as well. With a little arm twisting and plain bargaining some of the resistance groups folded into ISI which ultimately became ISIS. Their ranks were augmented by many former Ba'athists and by now very angry soldiers.

In summary, the US and their Coalition partners created a lot of resentment and open anger among the Sunni population by some well intended but ultimately unfortunate decisions. As I said at the beginning, they invoked the often fatal Law of Unintended Consequences that contributed to the rise of ISIS.  

Now history is always 20/20 and it's easy to cast aspersions upon the US. Yet the CPA was in a bind and had to make some hard judgements on the ground. They might have foreseen the downstream consequences but they were, after all, only human. Now we have to live with the consequences.

This was when AQI re-emerged as ISIL, finding a foothold among the disenfranchised Sunni population while simultaneously growing in the eastern part of Syria while Syrian security forces were busy putting down their insurrection.

To review:

ISIL was born Jama'at al Tawhid to collapse the Jordanian government sometime before 1999.

Jama'at al Tawhid existed in Iraq before the US invaded.

Jama'at al Tawhid became AQI during the US occupation but focused mainly on oppressing the Sunni population and exterminating the Shi'a population.

AQI was effectively eliminated by 2008.A number of different nations were instrumental in the creation of the political vacuum that allowed groups like ISIS to establish a fixed presence in the region. If one were to look at the past two decades objectively, one cannot deny that the US - among others - were a major factor in the formation of ISIS. They didn't do this deliberately, though; it's simply one of a number of unintended consequences.

While there are quite a few answers that go into details how the U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East in the last 15–20 years contributed, I think the cornerstone was laid by the UK and the USA in the 50ies of the last century.

Iran, a very influential country in the region, had a democratically elected government. It got there through its own efforts, the first country like that in the Middle East. (Israel didn’t quite get there through its own efforts…) And what did the UK and the USA do? Topple that pesky democratic government, to reinstate a monarch, of all things: 1953 Iranian coup d'état.

Now imagine the Middle East with a democratic Iran since 1953. I think it is safe to say that it would be different. Pretty much every country in the region is a dictatorship, in one way or another. They are in the middle of a century of revolutions, upheavals, and back in the 50ies, the revolutionary philosophy was somewhat leftish: “power to the people”. Where I come from, that’s a whole lot better than the revolutionary philosophy in that area during the last 30 years or so: fundamentalist Islam.

If we had given the democratic movements in the 50ies their space (and — heavens forbid — maybe even our support), there may not have been a wave of fundamentalist Islam. In my opinion, fundamentalist Islam is a result of the need to fight oppression. So, by fighting (and helping fight) democratic movements some 60 years ago, we laid one cornerstone for the rise of fundamentalist Islam.

We can devide ISIS into 3 groups

1. Top leaders: nobody from the public knows who they are. They represent 1 to 2 percent of ISIS. They are formed from iraqi (mainly Al Baath) and iranian secret services. There is a small penetration from western countries on this level
2. 2nd level leaders represent 5–7 percent: these are Khawarij. These are the controllers/leaders of ISIS troops. They are also penetrated from different secret services mainly Russians and Americans
3. Soldiers: theses are a group of misleaded people. They are either real ignorants or very young (under 19). These kind of people are easy to manipulate

Who created them? Point 1 will answer

However, such big thing could never be created without the green light of USA

If you go back 20 years in history, the exact same thing happened in Algeria

1. Military dictature oppressed te population to force the maximum number to join the rebellion
2. Government took thousands of people to prisons, tortured and killed thousands
3. One day, 4000 men miraculously escaped from a high security prison. They were a mix of authentic rebels and secret service agent who were being tortured so the story will work
4. These 4000 joined the rebellion, unified at that time
5. Few months later the rebellion split into 2, then 4, then X goups
6. The new X-1 goup started to make massacres killing thousand of civilians in the name of Islam
7. Government was oppressing civilians to keep the “shock doctrine” working
8. Civilians hated the original rebellion
9. The government “successfully” made peace treaty with all X-1 groups
10. These X-1 new groups collapsed
11. X-1 groups’ rebels started to surrender
12. X-1 groups’ rebels were surprised to see that their leaders, their most pious camarades, sitting in military bases, wearing military uniforms, smoking cigarettes and loughing at their faces. “You have been screwed, dude”

Egyptian government tried and still trying the same strategy, but it seems they understood Algeria lesson

Somehow similar story happened in Afganistan during Russian invasion

Another very similar story is happening in Libya

Syrian gov tried the same thing at the beginning of the rebellion, but people understood the Algerian lesson. Nobody carried weapons untill after 6–7 months when some official army officers split

Read More »

ISIS is a fundamentalist form USA

ISIS is a fundamentalist form USA.

Yes and no. No, the U.S. did not intentionally create ISIS, but the U.S. did help the create the conditions that enabled it to grow.

1. ISIS is a fundamentalist form of Salafist Sunni Islam. Sunni is one of the two major “denominations” of Islam (the other being Shi’a), and Salafism attempts to return to the original Islam as practiced under Muhammad and the first caliphs.
2. ISIS was previously Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and can ultimately be traced to a group created by Abu Musam Al-Zarqawi in the 1990s. His group committed acts of terrorism in Jordan before moving to Iraq in the early 2000s.
3. Al-Zarqawi’s group joined with Al Qaeda in 2004 and submitted to the leadership of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006 and after a brief succession of different leaders it was headed by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who soon changed the name to Islamic State in Iraq.
4. Al Qaeda in Iraq was able to increase its force due to the de-Baathification policy put in place in 2003–2004 under Donald Rumsfield and President Bush, and was based on the policy of de-Nazification that took place in Germany after World War II. It lead to thousands of soldiers and police officers being unemployed and nowhere to go. It led to Sunni Muslims being afforded a smaller role in the new Iraqi government and created greater sectarian division. It was a disaster and helped fuel ISIS.
5. the 2007 surge was effective in driving out AQI, and President Bush urged his successor to maintain a force in Iraq to prevent a resurgence. His 2007 speech was eerily prophetic.

6. President Obama’s clear intention to pull out all troops in Iraq sent a message that created an incentive for Islamic State to return from Syria, where it formed its headquarters and regrouped. When the American troops were pulled out in 2011 it returned, as President Bush predicted.

7. President Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s decisions to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad of Syria and Muammar Qaddafi of Libya gave aid to Islamic State by funding financially and with weapons anti-Assad mercenaries who defected to IS, or they were killed by IS and had their weapons confiscated. In Libya, they ordered a no-fly zone then bombed the government. This allowed the Islamists to take over, and eventually ISIS formed an outpost in the eastern section of the country.

8. As its dangers continued to increase and was obvious to the world, Obama dismissed ISIS as the “JV team.” He didn’t take the group seriously, and it continued to grow like a cancer. Meanwhile, Bush’s prophecy came true and he has since ordered troops back to Iraq, although a relatively small amount and with serious restrictions. ISIS came to hold large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq and has created an immigration disaster for Europe. Lately ISIS has lost some of that territory, but it still remains a grave danger to the Middle East.

Here President Putin of Russia makes accurate points about how the USA enabled the growth of ISIS, and suggests that U.S. ally Turkey has been helping it by purchasing its oil (which may be true).

The US did create ISIS, but not on purpose. It was a failure of the George W. Bush administration to anticipate the consequences of invading Iraq. The US and UK destroyed the government of Iraq and and its military, then left a weak replacement government behind. They disbanded the Iraqi military, putting thousands of combat-trained men out of employment in a divided nation awash in cheap firearms. ISIS was the inevitable result.

The invasion of Iraq was a catastrophic mistake. Anybody who was familiar with Middle Eastern politics could have predicted what would happen. Unfortunately, Bush was not among them.

While others have given better more detailed answers, I'll keep it short.

When an investigator investigates a murder, he or she looks for people who could benefit from the murder because that's where the incentive is.

ISIS has been more beneficial to the US than to Islam or Muslims or Saudis even.

As someone mentioned, cheaper oil, legitimacy on foreign policy, even local changes.

People say alqaida was defeated because OBL' is dead. People also say he attacked the US for their freedom. What poeple fail to see is, if that was his aim, he has succeeded and the US is now not so free. The NSA, the fear of the public. It all serves the government though. They can exercise more control now, leaving little room for transparency.

ISIS too seems to have succeeded. The got power where they wanted it, they instilled fear where they wanted it. The US has capitalized on their rise too.

It's a win win for the US. And so since it benefits from such groups, it seems they had a hand in it.

Willingly or unwillingly, Al Qiada, Taliban, ISIS, the very idea of Jihad as a Holly war thing, which had diminished, was brought back by the US.

The policies of United States implicitly created ISIS.

Everyone blames ISIS for their atrocities, however no one seem to criticize the Iraqi Army which was responsible for the rise of ISIS. There would have been no ISIS if Iraqi Army didn't cowardly withdraw from major Iraqi cities. They also left weapons worth 500 million which are now used by ISIS operatives.

You might say, its Iraqi armies failure, what's US got to do with this? The answer to that is, The United States appointed these guys in power, if US trained them well enough they would have decisively repelled ISIS assaults. US deliberately put some untrained, cowardly militants in power because they wanted to form a puppet state.

If the Iraqi Army was stronger, well trained like the armies of other nations then they wouldn't need rely on United State anymore. If they become self sufficient then there would be no need for US to stay in Iraq and they won't do whatever the US wants. This would put the interests of US in danger.

Rise of ISIS helped US

• keep the Iraqi government under control,
• weaken Assads armies,
• get cheaper oil for its allies (eg. Turkey),
• justify keeping soldiers in Iraq and deploy some in Syria (around 50 soldiers are deployed in syria),
• Turn public opinion in support of its foreign policy.
• Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
  The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

Read More »

U.S. really create ISIS?

U.S. really create ISIS? How?

The US did not deliberately create ISIS. But there would have been no ISIS but for American missteps and incompetence during the US occupation of Iraq.

Before we invaded in 2003, there were no armed islamist groups like ISIS in Iraq. Horrible as Saddam was, he had at least managed to keep a lid on them. Then we invaded, removed Saddam from power, and the Pentagon failed to issue the necessary orders for securing property. That led to widespread looting and a nearly instantaneous social breakdown in the absence of minimal security.

Then the Coalition Provisional Authority geniuses we put in charge of running Iraq thought it would be a great idea to disband the Iraqi army - an act that instantly put hundreds of thousands of heavily armed young men, with nothing to do, out on the streets and out of anybody’s control.

Then, to triple down on the stupid, we implemented a “de-Baathaification” purge, along the lines of the de-Nazification that followed the defeat of Germany, notwithstanding glaring differences between the scope and reach of the Nazi party in Germany, and the toothless haplessness of the Baath party in Iraq. That removed thousands of technocrats and bureaucrats necessary for the routine functioning of government, and wrecked its ability to deliver basic services such as electricity, garbage removal, or furnishing the minimal safety necessary to keep schools open.

Needless to say, it didn’t take long for a complete collapse of law and order and a series of insurgencies spanning most of the country. And our incoherent response - waves of random arrests that swept both foe and would-be friend; a plethora of checkpoints manned by nervous, confused, and frequently trigger happy troops who shot up cars full of innocents; frequently indiscriminate use of firepower that piled up “collateral damage”; and numerous instances of abuse and even outright massacres that were often unpunished, added fuel to the fire.

The insurgency began attracting foreign Islamist fighters from all over for jihad tourism in Iraq. Something that hadn’t happened in decades of Saddam’s rule, did within months of US rule. Even Al-Qaeda, which had no prior presence in Iraq, opened up a branch office,Al-Qaeda in Iraq , which quickly became one of the most virulent and bloodthirsty of the insurgent groups. It even set up a proto statelet, openly governing some regions in Western Iraq - the same ones where ISIS would get its start a few years later.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was eventually beat down, but its surviving members, such as Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, would go on to form ISIS soon as the US withdrew from Iraq. Helped in no small part by America’s final gift: the US trained Iraqi army, a sad sack and astonishingly incompetent, corrupt, and cowardly mob - something I addressed in my answer to Why is the Iraqi army losing Abrams tanks so easily?

In short, we didn’t set out to create ISIS, but we screwed up so bad that the emergence of ISIS or something equally bad was inevitable.

Indirectly, yes.

Because the Americans intervene in Iraq, they killed Saddam and imposed democracy in a place that has sectarian conflicts, and didn´t work because the Iraqi factions do not understand each other. The Americans claim that Iraq had chemical weapons, but it didn´t, Iraq had ceased to use them for a long time, since the Iran-Iraq War, but even so, the US and UK invaded Iraq without the UN endorsement.

So the Iraqi people thought that the Americans wanted to destroy Iraq for invading their country without any apparent reason, and came to fight against them with the air bombings and civilian casualties. Iraqis became more and more angry with the Americans and then,they started to ally to armed groups that fought US Armed Forces.

Due to the US Armed Forces in Iraq are very strong, they began to use unconventional methods of combat, such as terrorism, insurgency, the use of car bombs and suicide bombers to try to defeat the Americans. Over time, these groups have gained strength,money and weapons. With the high(and maybe unnecessary) expenses in 2011, the US withdrew their troops from the country. Then came the saying "When the cat's away, the mice will play" and these groups started fighting each other, wanting to dominate areas in Iraq, and others harness the power.

Another factor that shows that the US may have helped in the creation ISIS, was that the American army has left some of their military equipment such as helicopters, Humvees, rifles, M1 Abrahms in Iraq during the withdrawal in 2011.

Create? No of course not. “Create” has a rigorous meaning that cannot be shifted just because of politics or expediency. The more important question is: Does the United States bear at least some responsibility for the creation of ISIS? The answer is quite clear: Yes.

The US has a terrible policy in the Middle East. It ceased being “good” about 1991. After that point in time, it began to completely fall apart. What do I mean about this? The US has always had a bit of Realpolitik and pragmatism. The US was never under any impression that the people wanted and certainly were not ready for contemporary republicanism.

It pushed regimes internally to modernize at a pace that worked for them while keeping the ship as steady as possible. After that point in time, the US has failed to keep that policy. Worse, it began to shift its own policy around the world from “Maintain stable regimes that favor trade” to “Also make sure we push regimes to democratize.”

Sounds great on paper. A lot of ideas sound great on paper but are horrible in application. There are others:

• Companies should publish all executive officers’ salaries.
• Congress should abolish pork spending and cease handing out bonus checks on the chamber floors to those members who have records of passing bills and cooperating.

In those two instances, removing those provisions caused chaos in their respective organizations. The former resulted in EO’s competing in the US for salary that drove the numbers through the roof. The latter resulted in polarization of politics because chamber leaders lost two strong (and very cheap: the debt has been impacted less than 5% by those aspects) methods of pulling members to the middle to get things done.

Idealists destroy systems. The world is complex and pragmatists understand that making politics has always been like making sausages — it’s ugly business that average citizens think they know what’s best for the world, but if they really saw and knew, they’d freak the fuck out. The law of unintended consequences says that generally systems fall into patterns that mostly work for them and to gum it up with idealistic gibberish usually causes more harm than good.

The American idealists who decided that Latin America and East Asia were ready for democracy after the fall of the USSR, also felt like it was time to bring that to the Middle East. It worked in Latin America and Asia, largely. Those regimes that favored the US (South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Brazil, Chile and on and on) all converted to democracy from about 1979–1999, they all fell into standard republican patterns.

The US felt like this was a great thing and largely it was. But not in the Middle East. That region has a combination of potent religious and cultural attitudes that make it challenging to work. Many borders were arbitrarily formed by Gertrude Bell and Thomas Lawrence. The stable autocrats that were allowed to rise to power and created a “more or less” stable area, were dis-favored. After the First Gulf War and especially the Second Gulf War, the US’s attitudes about regime change caused a societal collapse that has resulted in people swinging to extremes.

Some of those people, in their desperation, joined various terrorist groups. One of those groups is ISIS. The people who founded that group get the credit for that affair. But the US cannot divorce itself from a significant portion of responsibility because Bush failed to anticipate the horrible results of his Administration’s vile actions and Obama failed to anticipate the results of the sudden withdraw of American forces in Iraq. Obama also made a promise about how/why the US would interfere, and then tippy-toed back away from that promise.

Read More »

Did Donald Trump support the War in Iraq?

So, the verbatim claim from Donald Trump during the first presidential debate was:

“I did not support the war in Iraq.”

The fact check on that statement is: False.

We have found no evidence of his early opposition to the invasion. Trump expressed lukewarm support the first time he was asked about it a year after the Sept. 11 attacks. During the debate, he referenced that interview with Howard Stern, saying:

“When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone's asked me that, I said, very lightly, I don't know, maybe, who knows? Essentially.”

Here’s the transcript of that Sept. 11, 2002 exchange:

Stern: “Are you for invading Iraq?” 
Trump: “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

He was not clearly against it until he was quoted in an August 2004 Esquire cover story. [1]This position was not a particularly unique one by mid 2004 -- 17 months after the invasion.

In light of Trump’s repeated false claim, Esquire has added an editor’s note to its August 2004 story, which reads:

“The Iraq War began in March 2003, more than a year before this story ran, thus nullifying Trump’s timeline.”

We have awarded this claim Four Pinocchios and compiled a timeline of all of Trump’s comments prior to the invasion in March 2003.

Trump said the following about war with Iraq through 2003.

"I'm no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don't, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us." (Trump's 2000 book, The America We Deserve)

"Yeah, I guess so; I wish the first time it was done correctly." (Interview with Howard Stern, 2002)

"Either you attack or you don't attack." (Interview with Neil Cavuto, 2003)

"Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's—I think he's doing a very good job." (Same interview)

"I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're gonna see after the war is over." (Fox News, one day into the 2003 invasion)

Source: What did Donald Trump say on the Iraq war and when did he say it?

In 2004, after it was clear that the war and occupation were turning into a real disaster, he came out against it in an interview.Yes, he did. The problem with Trump is that he doesn’t really know about anything (besides bussines, a little). He was asked about the subject in a radio interview and he said that he supported the invasion. But I’m sure he did not really mean it, it was just a random answer about a “trending topic” at the time. He has thousands of that kind of lies in his life, just because he can’t stay quiet and he has to participate in EVERY SUBJECT EVER.

This one is pretty straightforward.

He did not ‘oppose the war.’ That’s for sure.

He did not ‘strongly support the war with an open statement.’

I think for this one, in order to support the war, he would either have to declare. “I support the war” in a press conference or “Vote for in Senate”.

He was a private citizen then, hence he could take the middle route of ‘somewhat’.

Verdict, “to the middle.”

Read More »

How to make money Per day 100$

I answered a similar question, how to make $100 per day with no investment. The same applies for $1000 a day or even more.

Well, there are multiple ways of going about doing this. I will share what I did.

Miami, FL, 2012

So there I am. A 14 year old kid who can't help but think about the car he will be getting in two years. My parents didn't want to spend too much over $10,000 on my first car, but I wanted one that costed around $30,000, so I was quite down in the dumps.

I tried desperately to find ways of making that extra $20,000 online - I tried filling out surveys, joining websites that promised a big payout, and nothing worked. I was stumped.

Then, one day, out of the blue, I met a kid online who was making $1500 a month by doing something called dropshipping. I was amazed. I couldn't fathom the possibility of making so much money without doing hours of work. Suddenly my dream car seemed a lot closer and in reach.

I talked to this kid for hours that night - he was very helpful and thoughtful and I really thank him for bringing me to what I am today. Within my first month of dropshipping on eBay, I made $800 in profits. I was enthralled. This was a miracle for me at the time.

I spent every second of my free time listing things and managing sales, at school, at home, even while traveling. I never stopped. I was addicted. Sales increased exponentially. Things just would not stop selling. The next month I made over$2000profit. Then the next I made $5000. And the next $10,000. And the next $25,000. You can guess where this is going.

Fast forward three years and I am driving my dream car and managing four businesses. All from just one kid who cared to talk with me that one night. Dropshipping set me on a path of self fulfillment from an early age, and I couldn't be happier for it. Now, I don't do dropshipping anymore for my retail business. Instead I purchase my own stock, but it is undoubtedly a great way to start.

So, what is dropshipping?

Well, dropshipping involves:

1. Finding a reliable supplier who is willing to send out products in your name and not their company's name (blind dropshipping)
2. Listing every last one of the products from their site into yours. Markup the prices at least 15%. The more products, the higher chances you have of selling in high volumes. This part is tedious. Remember, you have spent $0 so far, you have not bought anything yet.
3. When an order comes in and your customer has paid you, you then buy the product your customer ordered from your supplier and enter their address so it can be sent to your customer. You only buy the products after they have sold in your store.There is no investment or risk.
4. Enjoy your profits!

Let's say that you have decided to focus Cyber Security, this is now your "vertical market.

Go on to a Jobboard aggregator like indeed.com, and research what companies are looking for Cyber Security expertise and find the most senior job you can find in this particular niche. Let's say for instance that you see that Exxon are advertising for a Global Director for Cyber/Information Security for a salary of $150,000 in Houston.

This is now your "first" search assignment. Using your LinkedIn recruiter account, make a search for every relevant Cyber Security Director based within a 100km vicinity of the job you have seen. Not every potential candidate will have written their LinkedIn account in the same way - so make sure you use derivatives in the Boolean search.

For instance:

(Director OR VP OR SVP) AND (Security OR compliance) AND (global OR head)

This will bring up a list of relevant potential candidates. You can send these candidates an inmail using the LinkedIn account, asking them if/when they are interested to discuss an opportunity.

On average you can expect to get a response rate of approximately 20% from your inmail. So 100 messages sent, leads to 20 candidates that are open for a conversation.

Speak to the candidates, ask about their current situation, what is happening at their current employer and for what kind of opportunities they would consider changing jobs for. Once this has been established you can then sell the job, that you had spotted on the online Jobboard and see if they are interested in it.

If they are, that's perfect. You do a more in depth interview and ask them for references that can verify the information on their CV.

You take the references from the previous employers, check that the candidate is actually any good and whilst you do that you can also ask them if they are currently having challenges recruiting good people - this will lead to more opportunities that you can work on, and will enable you to build a network of clients that are interested in Cyber Security expertise.

Once you have some suitable candidates, go back onto LinkedIn and search for the relevant hiring manager within Exxon.

For example put this into the advanced search:

Job title: (information security OR cyber security)

Location: Houston

Call the switchboard and ask to be put through to the people on the list. Find out who the MAN is (money, authority, need). Contact them and sell your candidates to them.

If it works, then you're in business and can expect to charge a bare minimum of 15% of the annual salary - €22500 - but you can charge upwards of 30%.

Now the beauty of doing it this way, is that every candidate you have contacted, is actually a senior professional who will also have hiring responsibility. Cyber Security is in demand, so as you're interviewing your candidates you can also check to see what possibilities you have to support their current vacancies.

If you speak to 20 senior candidates, you could realistically expect that 20% of them have vacancies that they are struggling to fill.

As a "specialist" headhunter in this space, you can offer your services on a retained basis, where they pay a part of the recruitment fee upfront, let's say $5000 from a potential cut price fee of $15000 and the rest is payable once a candidate has been hired.

Do this process every day - pick a job per day, find the candidates, establish if the candidates are interested or if they have vacancies themselves and then sell the candidates to the job. If clients have other vacancies then sell a retainer and see if they're interested.

Even as a rookie, with no headhunting experience, by working systematically, speaking to 20 candidate/managers per day - you will pick up vacancies that you're able to fill and if you can sell them on a retainer basis then the money is in the bank immediately.

There are 22 working days in a month, so that 440 candidate/managers spoken to, 22 jobs that you've seen advertised and then offered candidates for and probably a whole lot more that you picked up along the way.

You should be looking at a minimum of 2 deals in the bank for around $40,000 of fees for you and with a strong network of 500+ candidates/clients that you can work with in subsequent months.

Hard work initially but easy once you get going.

6. Develop an app story of Ankit Srivastava Here is how I did it.

I made an app.

I had a few goals,to make it the one of the best apps.

It was my first app

Now There were a few things i realized.

I don't have money to advertise.

So what to chose to make?Something which everyone,literally everyone will download if they find it good.

There were thousands of apps already of the same type,so what could I offer extra?The UI.(looks)

So here is the thing,I realized I have to make something which everyone uses and then it has to look good.

So i decided it will be a Music Player.

To make things easy,it has to be free,I am not a good seller,It doesn't hurt anyone to try a free app.

But then how will I earn?Well via ads.

There is an advantage of ads. as well.As the user base increases.Your money per month increases.If your app is good,user will keep it for a long time and each month your money will increase.

I learned how to make android apps in 7 months.Did freelancing side by side to earn some cash for videos,some screenshots,websites etc etc.

Launched my app ,spammed the shit out of internet,used to sleep for 4 hrs only,the rest used to go spamming,SPAM SPAM SPAM

Did it for 20 hrs a day for 20 days.Only used to sleep when my eyes couldn't open any longer.Then after that did nothing.

My app gained momentum and now has 320,000 downloads within 6 months of it's launch,getting 6500+ downloads these days.

And these has been my earnings.

1st month 100$

2nd month 200$

3rd month 420$

4th month 670$

5th month 1400$

This month (December) 2200$

The app has started earning me 100$ a day,so i am expecting 3400$ the next month.

(These earnings are not cumulative)

The key factor :presentation, video ,screenshots,website,all looked good.

And app?I rate it among the prettiest of all the music apps.

I am expecting the app will be earning me around 5k-10k per month after 6-8 months.

Now let me tell you something to inspire you:

if you go to the android store and search for a "Music Player",my app ranks above google's own music player. Achieved everything within 6 months.

The other answers will give you an idea of many of the options to monetize a high-traffic website, but the truth is, statistically speaking since I don't know you, that you will never get enough traffic to make a full-time income monetizing your blog withjust ads.

Think beyond display ads to monetize your traffic. We have sites that get millions of page views per month and some that get a few thousand per month. Believe it or not, we make more money on the less-trafficked sites? How? I'll get to that in a second, but let me show you the before and after of one of our sites when we replaced banner ads with ads to our own product we private labeled:

This is from one month to the next and nothing changed other than our monetization strategy. Everything remained almost identical:

• same site design (replaced the Google ads with the same size of our own ads promoting our private labeled product)
• almost the exact same unique visitors and page views month over month

Your current blog writes about an overcrowded topic (general technology), since there are so many other blogs that cover such topics (from Mashable to MacRumors). Is there any way for you to specialize in one specific topic?

For example, instead of just "tech news", could you write about "Apple Watch news" or "Instagram marketing for small business"? The latter being the better choice. Too many people try a blog on a broad topic and give up too quickly. You have to put as many factors in your favor as possible, why would you do otherwise? I want you to succeed.

I want you to explore a very specific topic that you enjoy and are already kind of good at (you can always get better). This way, you can sell high-end consulting, create information products, start a monthly membership club on the topic or a paid newsletter, etc. For example, if you wrote about "Instagram marketing for small businesses" you have a HUGE audience, but a specific topic: perfect!

If you can change your domain to something like: http://IGforSmallBiz.com and wrote all about this topic and nothing else, get interviewed on podcasts for this topic, and then offer consulting and courses on this product, then you can make a full-time living ($100k+ USD per year) with just a few thousand visitors per month - seriously. Of course, this is just one idea and there are millions of these - I could go through examples like this everyday and it is how we went from 6-figures to 7-figures. You can do it too.

Now, get to writing and making that dough! Remember, provide tons of value up front and don't be afraid to charge for high-touch service and products.

These are the best answers i came across on the quora for making money online!

Cheers!

If I were you, I would focus on building your skill-set.  I am assuming you are starting off in your career so for you experience and building your talent is key right now. You need to pay the bills but the bigger thing is the experience for you. If you do want to get more responsibility, you can take the initiative and work on a project that will help your team. Maybe it would be documenting your results in terms of cold calling for the field agents. Maybe you could track the person's name,  time you called, the overall response, and you can jot down some take aways if any.

Also, if you want to get good at sales, I highly suggest you take a look at a book called Spin Selling 

• Discover a good or service that you can produce/provide for a profit, and go into business selling that good or service.
• Everybody wants to know how to earn money faster. What's there to answer? You save up. You work at a better-paying job. You do your best at work to get noticed to get promoted. You spend within your means. You get a 'less expensive' girlfriend/boyfriend. What's there to answer?

Read More »