>>565>Direct and is directly. Not as in controlNo one does either. They are an apocalyptic death cult that governs with brutality. As I said, the closest anyone comes to aiding them is Assad by giving them the anarchic vacuum they need to thrive.
>insurgent groups defects and Ba'athist constitute the bulk of the IS Group and the US funded those and didn't enable the other so it's the same as supporting the IS Group.1. At this point IS gets the bulk of its fighters from the areas it controls, not other groups.
2. At every level of their operations there was then and still is significant fighting between the insurgent groups you mentioned and IS.
3. The US never aided al-Qaeda (not even in Afghanistan to fight the Russians).
4. Your case for US aid for IS rests on an assumption of 3 degrees of separation. This is retarded.
5. Ba'ath party members have plenty of non-US reasons to wage half of a sectarian war.
>blaming everything on Maliki is wrongI don't. I blame him for nothing more than his due. He left Iraq much worse off than it was when he unconstitutionally took control of it. Him along with Assad did IS to themselves.
>clearly falseyour logic is questionable
