To answer why, all you need to do is ask why the US has ever gotten involved in affairs in the area... Oil. All countries do whatever it takes to secure their 'survival'. The 'survival' of a state is made up of a number of different areas of concern. Some of these areas are energy security and economic security. The reason the US is so infatuated with the Middle East is because of all the oil (read: energy) they get from the area. In recent years, the US has been becoming more energy independent (meaning they rely less of foreign energy), but the US still relies on the oil trade in the area. To protect the oil trade, the US send in soldiers. When soldiers enter the scene, enmity and hostility breeds within the locals (due to their mistrust and stormy relationship with the US), and more people become radicalised.

It really comes down to this - we want to be there (because oil) and they don't want us to be there (because of their history with the West).

The US was literally giving ISIS weapons and money to fight Syria for us. It is pretty depressing that we (US) were funding terrorists.

They gain one motive to get rid of someone, and don't care how they do it.

Well, that's hardly surprising Weoo. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In the geopolitical climate of the time, it must have been very beneficial to frame ISIS as freedom fighters. It's hardly news that the US has a proclivity for overthrowing and supporting resistance to political entities that it does not like. I read (parts of) a book that listed and detailed all the times since WW2 that the CIA has intervened in another country's politics and interfered with their right to self-determination (I.e. overthrew the government). There were over 50 entries in it (closer to 70, I think). This interventionist, coup-creating, bloodsucking foreign policy has been the US's hallmark for decades.

Tbh I think it's all just propaganda to bring back the blame to the Goverment "aka Barack Obama" The media can't go a day without blaming something on someone.Yes i'm looking at you Nancy Grace.

First one is not even a real article
seems dubious to me

I find this monumentally hard to believe, with the only acceptable evidence being the creation of the terrorist force led by osama bin laden, this was funded by america throughout the war in Afghanistan, inside the time frame of the cold war.

But to be fair this is completely, off topic and has no real connection apart from US fuck ups and terrorrists

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/...aeda-and-isis/
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5751876
I'm finding multiple articles about it, actually.

Those articles are full of shit, actually

This is all I know on the topic. Not entirely sure if it's correct, but it sounds that way and it seems to make the most sense to me. Feel free to tear me, and the video to pieces if you think otherwise.

That's what I first believed, Snuff. Though I changed my mind after there seems to be evidence of it's creation, though the reason being similar to that of why we funded Al-Qaeda? I'm not sure. It's just a conspiracy thing in my opinion. I've been doing a bit more research on it since I last posted.