Its much simpler actually: The circle of violence. It started when the west thought it could bring their ideology to those countries. But Sunnis didnt want to live together with Shiites (the forming of Iraq and others). They didnt want to have foreign soldiers on their soil and adapt western lifestyle (especially Saudi Arabia). They didnt want Jews to get Israel, they didnt like to get invaded (Iraq and others), they didnt like the western coup detats (Iran and others), they didnt like to be afraid of being struck by a drone or cruise missile strike any minute (pretty much the whole region), and they didnt have the means to defend against their corrupt governments established or supported by the west or the attacks by the west.
Before this they were living at relative peace. Much more peaceful than we did live together in Europe in the last 600 years for sure.
Its pretty much desperation and has turned into normality now. They are also filled with hate due to their way of life, which puts honor very high and which the west doesnt understand. But you would be too if you have seen your culture get destroyed by other completely different cultures and seen your family and friends die by their hands for hundreds of years.
ISIS only struck that nerve better than any before. And thats why so many people are leaving to join them who are even living in Europe. Yet the west created them with their despicable foreign policy. And instead of learning from it, they are only making it worse by using these people for their own goals in Syria (that includes Turkey) and not changing their foreign policy.

A smart man once said: We shouldnt be wondering why they bomb us, we should be wondering why they dont bomb us much more.

Some bits it glosses over :

Puppet dictatorship is basically a description of every US and Soviet backed b-list nation on earth back then. The fact that it's a puppet state shouldn't be used to imply anything.
For example, the U.S.S.R. had modernization programs for its satellite states, building power plants, roads, hospitals, universities, etc, in an attempt to fast forward development and catch up with the west asap. They also did this while spouting secular rhetoric.
In a general attempt to undermine soviet efforts (*both sides tried to contain each other's influence world wide), the U.S. looked for any groups within the U.S.S.R. satellite nations that would be an 'in' for U.S. power/influence. For Afghanistan, this was the people most offended by the U.S.S.R.'s [secular] agenda, and most likely to make good on foreign anti-soviet backing - the religious Jihadists. Everyone knew very well what it would mean for the local people if Jihadists took over Afghanistan - but at the time, the soviets were considered a bigger problem than Jihadists (possibility of nuclear annihilation), so better to have Jihadists in power than soviets.

Also, Assad's release of prisoners was officially part of an amnesty for political prisoners - something the people and foreign groups were asking for.
Saying that Assad tolerated AQ or Isis is misleading. These groups gained power during the Arab spring, when a large portion of the civilian population wanted a new government, but lacked the military power to force change. Militants stepped into the situation by /graciously/ offering their military strength, in exchange for economic/resource/political support to help make it happen. After a short while, these groups coopted the entire effort against Assad. Once they were established, they simply put the people under their boot, effectively replacing Assad with something even worse within the regions they held. Assad lacked/lacks the military power and support to expel the militant groups, so they fight to a stalemate. But a stalemate is by no means tolerance.
One similarity that Syria has to Afghanistan, is that the anti-government kernel within the population that birthed the revolt, did so for anti-secular reasons. In Syria's case, it was in large part people from the region that had earlier attempted an Islamist uprising during Assad's father's reign (which was put down by the government, culminating in the 'hama massacre', leaving some intense anti-government sentiment in the region).
In any case, the available choices for power in Syria are 'political dictatorship' or 'religious dictatorship'. Whoever wins, regular people lose. It's not as if regular people have the arms necessary to force anyone to listen to them. Anyone with any brains or initiative knows that their best option is neither, so they leave (hence all the refugees).

The video also omits the ambiguous alliances in the region. Early on, you had the UAE, Saudis, and Turks supporting ISIS - because an enemy of your enemy is your friend. It wasn't until ISIS started to encroach on them that they tempered their support. Turkey remains ambiguous, by some accounts being the gateway/laundromat for ISIS oil sales... because ISIS is a solution to the 'Kurdish problem' for Turkey.
If you watch some of the VICE documentaries, you can see interviews where locals on the Turkish border say that militants and arms cross form Turkey into Syria to join ISIS every night.
Then you have countries like Iran and Syria fighting ISIS, but by official accounts these countries are the west's enemy. Recently, French leadership (after the Paris bombings) has stated that they are done playing politics, and just want to get rid of ISIS in the most practical manner possible, and are willing to work with Russia and Assad to do it.

It's worth noting that ISIS' main enemy/target is 'non Sunni Islam'. U.S./Europe tend to only mention ISIS attacks on their persons/places, and it leaves western people thinking that ISIS is against the west - but in fact the west is merely an afterthought for ISIS. For every one attack on a western asset/person, there are countless attacks on Shia, etc.

-scheherazade

Always Sunny, Season1 Ep2: Throwing eggs as a sign of protest during an abortion rally...

That is some amazing symbolism, the likes which I've rarely seen. This show is awesome. Thanks for the recommendation!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Its Always Funny in Philadelphia, The Nightman Cometh, nightman' to 'its always sunny in philadelphia, The Nightman Cometh, nightman' - edited by eric3579

Tags for this video have been changed from 'always sunny in Philadelphi, The Nightman Cometh, nightman' to 'Its Always Funny in Philadelphia, The Nightman Cometh, nightman' - edited by eric3579

I think Ratigan's summary is quite accurate for describing pre-9/11 motivation. Saudi promoted Wahhabi-ism can certainly be blamed for drawing stark divisions between Shia and Sunni Islam and fueling inter-Islamic conflicts in the region. Funds from Saudi benefactors (who have profited handsomely from the US/West's collaboration with Saudi Arabia due to its oil reserves) have certainly fueled terrorist groups.

Today, I would suggest that terrorist attacks are basically publicity, recruitment and funding campaigns for a militia based land battle by ISIS in the Middle East. Take for example the beheading of Americans that arguably escalated the US involvement in the conflict. it would seem that in terms of their survival this would have been counterproductive. I can only assume that a successful terrorist/militia organisation like ISIS is acting quote-unquote rationally in its own interests if it is as successful as it is. That forces me to conclude that the recruitment and funding that it gets from these publicized actions actually outweighs the cost of being attacked militarily by global powers like the US/EU.

While religion is certainly used to motivate the foot soldiers of these insurgents, I would not at all be surprised if the likes of the al-Baghdadi's of the conflict are purely in it for money and power. Kind of reminds me of how insurgents in Africa post-colonialism had to reinvent themselves to remain relevant and became either religiously or otherwise racially sectarian militias / factions.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Dayman-Dubstep-from-Its-Always-Sunny-in-Philidelphia

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Star-Wars-Force-Awakens

Dayman Dubstep (from It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia) has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens Official Teaser #2 has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

Writing: All of these shows are what we might call 'clever,' which is generally a big selling point for me. Unexpected, heavily layered, structurally complex writing for comedic effect - a lot of recursive, iteratively growing humor. They're all also quite big on dialogue, and are comparatively 'dark'.

Themes: All of them also feature self-destructive and dysfunctional characters, to different degrees. In addition to this:

Rick & Morty: Does brilliant deconstruction of science fiction concepts without a condescending outside perspective. An amazing example is (spoilers) the time that Rick makes Cronenbergs of the entire global population, or the time that Morty's indecisiveness creates split quantum timelines.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5A5Mb__fiA

Always Sunny: Never shies away from exploring the darkest consequences of its incredibly self-absorbed, idiotic, low attention span, high energy, self-destructive cast.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_49P1RtqU0

Arrested Development: ...I'm not good at writing these synopses; I just wanted to see if I could figure out why I love these shows so much. Anyway, Arrested Development is the most heavily layered of all of them, so in just a few episodes it builds up an incredible library of call-backs, double meanings, etc. It's also less abrasive than the other two, if you have something against offensive shows.

...I don't know if there any good example scenes. You should just watch it.

Yeah I don't watch TV at all, this is completely foreign to me.

Educate me: I've heard of Rick and Morty ( vulgar Back to the Future ripoff cartoon, isnt it?) Why is that worth watching? Clever jokes? Social commentary?

Arrested Development is on my "to see" list, but I have yet to see it. What makes it worthwhile?

edit: Oh, and of course, I've never see this Sunny in Philadelphia show. Why is this worthwhile? This clip seemed like it could go either way, but it was meaningless to me without context.

Wait what? Is this a serious question? Who the fucking fuck doesn't love Always Sunny? Am I missing something? Am I responding to a comment from 2002? How can someone not know and love IASiP?

It's the second-longest running live-action comedy in television history, and it's amazing ...do I also need to tell you to watch Arrested Development and Rick and Morty? Goddamn kids these days.

If you haven't seen Always Sunny I'd actually skip the video and go watch the series instead. So good.

If you somehow missed out on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, you must at least see The Nightman Cometh.

*doublepromote

Don't waste your cash on those, get the old style because the wool does the same thing and you can keep wearing them after a few minor accidents no problem. The only thing I would think these would win over the old style would be weight and/or heat (old style heavy and hot) but I didn't hear him talk about that which I would expect from a sales video. But if you don't plan on wearing them for 12hrs on the sunny side of a mountain then again don't bother unless you got cash to burn.

To think that the USA has for once not used proxies to deliver weapons, is, to put it mildly, insane. They had training camps since the beginning in Jordan. Same as the UK and France. There were huge old stockpiles of weapons in the Balkan for example. They somehow found their way to Syria into FSA hands, even though Saudis, Qataris, and Turkish mainly supported Al Nusra and IS. TOWs found their way to those extremists. Actually the USA sent those officially.

Of course Russia has its own interests there, but its not destabilization. That alone is reason enough to support them instead of the USA and their lackeys and boot lickers.

It has never been proven that Assad used chemical weapons. The investigators couldnt even find good indications for it. But that the extremists used chemical weapons in other cases was later confirmed. Funnily there wasnt such a huge fuss about it. Hmmm... wonder why.
The extremists also made it clear from the beginning that they dont want a successor from the current leader. They want power. They want a Sunni regime.

You then saying the ABM shield is only directed at Iran is ridiculous to say the least. MAD has its reason and saved us from otherwise certain global nuclear war quite a few times in the past. A shield like that can circumvent MAD, which is a wet dream of the neocons, always has been. Thats why the USA left the ABM treaty, NOT Russia.

Sad to see you didnt read the link (or ignored it) I linked you before. Instead you keep spewing out lies.