(02-12-2015 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: The 2013 Syrian rebels and the current ISIS aren't the exact same thing as far I've what I remember hearing.
They are, and they are not, simultaneously. I posted on another thread that Assad let out known terrorists/Salafists in order to radicalize the rebels, or at least to put a radical face on it. ISIS was al Qaeda in Iraq purchasing various Syrian rebel franchises and re-branding itself to free itself from international borders that it doesn't especially like. So, the claim is neither true nor myth nor false.
What really happened is that the Assad and al Qaeda in Iraq and various factions (Saudi and Qataris were crossing streams as well) were either competing or manipulating various tribes and other rebels for allegiance, and some groups would one day say they were with the SFA and the next week that they were with ISIS or al Qaeda. Whoever gave them monetary or other incentives would have purchased their allegiance.
Basically, the only force that really wanted a secular rebellion was the United States... Saudi pushed for Salafists, Qataris sided with the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda and Assad both wanted them to go with al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS was born from that mess and established both an advantage on the ground and the intimidation factor to win allegiance of those that were pushing for very similar things but with different benefactors, and the benefactors weren't offering enough to continue to oppose ISIS.
In the end, I wouldn't allow someone writing a dissertation to escape with their credibility if they claimed that ISIS was a home grown Syrian rebel group, but it's good enough for schtick on twitter. It was funny, but his bit on Bush was even better.