At the same time CIA wanted to destabilize the region, to kick the currently Russia-friendly government out (and as a consequence kick Russia out of its pretty much only naval base in the region). So they kept funneling funds, training and weapons to the "moderate" rebels.

Of course all those weapons (along with many left behind in Iraq), and all those "moderate" rebels switched to ISIS. Now you can either say CIA is stupid or malicious. Stupid because despite the $100B in funding, they couldn't foresee it and it was a surprise, or it was pretty much the plan.

One can say, at the end of the day what are they (and many other military and intelligence) branches will do if is there is no new threat to worry about. "No drones or SIGINT targets, no promotions and paychecks". Both for military industrial complex and the government employees alike.

Either way I find it interesting how this was spun as a surprise to the media: "We had no idea why ISIS grew so fast, and managed to occupy so much territory. Not really sure how they got those modern tank killer missiles they keep making videos with...".

"Defense Intelligence $80.1 billion[12] 3.3% Because of classified nature, budget is an estimate and may not be the actual figure"

Something makes me doubt another $20B into the intelligence budget would have changed the outcome for the better.

More sauce:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/1...

https://en.zamanalwsl.net/readNews.php?id=5696 (translated)

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/u-s-backed-syrian-group-joins-isl...

> This smacks of conspiracy claptrap that adds nothing of substance to the discussion.

Well, did you have anything to discuss, or just wanted sauce? Because I am not sure "src pls!" replies add much to the discussion.

I understand your decision to reply with snark to a snarky comment, but in this instance, "src pls!" does in fact add to the discussion.

For example it could have been "Well I think the budget is a bit off, CIA itself doesn't get that money, did you mean the total intelligence budget".

Or "Agreed, do you have any sources for the fighters who switched side? that would be interesting to see".

Imagine you are sitting by the fire and discussing something, and someone just chimes with "src pls", "srs pls", I wouldn't consider them contributing to the discussion, rather derailing it.

So I agree, source would help here, did provide sources but responded snarky to give the person asking for them a hint (not so subtle, perhaps) that in general that is not a constructive way to hold a conversation.

Secondly, I asked for source to support the claim that "all rebels switched to ISIS", but apparently you don't have that and are just of the opinion that that is what has occurred.