MedicalGearSolid

It's because there are people within the regions they've invaded that support them. They're called the baath party and used to support Saddam. Ironically they're mostly secular (the baath party). Also, ISIS is being supported by Saudi Arabia on the down low.

One of the big misconceptions is that this whole ISIS was a massive loss for the kurds. Although it was eventually gonna get to this without American intrvention, It actually helped us regain land Saddam Hussein had taken from us. Especially Kirkuk, which has massive economical leverage (oil again) within Iraq.

The second one, and this is not just for this American intervention, but most western intervention, is people think that there are humanitarian reasons behind it. That's just a overdrawn childhood story the media and governments in the west portray. It's all for money and power in one form or another

Although it is an opinion (a very popular one), there is no proof. Ihave no bias but there is absolutely no way they could have got this sort of organisation and artillery without external help and they've managed to challenge tens of thousands of peshmerga who are themselves supposed to be a strong force within the middle east. Saudi arabia is one of the nations who would theoretically support ISIS and have stayed quiet. 2+2=4 but it could equal 5 as well i suppose.

I chuckled at this partly from the pun and partly because of the tomato I have in my pocket.

I hadn't thought of it till you asked actually. If I were to make an educated guess the answer is yes but only hostages. Everyone else flees the ISIS towns as its a leave or die decision. The media (middle east and west) hasn't alluded to this either.