Is it conceivable that ISIL are created by West?

They do seem to be the worst possible advert for Islam.

Then again idiocy is not in short supply amongst humans. 

Tim the plumber wrote: They do seem to be the worst possible advert for Islam. Then again idiocy is not in short supply amongst humans.

I agree with you that human beings are st**id, most of all me. I see it every day man, I think st**idity stems from lack of use of the brain. LOL

Abu Loren wrote: Actually Muslims do stand up for each other because Muslims are the only true brotherhood left. This is another reason why it is very difficult to fathom the intentions of ISIL,ISIS,IS. Like I keep saying no true Muslim would do what they are doing.

In Sudan it was the west which attempted to help the Muslims in Darfur.

http://www.internationalmedicalcorps.org.uk/darfur-a-decade-of-crisis/?gclid=CMmcrKaa4cICFcrLtAod5z8AjA

The West is still there trying to help. Feeding people. Giving medical care. Where is the Islamic brotherhood?

Abu Loren wrote: I find it hard to believe that the Western powers will not engage ISIL, ISIS, IS. My conspiracy theorist mind goes to overdrive and think they are in fact Western Intelligence agents masquerading as Islamist Militants.

Definite overdrive, revving your engine to destruction.

Western powers ARE engaging ISIS in Iraq, where they have been invited to do so by the government.
The idea of adding ground troops to the fight (in combat.. training cadres are already present) has been thought not a good idea for a range of reasons, some painful, some just sensible.
Not least, the presence of Western troops would give ISIS the opportunity to gain recruits by painting this as "The West attacking Islam" (and covering the fact that the people they are fighting currently are nearly all Muslins.)

For another there is some recognition of how poorly justified (to put it mildly) earlier military interventions have been.
And, less nobly, there is the recognition that another military expedition in the region would be political suicide, as the voting public, UK and USA, is dead against it.

In respect of Syria there were indeed public and political calls for Western intervention on the side of the rebels fighting Assad, but two factors were critical (I could find more.)
Firstly was the solid support Russia gave to the Assad regime, and the fear that Western intervention would lead to escalation and Russia vs Europe war by proxy, which might easily spread from Syria.
Secondly was the emergence of more extreme anti-Assad groups who were as much anti-west as they were anti-Assad.
"Aid the Syrian rebels" started to have the possibility of handing weapons, ammunition and equipment to groups just as likely to use such against those who had supplied it, as against Assad's forces.
And as was seen the rebel groupings also started fighting for territory and for ideology amongst themselves.
Messy impasse

For thing, even the most brutal of Islamists will never kill their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters. However these ISIL, ISIS, IL members relish in killing Muslims both Shia'a adn Sunni. The mind boggles.

Here I would wish to charge you with rose-tinted vision, or some related selective eyesight or memory.

Mosques bombed by Muslims?
Shia on Sunni and Sunni on Shia in Iraq, Boko Hram on mosques in Nigeria.
Hamas and the Jund Ansar Allah (Soldiers of the Followers of God)shooting it out in a mosque in Rafah.
The leader of Jund Ansar Allah had accused Hamas of being "insufficiently Islamic".
And then there's Pakistan, again with Shia vs Sunni violence, but the most numerous attacks on mosques coming "claimed by" the Pakistan Taliban.

You consider these people non-Islamic? You'd have to convince them of that, not me.
They are all confident that they are Islamic, often regarding themselves as the best, most whole-hearted, most uncompromised of Muslims

But here it gets decidedly odd.
If these people are so far from Islam that they are not Muslims in the eyes of peaceful Muslims, then for them to do these acts *and declare they are done to further the Islamic cause* must be the biggest offence that can be committed against the faith.

But where are the Saudi tank battalions that could be cutting ISIS to shreds?
Why isn't the *West* intervening?
A bigger question might be: why aren't the forces of Islamic countries intervening?

Or is this the view of united Islam, the Ummah, working the wrong way: a reluctance to condemn or attack other Muslims as however bad they might be they are still Muslims?

I wouldn't understand?
I might. I'm familiar with the tangled and deadly webs and hierarchies of loyalty that could be found making "the troubles" in Northern Ireland so intractable for so long.
Enough to make Protestant Loyalists, Unionists, bomb and shoot members of the Northern Ireland police force, representatives of the British crown with which they wanted to stay united...

Chris