Only gossip sites claim such madness. Just read what one of the greatest thinkers of the US says:
The US doesn't tactically assist them. Turkey does. And whose "we"? The United Kingdom has never had any interests in Syria (where ISIS is most prominent), doesn't have any history in Syria and is not currently involved in any action save for diplomatic action in Syria
No, the British didn't finance Arab terrorists to take down the Ottoman Empire
You would never do such a thing 
. UK also didn't create, financed and gave intel to Al Qaeda in the cold war. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very common principle. But what does 1980s Afghanistan have to do with present day Syria? You've run out of arguements here it seems as nobody can really deny that Turkey would be happy for ISIS to massacre every Kurd in Kobani.No, the British didn't finance Arab terrorists to take down the Ottoman Empire
What does it have to do with modern day world? ISIS has roots in Al Qaeda. They are coming from the Wahhabi ideology that is funded, aided, trained by the British and American since the cold war. That is why I called ISIS a miscarriage of UK/US foreign policy.
A miscarriage of past policy. The US is a minor player in the Syrian war and the UK almost completely absent. It is regional countries who provide the vast majority of arms and funding whether to Assad or the "rebels".
So why is this prof saying that the British create Wahhabism with supporting Saudi Arabia in 20th century? I made a mistake. Muslim radicalism didn't start in the cold war. It started with British support for radical Muslims in 20th century after they uprooted the region. I guess they don't mention this on your gossip websites.
Britain supported the Hashemites not the Al Sauds. The two were bitter enemies.
