Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 100 posts

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#21

Post by lumberingjack »

jacobush wrote: post #11
mrarjen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only sources on this I can find is that in a way the US created ISIS by bombing a whole lot of civilians in the region and thus fueling an uprising. Nothing concrete regarding the SAS or Special Forces training them.

Not exactly, but instead along these lines: The US civil administrator of Iraq fired 400 000 Army men, majority sunni. Now, you have 400 000 families with no food on the table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Disbanding_the_Ira... Cue 15 years of chaos and strife, and the ISIS has fertile ground to sow their seeds of hatred in. A significant fraction of these disgruntled 400 000 army men apparently decided…

When I was in Iraq we tried to give them jobs doing construction, food preparation, auto repair, ECT. But they all proved to be untrustworthy, taking the money and not doing their jobs or worse sabotage due to extreme idealization. It reminded me of the people of Detroit. That is why we disbanded them they could not be trusted to be organized holding guns at a moments notice they would switch sides and shoot at you.

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#22

Post by wolco »

jacobush wrote: post #18
dba7dba wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wanted to know who made the idiotic decision to disband the ENTIRE Iraqi army. Was it from the white house or someone in Iraq like P. Beemer? A lot of the ills of Iraq after Saddam fell was due to disbanding of the army. Imho.

”On May 23, 2003, Bremer issued Order Number 2, in effect dissolving the entire former Iraqi army[40] and putting 400,000 former Iraqi soldiers out of work.” As for who made him do it, I don’t know. But as you said, it was idiotic. And that’s worse than evil. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would agree with me.

I'm not sure it was a bad move.

Leaving the army and power structures in place would have created conditions for a civil war that could have spilled over the entire region. Leaving the defeated minority population to continue ruling over the south and kurds would have been a blood bath.

Disbanding created isis but not disbanding would have been worse. We'll never know how worse things could have gotten.

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#23

Post by cm2187 »

JohnStrange wrote: post #20
frandroid wrote: post #14

Basically, either you let ISIS escape, or you completely flatten the city to get rid of them. I mean considering the way Raqqa looks now, I'm not sure it was effective in preventing much destruction, but if you have an opportunity to save a large city, you try to.

Seconded. This sounds like a reasonable deal that probably prevented a lot of civilian deaths of people who could have been caught in the crossfire.

But the potential price is more suicide attacks in the streets of Paris or London. Not a concern of the SDF of course (and who could blame them?), but what outcome is more desirable from a western point of view is less obvious to me.

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#24

Post by ssijak »

JohnStrange wrote: post #20
frandroid wrote: post #14

Basically, either you let ISIS escape, or you completely flatten the city to get rid of them. I mean considering the way Raqqa looks now, I'm not sure it was effective in preventing much destruction, but if you have an opportunity to save a large city, you try to.

Seconded. This sounds like a reasonable deal that probably prevented a lot of civilian deaths of people who could have been caught in the crossfire.

How is that even remotely reasonable. You got a convoy full of terrorists leaving for safety and/or Europe. It could have been easily bombed to destruction without touching anything else. Easiest and most valuable target of the whole war. And don`t even try to answer with something like "but it was a deal, we had to stand by it". They are a bunch of psychopath terrorists, period. You don`t make deals with them unless it is temporary to screw them later.

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#25

Post by masteruvpuppetz »

ssijak wrote: post #24
JohnStrange wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconded. This sounds like a reasonable deal that probably prevented a lot of civilian deaths of people who could have been caught in the crossfire.

How is that even remotely reasonable. You got a convoy full of terrorists leaving for safety and/or Europe. It could have been easily bombed to destruction without touching anything else. Easiest and most valuable target of the whole war. And don`t even try to answer with something like "but it was a deal, we had to stand by it". They are a bunch of psychopath terrorists, period. You don`t make deals with them unless…

Perhaps you're forgetting.. there were coalition war planes guiding them to safety. Which means SDF won't be able to tinker with the arrangements even if they wanted to.

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#26

Post by jacobush »

icebraining wrote: post #19
jacobush wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly, but instead along these lines: The US civil administrator of Iraq fired 400 000 Army men, majority sunni. Now, you have 400 000 families with no food on the table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Disbanding_the_Ira... Cue 15 years of chaos and strife, and the ISIS has fertile ground to sow their seeds of hatred in. A significant fraction of these disgruntled 400 000 army men apparently decided…

I think the downvotes come from the perceived motte-and-bailey argument. Your point that disbanding the US army is likely to have decisively contributed to the creation of ISIS is good, but it's a far cry from the claim that the US literally airlifted ISIS commanders, so in this context it's not appropriate.

Point taken

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#27

Post by ssijak »

masteruvpuppetz wrote: post #25
ssijak wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that even remotely reasonable. You got a convoy full of terrorists leaving for safety and/or Europe. It could have been easily bombed to destruction without touching anything else. Easiest and most valuable target of the whole war. And don`t even try to answer with something like "but it was a deal, we had to stand by it". They are a bunch of psychopath terrorists, period. You don`t make deals with them unless…

Perhaps you're forgetting.. there were coalition war planes guiding them to safety. Which means SDF won't be able to tinker with the arrangements even if they wanted to.

Those coalition planes should be bombing them and not guiding them to safety lol

I don`t get this thread. Majority of people think that this was totally ok. I guess until next 9/11, or London, or Paris or whatever happen (hope not) and then it is again ok to bomb the country half randomly and drone strike wherever the current administration wants.

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#28

Post by raverbashing »

cm2187 wrote: post #23
JohnStrange wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconded. This sounds like a reasonable deal that probably prevented a lot of civilian deaths of people who could have been caught in the crossfire.

But the potential price is more suicide attacks in the streets of Paris or London. Not a concern of the SDF of course (and who could blame them?), but what outcome is more desirable from a western point of view is less obvious to me.

Then maybe the west should actually check who crosses their borders instead of just waving anyone through if they come from a boat

And increase their intelligence resources and not be afraid to act on radical preachers

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#29

Post by Dolores12 »

Terr_ wrote: post #6
inconv wrote: post #4

It is a well known fact that ISIS was instructed by SAS and American special forces. They have also been reported that ISIS commanders where airlifted by American helicopters. So much about fighting terrorism. United States along with Britain and other European nations have been become the epiphany of hypocrisy( remember the bombing of Libya where British and French were giving a hand to the Americans?). These facts…

For such a "well-known fact", I haven't heard of it. (I suppose it could be true in the sense that some nonzero number of ISIS members were formerly part of local militaries.) Where did you hear it, Mr. Throwaway-account created just 9 minutes ago?

>Where did you hear it, Mr. Throwaway-account created just 9 minutes ago?

Seeing so many downvotes for an honest opinion seems like it was wise desicion.

Re: A deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa

#30

Post by icebraining »

ssijak wrote: post #27
masteruvpuppetz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're forgetting.. there were coalition war planes guiding them to safety. Which means SDF won't be able to tinker with the arrangements even if they wanted to.

Those coalition planes should be bombing them and not guiding them to safety lol I don`t get this thread. Majority of people think that this was totally ok. I guess until next 9/11, or London, or Paris or whatever happen (hope not) and then it is again ok to bomb the country half randomly and drone strike wherever the current administration wants.

The question is whether it's acceptable to kill a bunch of innocents now (certainly the children, probably many of the women and possibly even some men) to avoid an hypothetical attack in the future. If this was just about ISIS fighters, I'd agree with you, but that's not what the report described.
Post reply on HN