41–50 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please give sources, how do you know that they are instructed by SAS ? This is very common theory with no backing that I know.
this video can give you few hints. i have struggled to find it, seems like rt videos are penalized. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mliCy4GN2w here is text version http://www.vrenergie.com/index.php/fuel-qxxi-centuryq/2329-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please give sources, how do you know that they are instructed by SAS ? This is very common theory with no backing that I know.
this video can give you few hints. i have struggled to find it, seems like rt videos are penalized. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mliCy4GN2w here is text version http://www.vrenergie.com/index.php/fuel-qxxi-centuryq/2329-b...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/27vlvw/comp...
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…
And if your allies make a deal you have to stick by it even if you don't like it
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.
How about arrest and question them?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't get this thread either. Why the bloodlust? Isn't it better for 100 guilty people to walk free than for 1 innocent person to be harmed? If not, when did that stop being the case?
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.
That kind of short-sighted inhumane idiocy is exactly what keeps fueling the whole mess!
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…
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.
to be fair to him every administration funds extremist rebels to get rid of dictators they don't like, a stable enemy is worse for the usa than an unstable one.
the fundamentalist interpretation of the quran is abused by the west, they know they can get better motivated rebels by funding the crazies, when the next dictator has stopped singing from the hymn sheet the situation has calmed enough for that regime to no longer be the crazies and they can find more in some backwater.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this thread either. Why the bloodlust? Isn't it better for 100 guilty people to walk free than for 1 innocent person to be harmed? If not, when did that stop being the case?
I think people are more concerned about future harm these guys will cause than punishing past behavior. If out of this 100 guys 5 end up doing some suicide attacks, killing 10 people each, yeah it does rationally makes sense to go for the preventing strikes (all made up numbers). It's the old debate between utilitarianism vs deontology.
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.