51–60 of 100 posts
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?
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…
Their first issue came with US instating the government that was incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt at the same time.
Even if the original Iraqi militants had no recruits from the army, the would have still a source of credibility to latch on - the hated new Iraqi government
If USA did bother to do just a dime more work on Iraqi welfare than was needed to prevent food riots, and spent more money on Iraq than the initial reconstruction funds, no militant group would simply be there.
I see people will write something like "but US gave N gazillions to Iraqi government for reconstruction." Yes, they gave their N gazillions that were mostly spent by Iraqi officials on buying Cognac and property in UAE
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…
First, IS is always recruiting and trying to turn people to their sides.
Secondly, it's impossible to know the ideology of every armed group, as there are many nuances, and that's what makes this war complex, you don't know who to root for.
Third, when a secular group like the FSA is losing battles, IS is getting hands on weapons and military gear, so stop saying that the west is arming terrorists. They captured those guns who were given to good enough guys.
Fourth, this conflict is ongoing, is very messy and disorganized (involved: russia, the US, european countries, irak, IS, the kurds, assad, the FSA, other groups financed by who knows, Iran? saudi arabia?), and it's not a secret that intel agencies will do whatever they can to calm things down, but it's not easy because they use secrecy as they should.
So you don't bring proof, and you don't bring any solution to the problem either. You just sow distrust and confusion which makes everything worse. Stop with those conspiracy theories.
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.
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?
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?
History would suggest the human race says "no, it isn't"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Let's not pretend that RT is any more trustworthy than infowars.
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…
It was so nice of United States to make sure none of ISIS fighters were harmed. It is just unbelievable. They make deals with terrorists.
The only people who don't make deals with terrorists are in the movies. All the world's governments make deals with terrorists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
”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.
How would you describe what actually happened?