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

71–80 of 100 posts

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

#71

Post by emn13 »

icebraining wrote: post #30
ssijak wrote: post #27

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.

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.

Considering women innocents (I'm assuming you mean non-combatants) is pretty absurd, IMHO. As in: they're certainly aware of what they're involved in; and their participation contributes significantly to the problem, and to the degree that they're forced to stay: that probably goes for most of those present: desertion isn't something any army takes lightly.

And although the children cannot be at fault, I doubt they'll be either innocent or harmless after that childhood. To be clear, I'm not suggesting mass execution is therefore justified - but this bad situation is going to cause more bad situations in the future.

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

#72

Post by status »

People are still in denial of the double game US government is playing in Syria. The same way one couldn't deny that US government trained and supplied Talibans with stinger rockets. The very same people that now US condemn as terrorist and fight with. The Talibans were the good freedom fighters when they fought with Russia now they are the bad once what is this?

"It also seems like you're willfully ignoring the history about the US allying with the Taliban during the Soviet invasion." Nope you are ignoring the fact that US is applying military force to keep the pro-western government in Afghanistan otherwise it will be long time gone. Isn't that an invasion?

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

#73

Post by status »

dagw wrote: post #70
status wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, since when ISIL fighters use Caugar Armored Vehicles? Even Iraqi army didnt have these.

since when ISIL fighters use Caugar Armored Vehicles? Even Iraqi army didnt have these. No, but he Iraqi army has plenty of Badger Armored Vehicles which is based on the Cougar and visually quite similar.

ISIL fighters are using Badger Armored Vehicles that is new, any source for your theory?

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

#74

Post by emn13 »

dagw wrote: post #49
cm2187 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the flip side if these people had been murdered in cold blood and that act was used as the casus belli for 5 suicide bombers killing 10 people each it would make rational sense to let them go.

Only if those 5 suicide bombers would not have otherwise committed a similar act - it's not clear to me how the stated aim or allegiance behind such acts is related. Is that a cause? An effect? Something more complicated?

But yeah: nitpicking aside: your point is valid, as is the implied suggestion that if you follow that line of reasoning you can bend the outcome to whatever you want.

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

#75

Post by dagw »

status wrote: post #73
dagw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

since when ISIL fighters use Caugar Armored Vehicles? Even Iraqi army didnt have these. No, but he Iraqi army has plenty of Badger Armored Vehicles which is based on the Cougar and visually quite similar.

ISIL fighters are using Badger Armored Vehicles that is new, any source for your theory?

I didn't say that. I said the Iraqi Army has plenty of Badgers and it's easy to mistake a Badger for Cougar.

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

#76

Post by type0 »

chmod775 wrote: post #69
Dolores12 wrote: post #33

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.

I never understood how any armed muslim automatically becomes a "terrorist" in the eyes of the world. Most ISIS fighters aren't terrorists.

> Most ISIS fighters aren't terrorists.

What are they then, freedom fighters?

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

#77

Post by dagw »

type0 wrote: post #76
chmod775 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood how any armed muslim automatically becomes a "terrorist" in the eyes of the world. Most ISIS fighters aren't terrorists.

> Most ISIS fighters aren't terrorists. What are they then, freedom fighters?

What's wrong with 'militants'?

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

#78

Post by chmod775 »

type0 wrote: post #76
chmod775 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood how any armed muslim automatically becomes a "terrorist" in the eyes of the world. Most ISIS fighters aren't terrorists.

> Most ISIS fighters aren't terrorists. What are they then, freedom fighters?

They're a militant group, and they claim to be a state, though they are unrecognized.

I don't even understand how the label "terrorist" applies to the lot of them.

It's like everyone has forgotten what the term terrorist means. We might as well change the dictionary definition to "armed muslim" now.

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

#79

Post by Zpalmtree »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #50
cm2187 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Continued fighting would have killed thousands of more civilians, while France and Great Britain have had under a thousand terrorism related deaths since 1970. How isn't this obvious?

Because we value our own citizens higher than the lives of terrorists?

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

#80

Post by Haydos585x2 »

status wrote: post #72

People are still in denial of the double game US government is playing in Syria. The same way one couldn't deny that US government trained and supplied Talibans with stinger rockets. The very same people that now US condemn as terrorist and fight with. The Talibans were the good freedom fighters when they fought with Russia now they are the bad once what is this? "It also seems like you're willfully ignoring the hist…

The US strategy seems pretty simple. A free, democratic or perhaps autocratic pro-western government. It also seems like you're willfully ignoring the history about the US allying with the Taliban during the Soviet invasion.
Post reply on HN