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

91–100 of 100 posts

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

#91

Post by jacobush »

wolco wrote: post #22
jacobush wrote: post #18

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.

So, worst case, pay the soldiers to do nothing while vacuuming the market for guns and destroy them.

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

#93

Post by Udik »

tryingagainbro wrote: post #87
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…

No Iranian and no Russian influence. ISIS and others may seem as a temporary thing that will go away after a few bombings but keeping Russia out of ME and Iran contained is very important. Israel wants the same, coincidentally ;)

What they really want is having no semblance of a state that might have interests conflicting with those of a few friends, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia. Anything else, including pure chaos, terrorism, misery and starvation seems to be a perfectly acceptable alternative.

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

#94

Post by Dolores12 »

chmod775 wrote: post #89
jacobr wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood how some people consider "terror" to only be acts of terrorism in Western countries, thus reaching the conclusion that local fighters are somehow not terrorists. If you want to use a narrow definition of terrorism, such as "participating in purposeful killing of civilians to cause terror and further your political goals", 100% of ISIS fighters are guilty. Dozens die or are hurt daily by a huge numb…

Using that "narrow" definition most countries around the world, including the US, have engaged or are engaging in terrorism, thus making the lot of them terrorist groups? Bombings of cities during war time, indiscriminately killing civilians, sometimes as a show of power to pressure the opposing side to surrender, wouldn't make the whole military a terrorist group. North Korea's treatment of their citizens doesn't ma…

>most countries around the world, including the US, have engaged or are engaging in terrorism

1. You are saying that at least 98 counties in the world are killing civilians to pursuit its political aims. That's bold assertion. Can you elaborate?

2. Hillary Clinton, a former United States presidential candidate, asked to send a drone to kill Julian Assange [0]. Do you consider this terrorism? I do.

3. The use of nuclear weapon in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a war crime and i hope some day the guilty will be punished. Otherwise, expect North Korea to land a nuke on US territories without any consequences(for North Korea).

[0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562?lang...

Edit: actually i just found what it is, it is called State Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terror...

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

#95

Post by chmod775 »

Dolores12 wrote: post #94
chmod775 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using that "narrow" definition most countries around the world, including the US, have engaged or are engaging in terrorism, thus making the lot of them terrorist groups? Bombings of cities during war time, indiscriminately killing civilians, sometimes as a show of power to pressure the opposing side to surrender, wouldn't make the whole military a terrorist group. North Korea's treatment of their citizens doesn't ma…

>most countries around the world, including the US, have engaged or are engaging in terrorism 1. You are saying that at least 98 counties in the world are killing civilians to pursuit its political aims. That's bold assertion. Can you elaborate? 2. Hillary Clinton, a former United States presidential candidate, asked to send a drone to kill Julian Assange [0]. Do you consider this terrorism? I do. 3. The use of nucle…

I agree it can be considered terrorism, what I explicitly disagree with is then claiming that for this reason the US and other countries should be considered a terrorist group, rather than a country.

Same reason ISIS shouldn't be regarded as a terrorist group, since their actual modus operandi is better described as a militant group and proto-state.

Also to reply to your nitpicking on 1: I didn't specify a timeframe, so yes. If I had to I could go back in history for a few thousand years for most countries until I found something that fit my parent comment's definition of terrorism. There will be scant few who will come away clean under such scrutiny, which is also why I rejected that definition for being useless.

But since only tens of countries are currently completely at peace, I may not even have to go very far back.

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

#96

Post by walshemj »

chmod775 wrote: post #78
type0 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Burning people alive, attacking civilian targets to cause fear and panic and lack of trust in the civilian authorities - that's exactly what classic terrorism is.

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

#97

Post by frandroid »

aedron wrote: post #66
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.

So intercept the convoy and fight them honorably, or whatever you believe is the better alternative. I hope you are not suggesting that they should just be getting a free pass because they brought their wives and kids in tow. At the very least track them and pick them out whenever the opportunity arises. It's not like the U.S. does not have any intelligence capabilities in the region. I'll tell you what I believe: Th…

1) I'd rather lean towards Hanlon's razor 2) Obama was actually quite mindful of int'l law and seriously restricted aerial strikes 3) Once Trump came to power, the military has been allowed carte blanche, and they basically wiped Mosul and Raqqa to take ISIS.

As for your first paragraph, the point is that if you double-cross the enemy on a deal on made with them, then they won't make any more deals with you, and the U.S. needs leverage in Syria more than anyone else. So it's likely that the U.S. said, "you get out of Raqqa, we'll let you get to Albukamal or [whatever other place], and after that you're fair game again." Otherwise why would these jihadists have taken the bargain? They knew they would be a sitting target without assurances of safety until a destination.

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

#98

Post by aedron »

frandroid wrote: post #97
aedron wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So intercept the convoy and fight them honorably, or whatever you believe is the better alternative. I hope you are not suggesting that they should just be getting a free pass because they brought their wives and kids in tow. At the very least track them and pick them out whenever the opportunity arises. It's not like the U.S. does not have any intelligence capabilities in the region. I'll tell you what I believe: Th…

1) I'd rather lean towards Hanlon's razor 2) Obama was actually quite mindful of int'l law and seriously restricted aerial strikes 3) Once Trump came to power, the military has been allowed carte blanche, and they basically wiped Mosul and Raqqa to take ISIS. As for your first paragraph, the point is that if you double-cross the enemy on a deal on made with them, then they won't make any more deals with you, and the…

Conspiracies are an easy, lazy and usually wrong way to explain a lot of things but that doesn't mean conspiracies don't exist, in fact most foreign policy is hidden and clouded by disinformation, not least in the Middle East.

Obama actually stated that the United States refrained from fighting ISIS because it would have helped (then) Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki (who no longer served U.S. interests and hence was pushed out).

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

#99

Post by skj »

status wrote: post #68
skj wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you weren't the person who posted the link to RT in the first place I would have laughed at your witty sarcasm.

Even if you didn't put this comment i would laugh so much at your sarcasm

If ever I thought a reply came from a paid Russian troll, this was it.

(your retort does not make sense and does not seem like it was made by a fluent English speaker)

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

#100

Post by RaleyField »

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 same way one couldn't deny

Taliban were formed after Soviets pulled out so maybe one could deny that. But why research your history when one could repeat contrarian narratives.

Post reply on HN