"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?
Taliban were formed after Soviets pulled out so maybe one could deny that. But why research your history when one could repeat contrarian narratives.
I'll tell you what I believe: The U.S. has been in collusion with Saudi Arabia and their ISIS henchmen from the beginning, trying to use them as a tool to force a regime change in Syria and Iraq. This is why ISIS has been treated with kids gloves for the duration of the campaign, first in Iraq and later in Syria. It was shown that the supposedly intense bombing campaigns were mysteriously ineffective for years, both the British and the American ones, ISIS again and again happened upon stashes of cash and weapons, etc. etc. Too many weird coincidences to mention.
This will not be a difficult theory to consider for anyone with knowledge of history and the American modus operandi in foreign policy. But somehow you're a crackpot to challenge the official story. The mainstream media has been shown to selectively present news to support the official line, and occasionally lie, but people reel at the thought that there is another very different side to the story they get told. Government sponsored covert propaganda campaigns are exposed every other week, but people still buy the 'grassroots' reports from Twitter et al. It's sad but unforunately it may just be human nature to tend towards believing authority.
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.
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).
That kind of short-sighted inhumane idiocy is exactly what keeps fueling the whole mess!
And increase their intelligence resources and not be afraid to act on radical preachers
Border control is a huge focus! It's also an almost impossible task, which is not something people want to hear.
It'd be easier to claim western countries spend too much on controlling their borders simply because all that cash doesn't seem to have had the desired effect, judging by popular opinion.
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.
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.
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?
And btw, I am against NATO interventions all around the world. My own country was bombed by NATO (Yugoslavia), I know how it is having bombs drop on your city for months where they killed thousands of civilians in the middle of Europe. But if you pretend that you want to destroy ISIS, this was the clearest target of the whole war in Syria.
And I don`t buy it that women are by default innocent. Especially this kind of woman with this background. Yes, probably some were, but more probably many also did crimes. There were armed women who were doing bad things mentioned in the same article.
I mean, I am all against any war. Against foreign interventions all over the world where they politics see fit. But I am also sick of seeing the same interventionists killing civilians time and time again and then letting this convoy pass by the excuse that there were some innocent people there maybe. They don`t stand by their logic, that's all. Anyhow, they could have organized any other type of attack using heavy ground machinery and air support when they located (by the mentioned drones) parts of the group (after the convoy split) that is 100% (or let`s say 99%) terrorist that would mitigate civilian casualties. But whatever. Not that I have high hopes for NATO doing the right thing.
It's the old debate between utilitarianism vs deontology.
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.
And if your allies make a deal you have to stick by it even if you don't like it
If the Syrian Democratic Forces and the US to just say "No survivors!" and release the MOAB they would likely have a very hard time gaining the trust of the local tribes and communities in the future.
"This was a local solution to local issue. Coalition did not fully agree, but respected our partners decision." - https://twitter.com/OIRSpox/status/930166228727066626
I wonder if it is the same convoy. http://www.bestgore.com/murder/video-isis-convoy-safe-evacua...
I would say no since the article says:
No flags or banners would be allowed to be flown from the convoy as it left the city, the deal stipulated
Edit: The article says "But when he and his fellow drivers assembled their convoy early on 12 October"
But looking at the map, it seems like Deir Al-zoor is more or less where they said the convoy went. (Sections of convoy later spotted here)
Saying "mobilizing to assist Deir Al-zoor" sounds better (on a IS point of view) than "evacuating Raqqah".
It must be depressing to be a BBC writer and then see your hard work shredded into tiny chunks.
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 number of mines, booby traps, suicide bombs and attacks explicitly targeting civilians in Syria, Iraq, and across the world. This happens inside and outside of ISIS controlled territory.
Civilians are in no way collateral damage for ISIS, they are direct targets of genocide, sexual slavery and simply random mass murders.
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 make the whole country, or their military, or their police, a terrorist group.
At times countries like the US have killed more civilians in a single day than ISIS killed in the past 6 years. Do I consider them terrorist? No.
In the war in Syria, the Assad regime killed more civilians than ISIS by an order of magnitude. Do I consider them terrorist? No.
All three countries would be considered terrorist by your definition.
I don't buy it. Just because of terrorist acts by a few, the whole group doesn't become a group of terrorists.
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 . 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).
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...
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.
What are they then, freedom fighters?
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.
- How the US disbanding the Iraqi Army created the environment for ISIS to form. http://time.com/3900753/isis-iraq-syria-army-united-states-m...
- The US is always giving arms and training to "moderate" groups throughout the middle east. It's so frequent that without a doubt, I can predict that some of those groups were later acquired by ISIS or had members trained by the US desert for ISIS. This kind of thing happens so frequently that the main conclusion you can draw, along with the rest of the contextual evidence that is too lengthy to go into detail here relating to drone strikes, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc is that the US just does not give a fuck about supporting or creating more terror groups in the name of dominating strategic geopolitical territories.
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.
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.
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 to lend their services to ISIS.
to voiceless down voters - of course your standpoint is that doing the above was of no consequence, or maybe even helped delay the creation of ISIS? So absurd...
Se child comment.
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
A lot of the ills of Iraq after Saddam fell was due to disbanding of the army. Imho.
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.
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?
here is text version
No, but he Iraqi army has plenty of Badger Armored Vehicles which is based on the Cougar and visually quite similar.
(your retort does not make sense and does not seem like it was made by a fluent English speaker)
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.