5 ms·

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.

cm2187 9y ago
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.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Then maybe the west should actually check who crosses their borders instead of just waving anyone through if they come from a boat And increase their intelligence resources and not be afraid to act on radical preachers
  - icebraining 9y ago
    What makes you think the West doesn't check who crosses the borders? What do you think the dozens of thousands of people stuck in detaining centers all over Greece and Italy are waiting for?
  - emn13 9y ago
    You do realize that e.g. the US spends approximately as much on the DHS (which is primarily borders+immigration stuff) as on the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA and FBP (federal prisons) combined? And that's the US, which through history and geography has had the luck of relatively trivial borders? 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.
- brazzy 9y ago
  You really think murdering women and children will lead to less suicide attacks in the future? That kind of short-sighted inhumane idiocy is exactly what keeps fueling the whole mess!
  - emn13 9y ago
    Come on, that's a strawman - you know that. It's not like there was a briefing with two options: mass murder, or let the bad guys retreat: pick one. Nor are the causes of "the whole mess" that trivially pinpointable.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  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?
  - Zpalmtree 9y ago
    Because we value our own citizens higher than the lives of terrorists?
    - bjl 9y ago
      The vast majority of people killed in Syria were not terrorists.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      Civilians aren't terrorists, though your own citizens might be.
- belorn 9y ago
  There will always be a potential price to pay as long a single person lives that we define as enemy or define us as enemy. This is the classical reason why nations create final solutions to a conflict. Its a choice between a bad outcome and a really bad outcome, and I doubt neither is currently desired by a western point of view.
ssijak 9y ago
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 is temporary to screw them later.
- masteruvpuppetz 9y ago
  Perhaps you're forgetting.. there were coalition war planes guiding them to safety. Which means SDF won't be able to tinker with the arrangements even if they wanted to.
  - ssijak 9y ago
    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.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      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.
      - emn13 9y ago
        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.

cm2187 9y ago

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.

raverbashing 9y ago
Then maybe the west should actually check who crosses their borders instead of just waving anyone through if they come from a boat And increase their intelligence resources and not be afraid to act on radical preachers
- icebraining 9y ago
  What makes you think the West doesn't check who crosses the borders? What do you think the dozens of thousands of people stuck in detaining centers all over Greece and Italy are waiting for?
- emn13 9y ago
  You do realize that e.g. the US spends approximately as much on the DHS (which is primarily borders+immigration stuff) as on the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA and FBP (federal prisons) combined? And that's the US, which through history and geography has had the luck of relatively trivial borders? 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.
brazzy 9y ago
You really think murdering women and children will lead to less suicide attacks in the future? That kind of short-sighted inhumane idiocy is exactly what keeps fueling the whole mess!
- emn13 9y ago
  Come on, that's a strawman - you know that. It's not like there was a briefing with two options: mass murder, or let the bad guys retreat: pick one. Nor are the causes of "the whole mess" that trivially pinpointable.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
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?
- Zpalmtree 9y ago
  Because we value our own citizens higher than the lives of terrorists?
  - bjl 9y ago
    The vast majority of people killed in Syria were not terrorists.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Civilians aren't terrorists, though your own citizens might be.
belorn 9y ago
There will always be a potential price to pay as long a single person lives that we define as enemy or define us as enemy. This is the classical reason why nations create final solutions to a conflict. Its a choice between a bad outcome and a really bad outcome, and I doubt neither is currently desired by a western point of view.

ssijak 9y ago

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 is temporary to screw them later.

masteruvpuppetz 9y ago
Perhaps you're forgetting.. there were coalition war planes guiding them to safety. Which means SDF won't be able to tinker with the arrangements even if they wanted to.
- ssijak 9y ago
  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.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    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.
    - emn13 9y ago
      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.