4 ms·

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 w

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.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Joining an army and then being prevented from deserting is one thing, but how many of these women have had no choice in the matter since the start? Hell, how many have been outright kidnapped? Seems absurd to assume every adult there is necessarily an accomplice.
- jstanley 9y ago
  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?
  - cm2187 9y ago
    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.
    - dagw 9y ago
      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.
      - emn13 9y ago
        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.
  - abcd_f 9y ago
    This would largely depend on whether any of the guilty are likely to harm others again when freed, wouldn't it?
  - PeachPlum 9y ago
    History would suggest the human race says "no, it isn't"
    - 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.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Joining an army and then being prevented from deserting is one thing, but how many of these women have had no choice in the matter since the start? Hell, how many have been outright kidnapped? Seems absurd to assume every adult there is necessarily an accomplice.
jstanley 9y ago
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?
- cm2187 9y ago
  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.
  - dagw 9y ago
    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.
    - emn13 9y ago
      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.
- abcd_f 9y ago
  This would largely depend on whether any of the guilty are likely to harm others again when freed, wouldn't it?
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  History would suggest the human race says "no, it isn't"
  - 9y ago