17 ms·
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 gett
by aedron 9y ago
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: 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.
- Udik 9y agoWhile I agree with you on the real motives and goal of the US (even if I believe they're mixed and confused, and not as clear cut as you present them), I still find unacceptable the talk of total annihilation, not to mention the actual killing of thousands of people, women and children included. Yes, even if they're armed, the aim should be victory, not massacre.
- frandroid 9y ago1) 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.
- aedron 9y agoConspiracies 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).