By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
So much propaganda, and so little evidence from all sides involved. Hopefully people will get wise to these pretexts for war, and stop voting for the governments who indulge in them.
So much propaganda, and so little evidence from all sides involved. Hopefully people will get wise to these pretexts for war, and stop voting for the governments who indulge in them.
A bit tricky doing that in Russia next year really.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
I can find provide you with plenty of other news sources which have been reporting the same thing for weeks, but not in the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph or Times.
I'm sure that there's a youtube video that explains EVERYTHING here.
You've not commented on my BBC link. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Please read it, there's some pretty startling revelations for people who didn't know about this over a month ago - before the BBC "uncovered" the story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret
Perhaps you're serious, and you do actually prefer your news in YouTube format for thickos.
I can find provide you with plenty of other news sources which have been reporting the same thing for weeks, but not in the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph or Times.
I thought it was fascinating and seemed to be fair, not that I know much to be able to judge. The conflicting priorities of the Americans and Kurdish(?) was never something I'd have understood without reading it.
It was surprising to me that the kpg (forgive me if I'm wrong but this is from memory) got to choose whether to let Isis leave or fight on. Also that the US honored that choice by not bombing the convoy down the road a bit.
So what about you? Was it any good?
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
"The deal to let IS fighters escape from Raqqa — de facto capital of their self-declared caliphate — had been arranged by local officials. It came after four months of fighting that left the city obliterated and almost devoid of people. It would spare lives and bring fighting to an end. The lives of the Arab, Kurdish and other fighters opposing IS would be spared."
This wasn't really secret was it? I seem to remember it being reported previously. They made a deal to try and stop the house to house fighting in a town which would have cost a lot more lives. What would have been your preference? Level the place and ensure every IS fighter as well as anyone else in the town was killed?
I suspect if they had flattened the place in door to door fighting and it resulted in loads or deaths including civilians you'd have had a good long moan about that as well.
I thought it was fascinating and seemed to be fair, not that I know much to be able to judge. The conflicting priorities of the Americans and Kurdish(?) was never something I'd have understood without reading it.
It was surprising to me that the kpg (forgive me if I'm wrong but this is from memory) got to choose whether to let Isis leave or fight on. Also that the US honored that choice by not bombing the convoy down the road a bit.
So what about you? Was it any good?
It was very good for the BBC and is a dramatic departure from the line they have been reporting on for the last 6 and a half years.
I laughed at the fact they state that they "uncovered" the story which was reported in other media outlets over a month ago.
I'm trying to work out the reasons for the change in stance. I suspect it will be a one off - this occasionally happens (like with the NYP article I linked earlier) - they print something honest so if/when the truth is ever finally outed, they can point back to where they first reported the facts, in order to save face.
It was very good for the BBC and is a dramatic departure from the line they have been reporting on for the last 6 and a half years.
I laughed at the fact they state that they "uncovered" the story which was reported in other media outlets over a month ago.
I'm trying to work out the reasons for the change in stance. I suspect it will be a one off - this occasionally happens (like with the NYP article I linked earlier) - they print something honest so if/when the truth is ever finally outed, they can point back to where they first reported the facts, in order to save face.
Didn't mean to down-vote - apologies.
I don't agree with the last paragraph though, it's pointing to it all being a grand conspiracy.
I don't agree with the last paragraph though, it's pointing to it all being a grand conspiracy.
SB
Well it pretty much is. Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas pretty much says it was here:
The war in Syria was never really what we have been told it was: "a peaceful protest by ordinary "Arab Spring" Syrians who were forced to take up arms following a brutal crackdown by their leader which lead to a civil war."
"The deal to let IS fighters escape from Raqqa — de facto capital of their self-declared caliphate — had been arranged by local officials. It came after four months of fighting that left the city obliterated and almost devoid of people. It would spare lives and bring fighting to an end. The lives of the Arab, Kurdish and other fighters opposing IS would be spared."
This wasn't really secret was it? I seem to remember it being reported previously. They made a deal to try and stop the house to house fighting in a town which would have cost a lot more lives. What would have been your preference? Level the place and ensure every IS fighter as well as anyone else in the town was killed?
I suspect if they had flattened the place in door to door fighting and it resulted in loads or deaths including civilians you'd have had a good long moan about that as well.
SB
[Post edited 15 Nov 2017 0:00]
What if some of these psychos make their way via Turkey through Europe into the UK?
Doesn't that worry you?
Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Westminster, Barcelona, Stockholm, Brussels, Paris, Berlin.
There were other options available rather than flattening the place, best thing to have done would of been to cut the deal then stitch them up when they are about to leave or were on their way.
Cutting deals with ISIS and treating wounded jihadi extremists including those affiliated to Al-Qaida, who would of thought it, eh?
What if some of these psychos make their way via Turkey through Europe into the UK?
Doesn't that worry you?
Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Westminster, Barcelona, Stockholm, Brussels, Paris, Berlin.
There were other options available rather than flattening the place, best thing to have done would of been to cut the deal then stitch them up when they are about to leave or were on their way.
Cutting deals with ISIS and treating wounded jihadi extremists including those affiliated to Al-Qaida, who would of thought it, eh?
But things like this simply don't fit with the endlessly repeated official line and causes too much cognitive dissonance so it's better forgotten or dismissed as fake news - depending on the source.
Well it pretty much is. Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas pretty much says it was here:
The war in Syria was never really what we have been told it was: "a peaceful protest by ordinary "Arab Spring" Syrians who were forced to take up arms following a brutal crackdown by their leader which lead to a civil war."
But things like this simply don't fit with the endlessly repeated official line and causes too much cognitive dissonance so it's better forgotten or dismissed as fake news - depending on the source.
A picture paints a thousand words, eh? Netanyahu comes across a lot better in that one than another premier in another photo:
What if some of these psychos make their way via Turkey through Europe into the UK?
Doesn't that worry you?
Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Westminster, Barcelona, Stockholm, Brussels, Paris, Berlin.
There were other options available rather than flattening the place, best thing to have done would of been to cut the deal then stitch them up when they are about to leave or were on their way.
Cutting deals with ISIS and treating wounded jihadi extremists including those affiliated to Al-Qaida, who would of thought it, eh?
"There were other options available rather than flattening the place, best thing to have done would of been to cut the deal then stitch them up when they are about to leave or were on their way. "
You think that's the way the west should go about things?
I agree, there are concerns with letting them go but it was clearly a judgement call on what type of causalities would have occurred fighting them to the death in the town. I haven't said I agree with it, I don't really know my position, not given it enough thought. I do however see why they thought it was a good possible option.
"The deal to let IS fighters escape from Raqqa — de facto capital of their self-declared caliphate — had been arranged by local officials. It came after four months of fighting that left the city obliterated and almost devoid of people. It would spare lives and bring fighting to an end. The lives of the Arab, Kurdish and other fighters opposing IS would be spared."
This wasn't really secret was it? I seem to remember it being reported previously. They made a deal to try and stop the house to house fighting in a town which would have cost a lot more lives. What would have been your preference? Level the place and ensure every IS fighter as well as anyone else in the town was killed?
I suspect if they had flattened the place in door to door fighting and it resulted in loads or deaths including civilians you'd have had a good long moan about that as well.
SB
[Post edited 15 Nov 2017 0:00]
Agreed, it was reported ages ago. I seem to remember Guthrum giving a decent explanation of why it happened.
Like you, i'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand I wonder why the convoy wasn't bombed as the Americans surely aren't shy about breaking a promise to ISIS. On the other hand it might have been a deliberate move to show other ISIS fighters there was a way out. Who knows how many deaths this prevented in Raqqa and elsewhere where other fighters could have caused all sorts of problems down the line by doing maximum damage before certain death. This might have been one where the uncomfortable choice was the right one.
I think it's all too easy for some on here to say the city should have been flattened. It would have had to have been the Kurdish and other forces fighting ISIS for us to have taken the fall and lost lots of lives. We owe them a lot.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
