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).
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.
That kind of short-sighted inhumane idiocy is exactly what keeps fueling the whole mess!
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?
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 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.
And if your allies make a deal you have to stick by it even if you don't like it