Discreet Dolls
Toronto Escorts

US and UK helped ISIS escape Raqqa

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
The great thing about being a reporter is that you are always right.

If Great Britain had sent conventional ground troops to Syria the BBC would have complained about the loss of life, in the same manner that they have about Iraq and Afghanistan.

That neither the U.K. nor the U.S. had conventional ground troops in the area gives little room to complain when those who did felt that the lives of their soldiers would be spared and that Raqqa would be more quickly be conquered.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
That place is a mess. I thought Trump was going to bomb the hell out ISIS.
The coalition did bomb the Hell out of Daesh. The ground forces would never have been able to retake the huge amounts of territory from Daesh that they have without Western Air Power.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
70,604
69,544
113
I would be skeptical, but I trust the BBC.

From the books I have read about the war in Syria, the Coalition is a disaster. It's a loose collection of militias and private armies with varying degrees or training, equipment and motivation. Most army owners don't want to use up their guys in fighting something as serious as ISIS. They would rather keep them intact for looting and turf wars after ISIS is kicked out. So the US bombs ISIS out of a stronghold and then cajoles and bribes the Coalition ground troops to make a final push to actually take the ground. ISIS boobytraps everything and so none of the coalition guys are anxious for the clear out job.

Afterwards, everybody who is important gets a photo op, a medal and a promotion.

The most effective coalition guys are the Peshmerga - who can and do kick ass - and the Shiite militias who are basically the property of Iran.

It could be a consideration that ISIS has nowhere to go after Raqqa falls and this essentially ends the war quickly.

The estimate is that 1 in 9 foreign fighters remains active after leaving the war zone. Many apparently drift back into civilian lives and leave ISIS behind. Some of course will remain major problems in the future.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
70,604
69,544
113
That place is a mess. I thought Trump was going to bomb the hell out ISIS.
Bombing has been frequent and extensive for some time. No need for Trump.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
70,604
69,544
113

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
70,604
69,544
113
The Pentagon claims that its air war against ISIS is one of the most accurate in history and that it is so careful in who it targets that the 14,000 US airstrikes in Iraq have killed just 89 civilians.
It turns out that the military’s assertion is a stunning underestimation of the true human cost of Washington’s three-year-old war against ISIS. An 18-month-long investigation by the New York Times has found that the US-led military coalition is killing civilians in Iraq at a rate 31 times higher than it’s admitting.
“It is at such a distance from official claims that, in terms of civilian deaths, this may be the least transparent war in recent American history,” Azmat Khan and Anand Gopal report.

From April 2016 to June 2017, Khan and Gopal traveled to nearly 150 sites in three ISIS-controlled areas in Northern Iraq. These were sites where the coalition conducted airstrikes against targets ostensibly linked to the militant group. In the places they visited, they found that the coalition vastly underreported how many civilians had died in the bombing.
The US-led coalition claims that one civilian has been killed in every 157 airstrikes. But Khan and Gopal report that, actually, the rate is one civilian death for every five airstrikes — a rate 31 times as high as what the military claims.

Article continues.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-claimed/ar-BBF3MBg?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartandhp
 
Toronto Escorts