> “It was a choice. It was a choice that was made at the start of the civil war. It was the most accurately predicted massacre in human history. We had two and a half years to stop it. We had the full weight and the full capability of US-intelligence-level collection tools,” Raymond tells me. “We knew everything.”
the massacre is a horrible event but this proves how "liberation" had nothing to do with the massacre. it had to do with other political convenience
it literally talks about another massacre this time classified as actual genocide and nothing was done.
I don't understand what you wrote about US interests. The nukes you can think what you want but this is a theme for decades that they will have nukes next week. (there's a country that has reasons to worry about nukes because it's within range, but that is not US that's Israel... also last year we were told all nuke programs in Iran were defeated very strongly;)
It’s all about the resources - the gold, the minerals and the farmland. Different groups want to control it from East African proxies for the Middle East. It’s really sad and has the potential to destabilise the region.
If you're wondering "Why is this on HN?"
> “It was a choice. It was a choice that was made at the start of the civil war. It was the most accurately predicted massacre in human history. We had two and a half years to stop it. We had the full weight and the full capability of US-intelligence-level collection tools,” Raymond tells me. “We knew everything.”
This article hits hard especially with the current "liberation" of Iran
Even ignoring the recent massacre of against regime demonstrators.
Everybody has seen Iran's missiles, and how the regime does not hesitate to used them to attack literally everything the missiles can reach.
Would you rather wait for them to have nukes?
It is not as easy to draw the connection with protecting US interests in the OP story.
the massacre is a horrible event but this proves how "liberation" had nothing to do with the massacre. it had to do with other political convenience
it literally talks about another massacre this time classified as actual genocide and nothing was done.
I don't understand what you wrote about US interests. The nukes you can think what you want but this is a theme for decades that they will have nukes next week. (there's a country that has reasons to worry about nukes because it's within range, but that is not US that's Israel... also last year we were told all nuke programs in Iran were defeated very strongly;)
The question being, how does it have anything to do with the US?
The article fails to explain this. It instead appeals to emotion.
It’s all about the resources - the gold, the minerals and the farmland. Different groups want to control it from East African proxies for the Middle East. It’s really sad and has the potential to destabilise the region.