The US isn't in Syria to fight ISIS. That's what the media says because its what the Western people care about (ISIS wouldn't have risen if the West back troops haven't supported the opposition into a civil war). They are there to fight a proxy war to get military alliance within the region. The US wants to get rid of the Pro-Assad, Pro-Russia team at all costs, even though they know their strategy to win will also end up in genocide of the Alawites.

Pretty much the war strategy of destabilisation absolves responsibility of any consequences that come from doing that, including the rise of ISIS. It absolved them from Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Haiti, Vietnam, Cuba, Venesuela, and El Salvador. So why is this any different?

And I'm not saying Russia is better, but that the a lot of people here don't understand the crimes committed by the US can be similarly abhorrent. Noam Chomsky also described that Sanctions are not ethical (due to the damage it does to civilians), but mostly used as a power play of the strong. The "International law" is not run on ethics, but the justice of the alliance who has the most power.

Right now a lot of people agree with the "law" because its an agreeable ally. Nobody will recognise a war crime the West has done until Russia, Iran, or China will do the exact same thing.

My point is, so many people here still has a notion of ethics and absolute justice in the US's motives and actions. They speak the legality instead of the power dynamics. I'm just suspicious of someone who believes in absolute justice for wars.