Human Rights Groups: US airstrikes have killed more than 100 innocent Syrians.

[TwoNineMarine]

Innocent people killed under Obama's directed strategy: Obama's fault
Osama killed under Obama's directed strategy: Obama had nothing to do with it!

I'd like to know how you people would conduct a zero-collateral damage war. I think there are some generals in the Pentagon who'd be very interested in your military expertise.

It's more that people claim he made some great educated decision to take out Osama.

Any President, literally any President, would have done the same thing if they'd have had the same intel as Obama did. He didn't do anything special when he made that call.

[Deleted]

Implying America has acomplished anything in Syria.

I wish they didn't accomplish anything. Thing is they made things exponentially worst.

[Tijuana]

It's more that people claim he made some great educated decision to take out Osama.

Any President, literally any President, would have done the same thing if they'd have had the same intel as Obama did. He didn't do anything special when he made that call.

Any other president would have made the same call, yes. But, it was actually surprising that Obama made the call since he basically had to commit an act of aggression against an ally to green light the mission. He himself said he agonized over the decision; one that would be a no-brainer for most presidents.

[Easo]

OH FFS, JUST SHUT UP ALREADY! How many times can you repeat the same drivel again and again?

1. There has never been a war without civilian casualties.
2. USA is NOT targetting civillians. In fact, they are going to silly lengths from military perspective to avoid them (see Israel).
3. Said casualties are all-time low.
4. This has nothing to do with drones. Do you truly think someone in F-16 cockpit somehow will see see civilians better than drone operator? Both will have intelligence from the same source, both will see grainy gray FLIR image.
5. ISIS is hiding amongst populace, amongst civilian buildings - schools, hospitals (again, see Israel).
6. And finally, to those pointing fingers, ISIS is not going to be stopped by not doing anything.Someone HAS to fight them, and if only USA with some support from Europe does it, then there is no choice. And no, I don't really see Russia as alternative. Call me biased if you want to.

[Azadina]

You're just all upset aren't you?

Taking in the refugees is good and all but it does nothing to stop ISIS.

You need to actively participate in the getting rid of them if you want to get rid of them.

Or is that too offensive to you?

Lol.

Isis wouldn't exist without your crusades. So again, why don't you fix your own mess.

[Deleted]

OH FFS, JUST SHUT UP ALREADY! How many times can you repeat the same drivel again and again?

1. There has never been a war without civilian casualties.
2. USA is NOT targetting civillians. In fact, they are going to silly lengths from military perspective to avoid them (see Israel).
3. Said casualties are all-time low.
4. This has nothing to do with drones. Do you truly think someone in F-16 cockpit somehow will see see civilians better than drone operator? Both will have intelligence from the same source, both will see grainy gray FLIR image.
5. ISIS is hiding amongst populace, amongst civilian buildings - schools, hospitals (again, see Israel).
6. And finally, to those pointing fingers, ISIS is not going to be stopped by not doing anything.Someone HAS to fight them, and if only USA with some support from Europe does it, then there is no choice. And no, I don't really see Russia as alternative. Call me biased if you want to.

Sure, EVERY report out there is telling us the war we are waging is only increasing recruitment for Isis but yeah. Nevermind that

[Tijuana]

Isis wouldn't exist without your crusades. So again, why don't you fix your own mess.

That is a logical fallacy. If we are responsible for their actions, who is responsible for our actions? It can't be us for both.

[shadowmouse]

The problem with such statistics is that they aren't inclusive. We can't really balance our assessment because we know who died under one set of circumstances, but not others. Did 100 innocents die? Does the question end there, or should we wonder if perhaps in another zone another 1,000 survived because an attack was slowed or maybe broken? Did 100 innocents die from simple callousness, or were they herded into harms way? The answers are going to be sometimes yes, sometimes no, and often "it depends".

[Easo]

Sure, EVERY report out there is telling us the war we are waging is only increasing recruitment for Isis but yeah. Nevermind that

Then tell me the solution? Leaving ISIS to grow is not a solution. Don't even try to disagree with that.

[Deleted]

That is a logical fallacy. If we are responsible for their actions, who is responsible for our actions? It can't be us for both.

You're not responsible for their actions, you're responsible for their increasingly important role on an international level.

- - - Updated - - -

Then tell me the solution? Leaving ISIS to grow is not a solution. Don't even try to disagree with that.

Stop arming them and reduce their economic power. Stop Saudi Arabia and Qatar supporting them, help local powers fighting Isis instead of creating a 3 way war that only divides opposition to Isis.

[Dhrizzle]

Are you suggesting ISIS only attacks foreign targets who have retaliated against their attacks? Spare me the hippy bullshit

No, I'm suggesting people are more likely to join an extremist group if they see it as a way to strike back against a target that has caused them some sort of personal loss or pain.

[Tijuana]

You're not responsible for their actions, you're responsible for their increasingly important role on an international level.

- - - Updated - - -



Stop arming them and reduce their economic power. Stop Saudi Arabia and Qatar supporting them, help local powers fighting Isis instead of creating a 3 way war that only divides opposition to Isis.

I don't see how it is our fault. First of all, we didn't want to leave, that was the decision of the Iraq government. Second, if were still there, obviously none of this could have happened. The way I see it, it's the fault of the Iraqi government, since it is in fact going on in their country and they are unable to combat them. How many years need to go by before we are responsible for events in history that may or may not be causing events in the present? What year do you want to go back to for when the blame starts? Can we blame the British for not keeping those unruly colonials in check, that lead up to this?

[Azadina]

I don't see how it is our fault. First of all, we didn't want to leave, that was the decision of the Iraq government. Second, if were still there, obviously none of this could have happened. The way I see it, it's the fault of the Iraqi government, since it is in fact going on in their country and they are unable to combat them.

After you went in and shot and bombed their army? Or do competent army grow in fruit trees, that you can pick few times a year?

[Deleted]

The problem with such statistics is that they aren't inclusive. We can't really balance our assessment because we know who died under one set of circumstances, but not others. Did 100 innocents die? Does the question end there, or should we wonder if perhaps in another zone another 1,000 survived because an attack was slowed or maybe broken? Did 100 innocents die from simple callousness, or were they herded into harms way? The answers are going to be sometimes yes, sometimes no, and often "it depends".

Yes I'm sure the families of the ones affected are really asking those questions.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see how it is our fault. First of all, we didn't want to leave, that was the decision of the Iraq government. Second, if were still there, obviously none of this could have happened. The way I see it, it's the fault of the Iraqi government, since it is in fact going on in their country and they are unable to combat them.

The problem wasn't you leaving. The problem was you going there in the first place against the VARIOUS analysis made that pointed towards a power vacuum that would have increased instability in the area. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel were saying that.

[Sky High]

sucks to be in a war zone, shocking huh?

[Tijuana]

After you went in and shot and bombed their army? Or do competent army grow in fruit trees, that you can pick few times a year?

The army we left them with was 1000% superior to the one there when we arrived. How is their inability to combat this our fault, when they would have been less capable before we arrived? Is it really just that we are somehow responsible for Iraq ad infintum because reasons?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes I'm sure the families of the ones affected are really asking those questions.

- - - Updated - - -



The problem wasn't you leaving. The problem was you going there in the first place against the VARIOUS analysis made that pointed towards a power vacuum that would have increased instability in the area. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel were saying that.

There was no power vacuum until we left, against our will.

[Azadina]

The army we left them with was 1000 superior to the one there when we arrived. How is their inability to combat this our fault, when they would have been less capable before we arrived? Is it really just that we are somehow responsible for Iraq ad infintum because reasons?

There was no ISIS around before you went in and destroyed the army that was there. Now we can see that there is ISIS afterwards.

[Tijuana]

There was no ISIS around before you went in and destroyed the army that was there. Now we can see that there is ISIS afterwards.

ISIS could not be a thing if we were there. That is obvious to everyone, including ISIS. (they waited until we left to act)

By your logic, if the US leaves Germany now, and ISIS takes over, it is our fault? The details of the scenarios are identical.

[Deleted]

The army we left them with was 1000% superior to the one there when we arrived. How is their inability to combat this our fault, when they would have been less capable before we arrived? Is it really just that we are somehow responsible for Iraq ad infintum because reasons?

- - - Updated - - -



There was no power vacuum until we left, against our will.

What are you talking about. The place collapsed straight forward and sectarianism found its way in as soon as Saddam was removed. Numbers speak.

On 29 August 2003, a massive car bomb killed the Iraqi Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim in the holy city of Najaf, along with 85 others. The attack, four months after the US-led invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, was carried out by Sunni militants. The assassination echoed across a Middle East still in shock at the destruction of an Arab regime by western arms.

Four months after the overthrow of Saddam.

- - - Updated - - -

ISIS could not be a thing if we were there. That is obvious to everyone, including ISIS.

By your logic, if the US leaves Germany now, and ISIS takes over, it is our fault? The details of the scenarios are identical.

Yes apart that Iraq was a nation set on fire by the removal of Saddam and Germany is not.

[oxymoronic]

just because it is a war zone doesnt make its OK for a US drone to mistakenly kill 85 people

says a human rights group

not like it is proven so quit acting like it is.

- - - Updated - - -

problem is you killed 100 innocent, these 100 got families, they got killed without a reason ( warzone )

now their families will seek revenge on USA


aka

more isis troops

only if you were a terrorist to begin with

no rest for the easily triggered.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly.

President Obama has relied too heavily on drone strikes that seemingly are inaccurate and have caused more death to civilians.

When is the blood shed from umanned drone strikes going to stop?

I hope President Obama rethinks his strategy after the death of 85 innocent women and children in Syria.

Blood is on his hands.

are posts like this real? or is this tennisace trolling us? so hard to tell.