Air Strike on Mosque in Syria kills 42

[Machismo]

You dont win wars with that mindset. Its why we never finished and won a war since WW2

Actually, disregard for the lives of innocent people is why we have managed to not win the last few. We needed the support of the local populace, and their support waned with the increasing body count of innocent victims. You really don't know how war works, do you?

- - - Updated - - -

Aaaaand the dumbest analogy ever raises its ugly head again. ISIS tries to maximize civilian casualties; whoever is bombing Aleppo tries to - if not minimize - at least limit civilian casualties. If it's Russia or the U.S. , they could kill every last civilian in that wothless hole if they actually wanted to.

The message that terrorists hiding in hospitals or mosques are not immune from prosecution isn't pretty, but it needs to be delivered.

They both support murdering innocent people to further their cause, I'm not going to support that. No wonder we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Thepersona]

You dont win wars with that mindset. Its why we never finished and won a war since WW2

do these people know that this mindset isnt different from ISIS or Al-Qaeda or Al-Nusra? if you advocate the murder of innocent civilians, just for furthering your cause...

[Deleted]

Aaaaand the dumbest analogy ever raises its ugly head again. ISIS tries to maximize civilian casualties; whoever is bombing Aleppo tries to - if not minimize - at least limit civilian casualties. If it's Russia or the U.S. , they could kill every last civilian in that wothless hole if they actually wanted to.

The message that terrorists hiding in hospitals or mosques are not immune from prosecution isn't pretty, but it needs to be delivered.

how exactly did they try?

-bombing the entire village would cost significantly more money
-bombing the entire village would draw way to much international attention
-sending in a special forces team would cost significantly more money
-sending in a special forces team carries more risk (though not that much)
-bombing before or after the evening prayer would require better intel, which would cost significantly more money.

No they didn't try, at all.

All i see is the dollar value of a local isn't very high, maybe $250k tops. compared to ~$9m for a typical US citizen and probably upwards of $100m for a deployed US soldier.

[Drew79]

This is how to end terrorism. Make it unthinkable to attack Americans.

[Wells]

This is how to end terrorism.

God this board sucks.

[Minikin]

Aaaaand the dumbest analogy ever raises its ugly head again. ISIS tries to maximize civilian casualties; whoever is bombing Aleppo tries to - if not minimize - at least limit civilian casualties. If it's Russia or the U.S. , they could kill every last civilian in that wothless hole if they actually wanted to.

The message that terrorists hiding in hospitals or mosques are not immune from prosecution isn't pretty, but it needs to be delivered.

how is what he said the "dumbest analogy ever". you have your opinions, he has his. disagreeing makes his the dumbest thing ever posted?

besides that great and wide ranging paint brush.

So this is our motive now basically. with one face claim we are the better people. and with the other face say bombing a hospital is ok. Im sure the Geneva convention which is NOT the dumbest thing ever, has a few clauses in there about it (specifically 27). Hell even hospitals explicitly militarized are protected.

[Donald Hellscream]

This is how to end terrorism. Make it unthinkable to attack Americans.

yeaaaaa.. No, you could bomb these brutes into the stone age and they'd still try to rain on everyone's parade. Bombing them simply doesn't solve the problem, its like a hydra, take out one head and another two pops out, sure you could try to take out all the heads but that really isn't feasible whatsoever not unless you put a stop to their near constant recruiting which is also nigh on impossible.

[downnola]

God this board sucks.

And here I thought you were being hyperbolic when you said people base their ethical/political positions on bad movies.

As a side note: I posted this to see if anyone would actually defend the bombing of a religious site in the name of fighting terrorism.

We're fucking doomed.

[matt4pack]

What are you people even going on about? This was a rebel held area not ISIS so it was either the Russians or SAA.

[JohnBrown1917]

Thus the US or Russia creates more terrorists.

[2about]

Yea, not sure how people who says collateral damage is fine would feel, if for some reason one of their loved ones, was for some reason, present in an area and got killed as collateral.

Another thing, wow, religious site, regardless of who bombed this, this is an all down low and would only serve to fuel the fire even more.

[Minikin]

What are you people even going on about? This was a rebel held area not ISIS so it was either the Russians or SAA.

I wanted to make them aware of this point way early on. But i got hit in the face with "its ok to kill innocent people, to get your point across". And have been trying to get past that point to actually get to the part of the news that was so conveniently skipped.

[announced]

how do we even know the US did it? coulda been ISIS or Russian who knows

[Drew79]

How our embassies should be protected!

[Minikin]

Yea, not sure how people who says collateral damage is fine would feel, if for some reason one of their loved ones, was for some reason, present in an area and got killed as collateral.

Another thing, wow, religious site, regardless of who bombed this, this is an all down low and would only serve to fuel the fire even more.

yeap. people say edgy things to be cool now a days. even a cursory reading would educate them just enough to make arguments like this more efficient.

"Article 27 [ Link ] of the Hague Regulations deals briefly with the protection of hospitals, together with that of buildings dedicated to religion, art, science and charitable purposes. It stipulates that their presence is to be indicated by distinctive and visible signs, but it does not say what the signs are to be."

[Berengil]

And here I thought you were being hyperbolic when you said people base their ethical/political positions on bad movies.

As a side note: I posted this to see if anyone would actually defend the bombing of a religious site in the name of fighting terrorism.

We're fucking doomed.

Doesn't bother me a bit. F 'em. If the people want to live, they must rise up against and slaughter the terrorists among them before we get there, or they will counted as complicit. Lunatics who think they can lay hands on an American citizen must be made to realize that every person and every place they love is on the sht list as soon as 1 American dies. They will not be allowed to hide among them.

" You wanna know how to get Capone? I'll tell ya. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone." --- Sean Connery as Jimmy Malone in The Untouchables (1987)

As far as Geneva and the Hague and w/e other meaningless piece of toilet paper you want to mention, I'd like to see someone try to come over here and do something about it if the US decided to go full Ghengis Khan on anyone who touches us. There is only one rule in war: Win.

[Stormspellz]

By refusing to accept this collateral damage you're enabling ISIS.

They will always hide among civilians. On purpose.

You can't afford to be chained to morality in such a situation. Do what must be done or they'll forever plague us.

grats you killed maybe one isis member and just gave free requirement to every family member of 41 other victims

[Mstermeg]

It's hard to destroy the terrorists without casualties, especially when the enemy purposely set up camp in a school or place of worship knowing that using innocents are body shields keep them safe. So quick are you to blame the US for killing innocents when it wouldn't happen in the first place if the enemy didn't intentionally hide their camps in casualty prone areas.

The innocents know the enemy is doing this and let them. If more hidden camps got bombed the innocents wouldn't be so keen on letting the terrorists set up camp in their buildings and would cooperate with US forces to oust them quickly before their town gets leveled. The enemy isn't fighting fair and is breaking the rules of war because they know the US has to fight with it's hands tied behind it's back. Why should the US try to be such white knights when the terrorists are strapping bombs to women and children? If we show them that the tactic of hiding behind innocents doesn't work they will stop doing it. Until then the innocents are willing fodder for the bad guys.

[JohnBrown1917]

Doesn't bother me a bit. F 'em. If the people want to live, they must rise up against and slaughter the terrorists among them before we get there, or they will counted as complicit. Lunatics who think they can lay hands on an American citizen must be made to realize that every person and every place they love is on the sht list as soon as 1 American dies. They will not be allowed to hide among them.

" You wanna know how to get Capone? I'll tell ya. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone." --- Sean Connery as Jimmy Malone in The Untouchables (1987)

As far as Geneva and the Hague and w/e other meaningless piece of toilet paper you want to mention, I'd like to see someone try to come over here and do something about it if the US decided to go full Ghengis Khan on anyone who touches us. There is only one rule in war: Win.

Americans are such lovable little psychopaths.

[Wyrt]

And this is how you create more terrorists.