US Airstrike Massacres 300 civilians, will there be calls to oust the Trump regime?

[Manabomb]

That's a pretty bizarre conspiracy theory you're pitching that requires several self-contradicting and extreme leaps of faith, most importantly that the sensationalism and headline chasing media would willingly stifle sensational headlines if they thought people actually cared.

Isn't it awesome when the fake news media actually aren't the ones being fake news media, it's just the people being religiously skeptical to the point where reality is only a fixed nature of buzzwords and deflection?

There's a healthy skepticism of what you see on the internet, and then there's willingly believing anything that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth without doing your own research.

[Nightstalker]

The US has been fine with 8 years of president Drone Strike, so why bother with this.

[Krigaren]

The US has been fine with 8 years of president Drone Strike, so why bother with this.

The US was also fine with 8 years of president "start an endless war and destabilize an entire region for the next few decades cause of daddy issues, money, and oil", so not sure what'll change.

[Venant]

Note, because it was an obvious chemical attack from a regime on it's own citizens AND a remark from them saying "A stockpile could have exploded" which is bullshit because that's not how sarin gas works. Maybe in russian alternative facts land, but not in hard science of chemical weapons land.

You should note with the chemical attack that we somehow immediately know everything about it, even though actual investigators have not yet been able to get to the scene of the attack. It's quite amazing that in one case there is an immediate confirmation on all these facts, and in another case we mysteriously know nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

The US has been fine with 8 years of president Drone Strike, so why bother with this.

The US was also fine with 8 years of president "start an endless war and destabilize an entire region for the next few decades cause of daddy issues, money, and oil", so not sure what'll change.

And if Trump starts acting like an interventionist neocon, I hope we see bi-partisan mass protests against him.

[cuafpr]

sounds like bad intel or a set up... need more details.

[Breccia]

So we're all fully aware that Trump let the Pentagon and the CIA run airstrikes without his approval or even knowledge. Question: are the civilian death tolls so high despite this, or because of this?

Incidentally, neither option absolves blame here. I'm just curious if the death toll would be more, or less, if Trump could actually be bothered with doing his job.

By the way, anyone have a total Obama air strike civilian death toll? The highest I could find was eleven hundred which was in Nov 2014. If Trump's death rate continues, he'll have that covered in under a year.

[IIamaKing]

If it was a US airstrike, and if it was ordered by Trump, then I could see people wanting to hold Trump accountable. If it's a result of US "business as usual" military action against ISIS, there's no reason to hold Trump to a higher standard in this regard than Obama.

Then again, it could have been ISIS (an airstrike though? with what, gliders?), or the aforementioned weapons stockpile. Hard to tell atm.

As for the U.N. "ousting" Trump? No. Unless Trump goes full-on world dictator and starts invading sovereign nations in a bid to conquer the world, the U.N. has absolutely zero authority to do something like that.

Bombs taped to Kites.

[Dextroden]

The US was also fine with 8 years of president "start an endless war and destabilize an entire region for the next few decades cause of daddy issues, money, and oil", so not sure what'll change.

And there was protesting over the fucked up shit going on in Vietnam, but no President was ousted.

This was not against you. I'm piggybacking off you to say we have a long history of Presidents overseeing God awful things and not being ousted. I don't think we will magically start soon.

- - - Updated - - -

Bombs taped to Kites.

No. Tie them to balloons. Pop them with a slingshot when it is over the target.

[Aleksej89]

Why is that related to trump?

USA has been massacring civilians at least since the Vietnam war.

In fact USA has never stopped massacring civilians - they just find new nations to butcher, preferably ones with oil.

[Xires]

http://www.latimes.com/world/middlee...405-story.html



Can we expect a vote in the UN soon to oust Trump? Has the US turned into a rogue state that the world must unite against to stop? When will the civilian massacres end?

We should keep in mind that this *might* have been an ISIS airstrike according to the Iraqis. In the article, US officials also state that it may have been due to ISIS stockpiling explosive materials that happened to be bombed.

1. The UN does not decide on "ousting" a US President. You have no say in anything we do, understand that now.
2. Obama and previous Presidents have had civilians die on their watch as well.
3. None of them pulled the trigger- the info was passed via intel and then the military carried out the order.
4. The world would still lose. You've got nothing. We even had to ship a shipment of ammunition to the UN in 2016 because your forces are so ill-equipped.
5. We are the teeth behind the UN- without us you are a rubber stamp. Come to terms with that as well.

[GreenJesus]

It's covered up in that there is about 100x more coverage and hysteria over the chemical attack in Syria since it is part of a narrative that calls for further intervention in the middle east. For years the US government has severely under-reported the number of civilian deaths due to US intervention, and the corporate media has been complicit in this.

It is ISIS fault for hiding in civilian areas and holding them hostage. Unless you want to put tens of thousands of boots on the ground to out them, don't expect a reduction of civilian casualties.

[Breccia]

sounds like bad intel or a set up... need more details.

At what point does the USA have to accept responsibility for making an airstrike with bad intel?

At what point does the USA have to accept responsibility for being baited into a trap?

I mean, if ISIS is capable enough to put a bunch of explosives around civilians and we bomb them anyhow...do we really get off the hook here? Just because ISIS are evil motherfuckers for doing so, doesn't make us triggering the explosives by bombing where the explosives are next to civilians any less of a bad move.

And furthermore, at what point would ISIS have enough explosives to kill 300 people and not, say, use them to blow up 300 people without waiting for our "approval"? Yeah, it makes us look bad, but at what point has ISIS played the Blame Game? Haven't they been blatantly blowing people up and taking credit for it? Isn't that pretty dramatically out of character?

[Xires]

Hey, I'm all for ousting Trump, and electing someone who actually won the popular vote.

A few counties in California do not get to decide every single election in the US- then it is no longer a national election but a "targeted population" election. Good thing that crazy liberals don't get to make up mob mentality rules because "marginalized" right? lol

Btw, she received 4 million more votes than Trump did in California and that is how she "won" the popular vote. Take away California and Democrats will never win another election ever again...let alone the popular vote...which means nothing because in this country we don't rule by "mob mentality" because then the majority would always suppress the minority and I thought that Democrats and liberal regressives were against that....

[Deleted]

You have to use airstrikes so that your ground troops can advance.

The Iraqi government instructed the people of Mosul to stay in thier homes for two reasons :
1. They didn't want to deal with 1m displaced people.
2. They had romantic ideas about a popular uprising against ISIS

Airstikes are indiscriminate. They hit civi's and fighters, the mistake is not getting civilians to leave before they were used.

[Xires]

At what point does the USA have to accept responsibility for making an airstrike with bad intel?

At what point does the USA have to accept responsibility for being baited into a trap?

I mean, if ISIS is capable enough to put a bunch of explosives around civilians and we bomb them anyhow...do we really get off the hook here? Just because ISIS are evil motherfuckers for doing so, doesn't make us triggering the explosives by bombing where the explosives are next to civilians any less of a bad move.

And furthermore, at what point would ISIS have enough explosives to kill 300 people and not, say, use them to blow up 300 people without waiting for our "approval"? Yeah, it makes us look bad, but at what point has ISIS played the Blame Game? Haven't they been blatantly blowing people up and taking credit for it? Isn't that pretty dramatically out of character?

The US HAS accepted responsibility. Accidents happen in war. In the 1940's over 100,000 civilians would be killed in 1 night of bombing. Over 250,000 people have been killed in Syria alone by the fighting...and suddenly the US makes a mistake and 300 people die and suddenly all those liberals and Europeans screaming for the US to do more about ISIS start bitching at the US. You people make me sick. We should just leave you to Russia.

[Belize]

A few counties in California do not get to decide every single election in the US- then it is no longer a national election but a "targeted population" election. Good thing that crazy liberals don't get to make up mob mentality rules because "marginalized" right? lol

Btw, she received 4 million more votes than Trump did in California and that is how she "won" the popular vote. Take away California and Democrats will never win another election ever again...let alone the popular vote...which means nothing because in this country we don't rule by "mob mentality" because then the majority would always suppress the minority and I thought that Democrats and liberal regressives were against that....

Wow, I though Trump fans had finally dropped the bullshit argument that all the votes came from California.

I think we should take all Republican votes from Texas away, it's only fair, why does Texas get such a large say in voting??

[Xires]

Why is that related to trump?

USA has been massacring civilians at least since the Vietnam war.

In fact USA has never stopped massacring civilians - they just find new nations to butcher, preferably ones with oil.

Yeah....poor S. Korea, Kuwait, Japan, and Germany...they really have it rough- don't they?

[Lokryn]

How about we wait for the investigation to be completed before placing blame?

[Edge-]

Can we expect a vote in the UN soon to oust Trump? Has the US turned into a rogue state that the world must unite against to stop? When will the civilian massacres end?

...what? This is some fantasy world nonsense. Do you honestly think the UN could vote to "oust" Trump? I'm terribly confused.

[Xires]

Wow, I though Trump fans had finally dropped the bullshit argument that all the votes came from California.

I think we should take all Republican votes from Texas away, it's only fair, why does Texas get such a large say in voting??

What are you talking about? She did in fact receive more then 4 million votes then he did in California. I watched the elections that night and Trump was ahead by 2 million votes until California came in. It would be just like a Hillary fan to ignore facts and just go for "the feels" because...emotions trump logic when it comes to you people on the left.

You obviously don't know how voting works in the US if you don't understand why Texas has as much pull as it does...California has the most with 55, btw. Also Trump would still win without Texas...Hillary lost even with California. Let that sink in.