At least 85 civilians dead following US Airstrikes in Syria(mistaken for ISIL)

[sammichoffate]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-least...istake-1571600
Dat freedom tho

[Patrick Chewing]

Meh. Soon to be ISIS members probably.


The Middle East is hell on Earth. They asked for this.

[UK2K]

Reminds me of that old saying...

"If a man builds a thousand bridges and sucks one dick, they don't call him a bridge-builder... they call him a dick sucker."

Efforts to enter the city centre have been painfully slow, however, with IS militants staging counterattacks and using mines and snipers to pin forces back. Thousands of civilians have fled the city but many more remain, with IS militants accused of using them as human shields.

Hamas uses the same tactic and people buy into the narrative. It works.

[highwhey]

Reminds me of that old saying...

"If a man builds a thousand bridges and sucks one dick, they don't call him a bridge-builder... they call him a dick sucker."



Hamas uses the same tactic and people buy into the narrative. It works.

[Dresta]

This is strange, because according to KevinNYC only Russian and Syrian bombs kill civilians, whereas American bombs are special bombs that don't blow random civilians to pieces .

I've said it many times: there is nothing worse than waging a bombing campaign when you are not even willing to commit your own troops---you will always kill innocents, and that will always end up playing into the hands of the people you hope to destroy. If it is not an important enough issue for you to commit troops, then don't drop bombs. When the military you are supporting (e.g. the Iraqi army) is so pathetic that they can only retake cities after they have been systematically destroyed by bombing campaigns (e.g. Ramadi, 2/3s of which has been completely destroyed, and since its recapture only a tiny percentage of its population have even returned, because there's almost nothing left), then it simply is not worth it, and creates more problems than it solves.

[imdaman99]

It's OK, let's bury this story. Not important. We all know civilian Muslim lives do not matter

[Hawker]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-least...istake-1571600
Dat freedom tho

How is saying ban all muslims temporarily TWFOWTHIGO worse than actually killing them?

That democrat logic.

[UK2K]

This is strange, because according to KevinNYC only Russian and Syrian bombs kill civilians, whereas American bombs are special bombs that don't blow random civilians to pieces .

I've said it many times: there is nothing worse than waging a bombing campaign when you are not even willing to commit your own troops---you will always kill innocents, and that will always end up playing into the hands of the people you hope to destroy. If it is not an important enough issue for you to commit troops, then don't drop bombs. When the military you are supporting (e.g. the Iraqi army) is so pathetic that they can only retake cities after they have been systematically destroyed by bombing campaigns (e.g. Ramadi, 2/3s of which has been completely destroyed, and since its recapture only a tiny percentage of its population have even returned, because there's almost nothing left), then it simply is not worth it, and creates more problems than it solves.

Like clockwork. They want it that way. That's why they dress like civilians and hide their FOB's in schools and hospitals. That's why they send 14 year old kids to plant bombs in the road, praying to Allah that some passing helicopter sees them and fires a rocket at him so they can parade him around as an innocent kid who was out building dust castles.

It's unfortunate too because a lot of times, the people working for ISIS (and the Taliban) were forced into it.

[sammichoffate]

How is saying ban all muslims temporarily TWFOWTHIGO worse than actually killing them?

That democrat logic.

Did I ever say that? Stop projecting fam

[sammichoffate]

Reminds me of that old saying...

"If a man builds a thousand bridges and sucks one dick, they don't call him a bridge-builder... they call him a dick sucker."



Hamas uses the same tactic and people buy into the narrative. It works.

[rufuspaul]

This is strange, because according to KevinNYC only Russian and Syrian bombs kill civilians, whereas American bombs are special bombs that don't blow random civilians to pieces .

I've said it many times: there is nothing worse than waging a bombing campaign when you are not even willing to commit your own troops---you will always kill innocents, and that will always end up playing into the hands of the people you hope to destroy. If it is not an important enough issue for you to commit troops, then don't drop bombs. When the military you are supporting (e.g. the Iraqi army) is so pathetic that they can only retake cities after they have been systematically destroyed by bombing campaigns (e.g. Ramadi, 2/3s of which has been completely destroyed, and since its recapture only a tiny percentage of its population have even returned, because there's almost nothing left), then it simply is not worth it, and creates more problems than it solves.

This. It's the same with Obama's drone war the media never report.

[Long Duck Dong]

If this thread took place 8 years ago, it would be full of people blaming Bush.

Not one mention of dat President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize Winner doe

Edit rufuspaul beat me to it.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Meh. Soon to be ISIS members probably.


The Middle East is hell on Earth. They asked for this.

Wow.

You are so far away from Jesus it requires intervention.

Dude wake up. Slap yourself hard. Take an ice cold shower. Wake up. Just look at the crap that's coming out of your mouth.

[Nick Young]

Hamas uses the same tactic and people buy into the narrative. It works.

Exactly.

[9erempiree]

More intervention and more bombs.

Drones have made it easier to strike without risking American lives but at the same time they are reckless enough to kill innocent people.

Nobody has an idea on what to do. They are drones....oh look...its very easy to strike.