Yep, shitty horrible situation regardless, it at least sounds like we weren't just dropping bombs in civilian areas willy nilly. Well, this time at leastThe thread title and the content of the OP are different enough that it's interesting to see who didn't bother to even read the info.
they hate our way of life.
"It's not the USA's fault, they are just happy using tactics which give you no way of knowing if you will accidentally kill 100+ civilians" isn't really a good defence either guys..
And this created more than the two snipers killed.
I don't know shit about weapons, but it seems using snipers to take them out or some other type of weapon would have been better? I'm also interested what the damage would have been estimated at without the explosives.
"It's not the USA's fault, they are just happy using tactics which give you no way of knowing if you will accidentally kill 100+ civilians" isn't really a good defence either guys..
Exactly. People don't understand this.You killed two but how many more did you create?
Terrorists still killed these people, to be honest.I wonder who has killed more people in the war on terror, the US or the terrorists?
They are gonna use human shields. Send in ground troops or back the fuck out.
Yup. There's no "good" answer here, just a bunch of mediocre to awful ones which all have mass negative side effects.Holy crap. ISIS effectively strapped a bomb to 100 people and made the US the triggerman. I couldn't even think where you'd begin to combat techniques like that.
When will we realize continuing to fight these guys will not stop this endless conflict?
That's no contest.I wonder who has killed more people in the war on terror, the US or the terrorists?
Terrorism.
Seriously, what else can you call killing this much inocent people to get to two guys?
Terrorism.
Holy crap. ISIS effectively strapped a bomb to 100 people and made the US the triggerman. I couldn't even think where you'd begin to combat techniques like that.
The report finds there is no proof civilians were herded or forced into the building, but the belief is they were likely there based on what was happening in the neighborhood.
CNNIt is because such a strong building collapsed that the US in part came to the conclusion ISIS had hidden explosives inside, which investigators believe were stored in the rear of the building.
There was indeed terrorism, but it wasn't the US that did it. Read the article.Terrorism.
Seriously, what else can you call killing this much inocent people to get to two guys?
Terrorism.
The strike was requested by Iraq Security Services, if that helps the argument at all.
That's what we refer to as "a pretty good fucking reason not to drop a bomb on a place." "Sir, we don't know what's inside the building, it could lead to a catastrophic loss of civilian life." "Yeah, but TWO snipers. We may never get this opportunity again!"
If people want rid of ISIS, civilians are going to have to die. How quickly you want rid of them determines how many civilians will end up dying in total. It's not nice, it's not pretty and it's not right. It's just how it is.
If people want rid of ISIS, civilians are going to have to die. How quickly you want rid of them determines how many civilians will end up dying in total. It's not nice, it's not pretty and it's not right. It's just how it is.
I wonder who has killed more people in the war on terror, the US or the terrorists?
"could not have predicted the presence of civilians in the structure prior to the engagement,"
There was indeed terrorism, but it wasn't the US that did it. Read the article.
Are we the terrorists?
That doesn't mean any decision which results in civilian deaths is justified or wise though.
The reason so many people died was because of terrorism (ISIS rigging the building with explosives). We didn't mean to kill these people. That's not an excuse, and it's an inexcusable action, but it's not terrorism.
This isn't meant to sound cheesy or B level quotable but sometimes I wonder if we are the terrorists. From their point of view I can see why they hate western civilization so much. Just imagine what would happen if they shot a mistsle at a Costco in FL to kill two enlisted Marines and everyone died in Costco. The nation would be in an uproar and you bet your ass we'd be retaliating.
If they can't hit their targets without massive collateral damage, why not just send in troops instead?
Hmm... I wonder why people in the Middle-East hates america and the west in general.
I'm just completely embarrassed and shamed by my country right now.
The President, military leaders... congress...
I have never felt so much shame and anger than I do right now.
If it takes 105 civilian deaths to kill 2 enemy snipers, it's NOT WORTH IT.
"The coalition takes every feasible measure to protect civilians from harm."
Those organising the strike "could not have predicted the presence of civilians in the structure prior to the engagement,"
That doesn't mean any decision which results in civilian deaths is justified or wise though.
If they can't hit their targets without massive collateral damage, why not just send in troops instead?