'Staggering' loss of civilian life from US-led airstrikes

I can quote every instance of you dismissing the larger picture to emphasize this particular incident and rationally deduce that you would prefer nothing be done and therefore advocate for the continuance of this civil war, ie the much higher casualties. I think many people would agree that's all you've done in this thread. For instance...

There's your quote right there. You just said it. You don't support interference in this matter, therefore you support the even greater number of casualties that would be inflicted if we continued to "stay out of it."

Naturally, yes, the most powerful country in the world has a better chance of ending this conflict than the least powerful civilians fighting a corrupt regime that has been murdering its citizens for decades. And yes, that's what war is. Killing more people to stop the killing of even more people. It's ugly. I wish it didn't exist. But it does and it has for all of human civilization history. You can't bury your head in the sand, or march with signs of peace, and expect real action. The only thing you are assuring is MORE death. MORE destruction. MORE chaos. Not only to Syria, but to the entire region.

 

You can't avoid collateral damage in war. That's why war should always be a last resort option.

I'm not exactly sure what you want from this thread? Do Americans value American life over non-American life? Of course. Do you value your friends and family over strangers? Of course.

In any case you can shut down this thread with three statements:

ISIS purposely targets civilians.
The US purposely targets ISIS and collateral damage results in some civilian deaths.
ISIS deaths result in less civilian deaths than if they were alive and left alone to do whatever they pleased.

 

Is that your answer to everything? We'll just f it up, so why try? Again, you're simply advocating for MORE death and destruction. Your issue isn't the death, quit pretending. It's only when Americans kill that you have a problem.

 

But we've all agreed there will be causalities. We've all agreed we want to avoid them.

You've gone further though and suggested we stay out entirely. It's no speculation to assume thousands more will die. It's a fact. It's perhaps half a million people have already died in this conflict. But because we ACCIDENTALLY killed 300, we're terrible people?

This is what you are saying. Over. And over. And over. You keep ignoring the facts that these deaths were already occurring in significantly higher numbers.

You've made it entirely clear that you're not concerned with people dying. You're concerned with who's causing their deaths. If you were truly concerned about those dying, you'd be making a much bigger fuss about the Assads and ISIS. You don't see Americans pushing homosexuals and Christians off the roofs. You don't see Americans beheading and drowning people while laughing. No, all you see is America's failures. And we have failed these people. We have let them be slaughtered for SIX YEARS, because of people like you.

 

We've already done that. We are just waiting for you to acknowledge that there are far more people dying at the hands of ISIS and Assad and that's something must be done.

 

This thread is embarrassing, I can't tell if you are trolling anymore. People have given very logical and reasonable arguments

and here you are yelling I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW 300, ALSO WE NO HELP

 

I mean, sure this thread is embarrassing, but without sirbaihu how would any of the rest of us get to hear ISIS propaganda? I wouldn't think that just about anyone else in the D&D could provide that.

 

That's exactly what I was doing slick, try to keep up. I see you still struggle with reading comprehension, perhaps cut back on the terrorist propaganda and take a course to brush up on that.

 

@sirbaihu I am confused to what you are suggesting with this thread. I do not believe anybody wanted those civilians to die. So I ask you these few questions:

1) Do you think we should just stay out of Syria altogether and let ISIS do as they will (which means civilians die from ISIS)
2) Should we not bomb them and instead start a ground war where we do not drop as many bomb? (civilians die in ground wars too albeit less but more American soldiers die)
3) Are you suggesting we should develop a bomb that only kills terrorist when terrorist use civilians as human shields?

 

Yet another example of you failing to comprehend what you were reading. It really is embarrassing. It's also funny that you bring that back up because that's similar to the situation here, you have 300 alleged civilian deaths in an effort to stop ISIS and prevent untold thousands from being killed. I can understand that as a terrorist sympathizer, you support ISIS killing the untold thousands so you would oppose any measures to stop them, but those who aren't terrorist sympathizers see the math and make that deal any day.