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

I think everyone thinks it is terrible that civilians were killed from both sides of the aisle. You are actually getting bi-partisan responses in agreement. Since we can't develop bombs that only target terrorist then we have very little choice. We either stay away, send in ground troops, or drop bombs. With ground troops we have more American deaths and less civilian deaths and with bombs we will have some collateral damage as terrorist try to use civilians as human shields. I am not sure there is an answer you will agree with. You seem to want either to stay out of Syria altogether or go to a ground war to help prevent civilian casualties. When the people you are fighting are such cowards that they use civilians as human shields it makes it very hard to not have civilian casualties.

 

Keep telling yourself that killer........while at the same time spewing ISIS propaganda.....

I'm not sure you are going to have anyone see things your way guy so you might as well just give it up. Sympathy for ISIS isn't as common as you might hope for it to be.

 

Both are worthwhile goals. And I agree with you that it's too easy for Americans to dismiss the tragedy of these deaths, which is dangerous because if we don't care enough about it there's no reason to think the people carrying out the war will care all that much either.

But, when you make statements suggesting a moral equivalence between accepting civilian collateral damage and straight up murder, that's where you lose people.

 

That and his selective outrage. He was outraged when the US used a MOAB on Taliban forces, he was outraged when the US allegedly killed 300 civilians as part of a revamped effort to eliminate ISIS......but we won't hear a peep from him when ISIS murders thousands of civilians in the street, we won't hear from him when the Taliban does the same. He's only really upset when terrorists are killed or when he can try to score some points against those killing terrorists by pimping out ISIS talking points.

 

I'm not sure it's a coincidence that the same day the news that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was allegedly killed in an airstrike in Syria we get sirbaihu speaking out against airstrikes in Syria.

In fact, the news first hit about noon, this article is made less than an hour later.....Sorry guy, your leader is likely dead but if it makes you feel any better, it was the Russians not the Americans who killed him.

 

So you think we shouldn't be in Syria? You have confused me. Some of what you say makes sense to me but other parts do not. Again, we have only a few choices, 1) stay out of Syria 2) Send in ground troops(some bombs) 3) drop bombs (no ground troops). The only path that will protect all Syrian civilians for dying at the hands of the USA is option 1 but then they are at the mercy of ISIS. The other two options will lead to varying civilian deaths but also possible American deaths. I have no clue what the best answer is. What do you suggest?

 

sorry, i didn't read everything, but to help with what? The US mission there is to destroy ISIL.

 

Which is why he's upset and why he posted this less than an hour after the news hit CNN that an airstrike in Syria killed the leader of ISIS