Orange Clockwork posted...
No it wasn't. The alternative of no terrorists being killed means either there will be more innocents killed by terrorists or they'll grow to be a bigger problem for us to deal with later.
Interesting you said this about Aleppo. Oh wait, I confused you with someone who's not a hack.
|
That is entirely speculative. You don't know what the people they've killed have done or what they would have done. They don't know all that well either. And we can easily speculate the other way that every civilian death creates 10 more future terrorists. The crux of your argument is dehumanization. You would never accept it if the CIA bombed someone in the United States claiming (based on secret evidence) that they were a terrorist, and meanwhile killed ten more random innocents in the process.
What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us? -Dune
|
Not afraid of collateral damage. Good. That's how you win wars.
|
Hi_Im_Negan posted...
Not afraid of collateral damage. Good. That's how you win wars.
That's the opposite of how you win wars.
But that's how you become a terrorist, you psychopaths.
|
Hi_Im_Negan posted...
Not afraid of collateral damage. Good. That's how you win wars.
Indeed.
"So you never wanted a regular type life?"
"What the **** is that...barbeques and ball games?"
|
TheHonorableOne posted...
Hi_Im_Negan posted...
Not afraid of collateral damage. Good. That's how you win wars.
Indeed.
But it's not.
Make 261 Great Again
Not changing this sig until infinitys_7th pays me the $1,000 he owes me(4/6/17)
|
Most of these deaths are from Raqqa and Mosul. But seriously... How?
Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1
|
BetaSquadron posted...
Orange Clockwork posted...
No it wasn't. The alternative of no terrorists being killed means either there will be more innocents killed by terrorists or they'll grow to be a bigger problem for us to deal with later.
Interesting you said this about Aleppo. Oh wait, I confused you with someone who's not a hack.
Why do you keep bringing up Aleppo? If you're referring to that Mosque bombing that was a mistake and clearly not what I'm talking about here. The disaster of Aleppo overall is more about Russia and Syrian atrocities. Out of all the participants in this war no one tries more to avoid civilian causalities than the US.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
Why do you keep bringing up Aleppo? If you're referring to that Mosque bombing that was a mistake and clearly not what I'm talking about here. The disaster of Aleppo overall is more about Russia and Syrian atrocities. Out of all the participants in this war no one tries more to avoid civilian causalities than the US.
Your solution to the Aleppo siege was Syria should stop bombing it. Your solution to the Mosul siege is "we got to kill these civilians."
|
"No one tries more to avoid civilian casualties" is dehumanizing propaganda. Imagine this headline:
Police in Minneapolis kill 39 women and children, 8 teenage boys, wound 9 more in wedding bombing. It's believed authorities were targeting a man planning a mass shooting, but police have refused to confirm or deny who their target was. No officers have been suspended or are under investigation.
Change the name of the city and the govt. agency and you have this real event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrike
What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us? -Dune
|
BetaSquadron posted...
Orange Clockwork posted...
Why do you keep bringing up Aleppo? If you're referring to that Mosque bombing that was a mistake and clearly not what I'm talking about here. The disaster of Aleppo overall is more about Russia and Syrian atrocities. Out of all the participants in this war no one tries more to avoid civilian causalities than the US.
Your solution to the Aleppo siege was Syria should stop bombing it. Your solution to the Mosul siege is "we got to kill these civilians."
Very different situation. We weren't bombing targets indiscriminately in Mosul and ISIS was using the civilian population as human shields. In contrast, Syria and Russia were targeting the population in Aleppo indiscriminately and it wasn't control by ISIS.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
|
Mr Hangman posted...
"No one tries more to avoid civilian casualties" is dehumanizing propaganda. Imagine this headline:
Police in Minneapolis kill 39 women and children, 8 teenage boys, wound 9 more in wedding bombing. It's believed authorities were targeting a man planning a mass shooting, but police have refused to confirm or deny who their target was. No officers have been suspended or are under investigation.
Change the name of the city and the govt. agency and you have this real event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrike
How is any of this relevant? Military commanders try their damnedest to avoid civilian casualties all the time. It takes up the majority of military planning. Making the wrong call based on faulty intelligence or bad targeting data, like what happened with the Doctors without Borders incident, is a different discussion. They didn't intentionally bomb civilians at this wedding for example.
The Minneapolis example is dumb as hell. Obviously in a well developed city like Minneapolis the rules of engagement aren't going to be the same. It's not in a literal undergoverned war zone.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
Very different situation. We weren't bombing targets indiscriminately in Mosul and ISIS was using the civilian population as human shields. In contrast, Syria and Russia were targeting the population in Aleppo indiscriminately and it wasn't control by ISIS.
How are you this much of a hack? Have you killed people and you need to repress your guilt?
Your claims about indiscriminate targeting are baseless both ways. You accept those views a priori, so they can be dismissed without reservation. You contradict yourself in this very thread by admitting civilian casualty figures are not precise, yet you're so certain of your religious beliefs about who's killed more than who.
Aleppo was controlled by Nusra and Ahrar. Did you honestly think you were making a point by saying it's not controlled by IS?
|
alternative faqs.
the truth?
Obama killed thousands and thousnads in Libya,
droned hundreds maybe thousands
caused the chaos in Syria which has hundreds of thousands of victims.
i7-4790@ 3.6GHZ | GA-Z97-HD3 | ASUS GTX 960 2GB | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB | 1TB HDD | CX750M | 12GB DDR3
|
this reminds of the latest resident evil movie where the u.s. gov. sent an airstrike to this terrorist, and he was at his wedding. everyone at the wedding died except for him.
but yeah, the target could be with innocent people and they send the strike.
You can't persuade fanboys. You'd be better off trying to convince a wall. ~CodeNamePlasmaSnake~
|
BetaSquadron posted...
Orange Clockwork posted...
Very different situation. We weren't bombing targets indiscriminately in Mosul and ISIS was using the civilian population as human shields. In contrast, Syria and Russia were targeting the population in Aleppo indiscriminately and it wasn't control by ISIS.
How are you this much of a hack? Have you killed people and you need to repress your guilt?
Your claims about indiscriminate targeting are baseless both ways. You accept those views a priori, so they can be dismissed without reservation. You contradict yourself in this very thread by admitting civilian casualty figures are not precise, yet you're so certain of your religious beliefs about who's killed more than who.
Aleppo was controlled by Nusra and Ahrar. Did you honestly think you were making a point by saying it's not controlled by IS?
You're not making any sense. Indiscriminate targeting is never acceptable. In Mosul we took great care but it still was always going to result in a high casualty figure. You can partly blame the Shia militants for blocking off the city and preventing regress. ISIS had no choice but to fight to the death and take the population with them. In Aleppo it was the regime who was shutting out the population.
What religion are you talking about? I'm an atheist. It's not a belief that the US takes greater care in targeting than the Syrians or Russians, it's a fact. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.
It makes a huge difference whether you're talking about the Syria Opposition and ANF or ISIS. Unlike ISIS, ANF and AAS and those groups actually are somewhat well regarded by locals. They're not slaughtering the population to the same extent ISIS did. ANF is not literally using them as human shields in devious plots like herding them into a location and making it appear as if it's an HQ building or something. The population under ISIS' control in Mosul were basically hostages.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
And to be clear, there is no contradiction at all in saying civilian casualty figures are difficult to calculate while simultaneously saying we take great care in trying to reduce civilian casualties.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Really, it's an apples to oranges comparison. When in Obama's term was the US as extensively involved in overtaking a city on this scale that was held by a militant group as capable and devious as ISIS?
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
You're not making any sense. Indiscriminate targeting is never acceptable. In Mosul we took great care but it still was always going to result in a high casualty figure. You can partly blame the Shia militants for blocking off the city and preventing regress. ISIS had no choice but to fight to the death and take the population with them. In Aleppo it was the regime who was shutting out the population.
What religion are you talking about? I'm an atheist. It's not a belief that the US takes greater care in targeting than the Syrians or Russians, it's a fact. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.
Your view that Russian/Syrian attacks on Aleppo were "indiscriminate" and US attacks in Mosul were not "indiscriminate" is your religion, not based in fact. If you can even define "indiscriminate" here sufficiently, which you couldn't do last time I asked you about what Russia/Syria should do differently.
Your view that the US did its damnedest to minimize civilian casualties in Mosul while Russia supposedly did not in Aleppo is your religion, not based in fact. I can bet with certainty that for every nice word you and the people you're around spout about this, how you're doing your best to minimize casualties, zero times do you ever seek out the same propaganda from the Russians about how they're doing their best to minimize civilian casualties. Find me a single Russian commander who doesn't say the same thing you do, that they're minimizing civilian casualties the best they can.
It makes a huge difference whether you're talking about the Syria Opposition and ANF or ISIS. Unlike ISIS, ANF and AAS and those groups actually are somewhat well regarded by locals. They're not slaughtering the population to the same extent ISIS did. ANF is not literally using them as human shields in devious plots like herding them into a location and making it appear as if it's an HQ building or something. The population under ISIS' control in Mosul were basically hostages.
I didn't think you could outdo yourself in dishonesty. You straight-faced propagandized for Nusra, in the same war where the US is also bombing them.
Is there a shred of doubt that you would say none of these kind words about Nusra when the US is bombing them?
And to be clear, there is no contradiction at all in saying civilian casualty figures are difficult to calculate while simultaneously saying we take great care in trying to reduce civilian casualties.
You're certain that the US isn't indiscriminate and that Russia is. What numbers for civilian casualties are you using? If the actual death tolls even matter to you, which I'm not convinced they do. You've established a priori in your head that the US has the best intentions and everyone else does not. So you can be as callous as you want about victims of the US, like you've done in this topic. But if the numbers do matter to you, what are they? Who's tallied them? Are you equally as skeptical for Russian casualty figures as you for US casualty figures? Are you quick to downplay Russian numbers by saying a substantial fraction of the civilians were militants or part of the entourage of a terrorist? Do you insist that the Russians had to kill high-value targets despite not wanting to kill civilians like you do for the US?
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Your view that Russian/Syrian attacks on Aleppo were "indiscriminate" and US attacks in Mosul were not "indiscriminate" is your religion, not based in fact.
This is a fact based on known doctrine and technology levels. Neither Russia nor the Syrians use the same smart bomb technology or targeting methodology. Their weapons are more crude and their rules of engagement are far more lax.
Indiscriminately means bombing population centers in mass with very minimal effort put into attempting to target legit military targets.
Your view that the US did its damnedest to minimize civilian casualties in Mosul while Russia supposedly did not in Aleppo is your religion, not based in fact.
Demonstrably untrue based on, again, all known understanding of Russian doctrine.
zero times do you ever seek out the same propaganda from the Russians about how they're doing their best to minimize civilian casualties. Find me a single Russian commander who doesn't say the same thing you do, that they're minimizing civilian casualties the best they can.
To even try to compare the US with Russian propaganda is a joke. You are the type of person who was either susceptible to their misinformation campaign during the election or you were spreading it.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
|
BetaSquadron posted...
You're certain that the US isn't indiscriminate and that Russia is. What numbers for civilian casualties are you using? If the actual death tolls even matter to you, which I'm not convinced they do. You've established a priori in your head that the US has the best intentions and everyone else does not.
Something like 30,000+ casualties in Aleppo I believe. The city suffered catastrophic damage during the siege and there were tons of claims of war crimes. The Syrians tried to starve them out and Hospitals and aid stations were systemically targeted.
You like to cite sources like the Human Rights watch, right? They made war crime allegations for actions conducted during a one month period alone.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo
At least when the US conducts accidental strikes against mosques and hospitals we call them an accident and we conduct internal reviews to figure out what happened and try to learn from our mistakes. For the Russians and Syrians these are the intended targets.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Boy you sure proved your position with facts. Go ahead and post a single source about Russian doctrine. I practically guarantee it's from the American military or pro-West think-tank that's just as balls-deep in your delusions as you are.
100% you haven't read a single Russian-language source from generals spouting how they don't target civilians, yet you blatantly lie about their alleged intentions.
Meanwhile back in reality, Aleppo was a city of 1.8 million civilians. Over the course of 4 years, a bigger battle, the brunt of which occurred last year, 30,000 total civilians were killed. Mosul was a city of 1 million civilians, over the course of 2 years, the brunt of which occurred this year, 8,000 civilians were killed. That's 0.4% of the population per year in Aleppo, and 0.4% of the population per year in Mosul.
Those smart bombs sure are doing their job. They're not killing less civilians. They're keeping your fragile delusions intact.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
BetaSquadron posted...
You're certain that the US isn't indiscriminate and that Russia is. What numbers for civilian casualties are you using? If the actual death tolls even matter to you, which I'm not convinced they do. You've established a priori in your head that the US has the best intentions and everyone else does not.
Something like 30,000+ casualties in Aleppo I believe. The city suffered catastrophic damage during the siege and there were tons of claims of war crimes. The Syrians tried to starve them out and Hospitals and aid stations were systemically targeted.
You like to cite sources like the Human Rights watch, right? They made war crime allegations for actions conducted during a one month period alone.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo
At least when the US conducts accidental strikes against mosques and hospitals we call them an accident and we conduct internal reviews to figure out what happened and try to learn from our mistakes. For the Russians and Syrians these are the intended targets.
ya sure the American government military are innocent and always tell the truth. lmfao.
Russia bad, America good. hahaha.
i7-4790@ 3.6GHZ | GA-Z97-HD3 | ASUS GTX 960 2GB | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB | 1TB HDD | CX750M | 12GB DDR3
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Pretty good article on the issue:
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/03/25/why-the-battles-for-aleppo-and-mosul-are-totally-different/
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
Something like 30,000+ casualties in Aleppo I believe. The city suffered catastrophic damage during the siege and there were tons of claims of war crimes. The Syrians tried to starve them out and Hospitals and aid stations were systemically targeted.
You like to cite sources like the Human Rights watch, right? They made war crime allegations for actions conducted during a one month period alone.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo
At least when the US conducts accidental strikes against mosques and hospitals we call them an accident and we conduct internal reviews to figure out what happened and try to learn from our mistakes. For the Russians and Syrians these are the intended targets.
Strange, you didn't say a single word about those 30,000 being terrorists or in the entourage of terrorists.
Almost like what I said about you being dishonest about civilian casualties when they're the victims of the US vs anyone else is entirely correct.
|
AmonAmarth posted...
Orange Clockwork posted...
BetaSquadron posted...
You're certain that the US isn't indiscriminate and that Russia is. What numbers for civilian casualties are you using? If the actual death tolls even matter to you, which I'm not convinced they do. You've established a priori in your head that the US has the best intentions and everyone else does not.
Something like 30,000+ casualties in Aleppo I believe. The city suffered catastrophic damage during the siege and there were tons of claims of war crimes. The Syrians tried to starve them out and Hospitals and aid stations were systemically targeted.
You like to cite sources like the Human Rights watch, right? They made war crime allegations for actions conducted during a one month period alone.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo
At least when the US conducts accidental strikes against mosques and hospitals we call them an accident and we conduct internal reviews to figure out what happened and try to learn from our mistakes. For the Russians and Syrians these are the intended targets.
ya sure the American government military are innocent and always tell the truth. lmfao.
Russia bad, America good. hahaha.
Strawman argument. I never said we don't make serious mistakes.
From the article I just posted:
It is hard to give the Syrian air force or its Russian allies the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the bombing of Aleppo. This is especially true of the Syrian regime. To compare its bombing of Aleppo from 2012-2016 to the bombing of Mosul after October 2016 purposely ignores the targeting of civilians and harm done to them in Aleppo by the regime. The US-led coalition (CJTF:OIR) has published weekly data on its airstrikes against ISIS and much of the information about its 68 member coalition is public. A recent statement noted that it has used 18,179 munitions since the beginning of the Mosul offensive, destroying 216 VBIEDs, 574 buildings/facilities, 186 tunnels, 632 vehicles and more than 600 bunkers. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that US or coalition forces targeted hospitals in Mosul or that they did massive purposeful damage to the city...
...That doesn’t mean the US doesn’t bomb civilians and drone civilians. It does from time to time. In recent weeks there have been accusations of the US killing numerous civilians in Iraq and Syria in airstrikes. But to suggest that is the policy of the US avoids the reality of an America that investigates incidents such as the Kundoz hospital bombing. Does Moscow investigate such things? Does Damascus?
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
Pretty good article on the issue:
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/03/25/why-the-battles-for-aleppo-and-mosul-are-totally-different/
I just googled him, he's an immediately suspect source.
Do you know what an unbiased source on this looks like? Or did that fly over your head?
|
BetaSquadron posted...
Orange Clockwork posted...
Something like 30,000+ casualties in Aleppo I believe. The city suffered catastrophic damage during the siege and there were tons of claims of war crimes. The Syrians tried to starve them out and Hospitals and aid stations were systemically targeted.
You like to cite sources like the Human Rights watch, right? They made war crime allegations for actions conducted during a one month period alone.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo
At least when the US conducts accidental strikes against mosques and hospitals we call them an accident and we conduct internal reviews to figure out what happened and try to learn from our mistakes. For the Russians and Syrians these are the intended targets.
Strange, you didn't say a single word about those 30,000 being terrorists or in the entourage of terrorists.
Almost like what I said about you being dishonest about civilian casualties when they're the victims of the US vs anyone else is entirely correct.
Those were cited civilian deaths tolls.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
|
BetaSquadron posted...
Orange Clockwork posted...
Pretty good article on the issue:
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/03/25/why-the-battles-for-aleppo-and-mosul-are-totally-different/
I just googled him, he's an immediately suspect source.
Do you know what an unbiased source on this looks like? Or did that fly over your head?
Pro-tip: No one is unbiased. Look at the underlying logic instead and attack that.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Take your pick of articles:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/305881-what-the-battles-of-mosul-and-aleppo-tell-us-about-their-countries
The battle for Mosul cannot begin to closely resemble the battle of Aleppo, where Syrian government and Russian forces appear unconstrained in their application of firepower, even deliberately bombing and shelling civilian targets, which the United States and its allies have denounced. There can be no equivalency.
Taking Mosul Aleppo-style would provoke international condemnation and threaten to crack the U.S.-led coalition. A wholesale slaughter would also guarantee the enduring hostility of Iraq’s Sunni population.
And again, a lot of this is the fault of the Shia who preventing regress from the city.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/10/mosul-aleppo-tale-cities-161024133215794.html
Two urban military campaigns - both nominally aimed at defeating "terrorists" holding territory - are being conducted in vastly different manners. In Mosul, the US are seemingly steering an Iraqi military towards prioritising civilian protection in a battle that is being live streamed on social media with international journalists embedded with the advancing troops.
By contrast, in Aleppo, the Russian-supported Syrian regime campaign is characterised by siege tactics and overwhelming, and seemingly indiscriminate, bombardments...
...Meanwhile, the Mosul operation is supported by some 4,800 US troops who are in Iraq, including more than 100 US special operations forces operating with Iraqi units.
While ISIL has adopted a scorched earth strategy - burning sulphur plants and trying to put as much smoke into the air to confuse coalition aircraft - the coalition appears to be adopting a more methodical approach to the battle. Clearing village by village, conscious that they are up against a smaller force but one that uses asymmetrical tactics such as suicide bombers and bobby-trapped buildings.
According to Human Rights Watch, Iraqi authorities have been calling on residents in and around Mosul to stay at home throughout the fighting and signal their civilian status by placing white flags atop their homes.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
BetaSquadron posted...
100% you haven't read a single Russian-language source from generals spouting how they don't target civilians, yet you blatantly lie about their alleged intentions.
Who gives a shit? Look at the actual tactics. Why were you ever under the impression I was speaking about lip service? Calling Russians deceptive and untrustworthy is not a lie.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Sorry, looks like the 30,000 number was as of April 2016. No doubt it's MUCH higher from later ops in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Overall_deaths
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
Those were cited civilian deaths tolls.
Did you miss my point, or do you not care about integrity at all?
Orange Clockwork posted...
Pro-tip: No one is unbiased. Look at the underlying logic instead and attack that.
I skipped over most of his weak attempts to reframe the two sieges, and tried to get to the point. He offers no facts about Russian doctrine or US doctrine. No quotes from Russian generals that they target indiscriminately unlike their noble American counterparts. There seems to be plenty of weak apologism for US crimes, but no substance I could glean by skimming. Please point out the facts if I missed them.
I know there are firm believers like you, they're almost the entirety of policymakers in the US, they're not a rarity. What you might miss is that those firm believers exist in every country. Devoted Russians think the Russian gov't does nothing wrong as you do yours.
Now I'm waiting on the facts that you so proudly proclaimed that have yet to be revealed.
Back in reality, 30,000 killed in Aleppo over 4 years vs. 8,000 killed in Mosul over 2 years. Where is this chasm of minimized civilian casualties?
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
Sorry, looks like the 30,000 number was as of April 2016. No doubt it's MUCH higher from later ops in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Overall_deaths
No they're not. Death toll up to July is 32000.
https://goo.gl/xiE8fT
You are absolutely desperate.
And you're committed to having zero self-awareness. I've continuously accused you of downplaying US crimes and overselling the crimes of others. All you've done is prove me right. Not once have you stopped and had a moment of introspection.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
BetaSquadron posted...
No they're not. Death toll up to July is 32000.
Citing a different source than what I cited for the 30,000 number? Pretty terrible.
And you're committed to having zero self-awareness. I've continuously accused you of downplaying US crimes and overselling the crimes of others. All you've done is prove me right. Not once have you stopped and had a moment of introspection.
In your own head perhaps. I've said the US has made many mistakes with their airstrikes. Tell me, when have the Russians ever admitted mistakes and conducted internal investigations into their own activities?
We flat out are not seeing the same sort of siege tactics we saw in Aleppo in Mosul. Journalists aren't seeing or hearing it and the mainstream humanitarian groups aren't really making the claim. How do you explain this?
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
|
|
BetaSquadron posted...
That's the opposite of how you win wars.
I laugh in B-29.
Specifically hundreds of them, carrying firebombs.
In war, there's no giving in-- the trick is to win.
Or Wellington.
Wellington leading with cookies.
And then firesticks.
Angels 12 over Dresden that's how you win.
In war; there aint no giving in- The trick is to win
The allied force; an army without sin
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
Citing a different source than what I cited for the 30,000 number? Pretty terrible.
I got that source from the same place you did.
Orange Clockwork posted...
Why do you think quotes from Russians mean anything?
It's your own argument.
"Military commanders try their damnedest to avoid civilian casualties all the time."
"They didn't intentionally bomb civilians at this wedding for example."
You're not the brightest. Must be why you work for the military.
Orange Clockwork posted...
Just keep your head in the sand.
That's exactly what you're doing, and you seem to be helpless. Keep killing civilians with zero guilt. Guess what? The Russian military is doing the same. The Syrian military is doing the same. Even IS is doing the same. They all have the same level of self-awareness as you, which is none.
So you bluntly state it's a matter of fact that Russian doctrine is indiscriminate in targeting, then you link me to a factless article which you've given up on. Now you think I'm going to sift through more worthless articles with zero annotation from you as if they're going to be different? Don't think so.
|
Airship_Canon posted...
I laugh in B-29.
Specifically hundreds of them, carrying firebombs.
In war, there's no giving in-- the trick is to win.
Or Wellington.
Wellington leading with cookies.
And then firesticks.
Angels 12 over Dresden that's how you win.
Yeah, you're a terrorist.
Every war won has been due to the military death or capture of armed combatants, not killing civilians. Opposing forces do not care how many civilians are killed if they can keep on fighting. This is true in all of history even dating back to antiquity.
|
That's exactly what you're doing, and you seem to be helpless. Keep killing civilians with zero guilt. Guess what? The Russian military is doing the same. The Syrian military is doing the same. Even IS is doing the same. They all have the same level of self-awareness as you, which is none.
I don't have zero guilt. Like I've said over and over and over the US makes serious mistakes. What the fuck self awareness are you talking about? Factually the Syrians and Russians aren't doing the same at all.
Another good article here that I'll assume you'll ignore again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/03/31/to-understand-how-the-u-s-approaches-airstrikes-in-mosul-look-to-russias-war-in-chechnya/?utm_term=.787026dfe34a
The Russian air force’s initial foray into Grozny was on par with some of its earlier bombing campaigns in World War II. According to a report in Vestnik, a journal of Russian and Asian studies, only 2.3 percent of Russian airstrikes in the first Chechen war used some sort of guided munitions. Currently, roughly 20 percent of the strikes carried out by Russian aircraft in Syria have used guided weapons, while the U.S. military uses them exclusively...
...The U.S. military has routinely kept its forward air controllers at the front lines in past wars. Initially in the fight for Mosul, the reliance on Iraqi forces and desire to keep American troops out of harms way forced the Pentagon to rely more on drones and aerial surveillance to call in strikes. But in recent months, U.S. commanders have pushed their troops forward to make strikes more responsive to Iraqi requests...
...From the ground, Iraqi troops are looking through the equivalent of a soda straw, while from jets circling above, everything can look the same. The disparity in perspective can make the identification of targets extremely difficult and has ultimately put a large amount of responsibility on drones — with their ability to stay in the air longer — to identify places to strike...
...More than 20 years later, the fight for Mosul is awash in surveillance aircraft. After the March 17 strike that reportedly killed more than a 100 civilians, a Pentagon spokesman said the military was reviewing roughly 700 feeds of video to understand what happened.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
BetaSquadron posted...
It's your own argument.
"Military commanders try their damnedest to avoid civilian casualties all the time."
"They didn't intentionally bomb civilians at this wedding for example."
You're not the brightest. Must be why you work for the military.
You are fucking dense. I'm not saying they didn't intentionally bomb civilians based on a quote someone said, I'm saying it based on factual interpretation of US military doctrine and investigations into these incidents. Why the hell would a US military commander intentionally bomb a wedding when he knew full well it would completely go against US counterinsurgency strategy and he would go to jail? Bombing a wedding of innocents purposefully makes zero tactical or strategic sense.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Russia using more unguided bombs is a considerably weaker and more specious claim than you originally made. Please, we've heard about "surgical strikes" for decades. It's a full-of-shit propaganda term. They have not been shown to be any less deadly to civilians. The end results are leveled apartment blocks and craters in the ground. Even with drone strikes, which are the extreme case of "surgical strikes" where the operator has all the time in the world to stalk their target and pick their shot with smaller bombs, they've resulted in disproportionate casualties with some estimates claiming as high as 90% are civilians.
Your claim that unguided bombs are indiscriminate, and guided bombs are perfectly discriminate, is completely baseless. Both are targeted attacks and both end up with disproportionate casualties. If you claim with certainty that guided result in fewer casualties, let's see the numbers (I doubt they exist) otherwise you're full of shit.
If you use "unguided" synonymously with "indiscriminate", then tell me are cluster bombs guided or unguided? Because they're extremely dangerous to civilians in either case, the US has used them recently and refuses to remove them from their arsenal for reasons explicitly contrary to doing our "damnedest to avoid civilian casualties." Moreover, if you still insist unguided bombs are indiscriminate then you damn your own footsoldiers as indiscriminate killers because they use unguided mortars.
Whatever the case, the results of guided vs. unguided speak for themselves. The deaths in Aleppo are comparable to those in Mosul.
What have I ignored? This is the first piece of evidence you've presented. "Factual interpretation"? Yeah no, if you had facts you would have posted them in abundance already. All you have is conjecture from deeply biased sources, yourself included.
|
Having to clean up Obama and Hillary mess.
|
Orange Clockwork posted...
Strawman argument. I never said we don't make serious mistakes.
what you are doing is making America look like the better party in Syria compared to Russia though which is completely untrue.
so let me help you:
1)the US shouldnt be Syria at all. It is a foreign uninvited force which aids antigovernment forces and bombs people when it pleases.
2)Russia was invited by the government and is legimately allowed to be there.
Thats something you wont read on CFR, Stratfor or CNN.
i7-4790@ 3.6GHZ | GA-Z97-HD3 | ASUS GTX 960 2GB | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB | 1TB HDD | CX750M | 12GB DDR3
(edited 1 day ago)
|
Really highlights how Obama was doing practically nothing in Syria. He didn't even have a strategy to take on ISIS.
Don't tell me Dems are pretending to care about civilian deaths now that Trump is responsible? lol.
I know I know. I have been asking this for eight years, when Obama oversaw 3/4ths of the entire Afghanistan war's civilian casualties - and that wasn't even his entire time in office.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/15/3-4-u-s-military-deaths-afghanistan-occurred-obama/
I kept looking for the death count on the big news networks, like they did to attack President Bush every night. I kept asking where was Cindy Sheehan and why wasn't she camped out, screaming outside the White House. Total silence from those who declared Obama could do no wrong.
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/73117323
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/73644807
Civilian casualties, predictably, skyrocketed the instant Obama began pulling out of the region because (surprise surprise) it's the terrorists who move in and kill the vast majority of civilians, use them as human shields, and they murder intentionally. They understand that some people are taken in by the civilian casualties propaganda angle. That's why ISIS packed a bunch of civilians into that building and blew it up, trying to blame opposition airstrikes. It's why Hamas orders Palestinians at gunpoint to stand out in front of their arsenals when Israel gives 15 minutes warning to clear the area. They stand for death, it's literally in their slogans ("we love death as much as you love life"). They know that the appeaser press will use the deaths to attack our troops and smear our side.
We want zero civilian casualties, and you only get there when the war ends. The war ends faster the faster you win it. President Trump has already saved many, many lives and people who would've been killed en masse in Mosul. We liberated the city and stopped the carnage. This is how you win, not the Obama way of "I'll let that whole ISIS convoy escape because the explosions might trigger climate change and uh...make a civilian die from asthma!!"
http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/261724-dick-morris-why-obama-spared-isis-oil
No more lies. No more terrorist civilian-killers. No more defeat, Only victory!
|
AmonAmarth posted...
Orange Clockwork posted...
Strawman argument. I never said we don't make serious mistakes.
what you are doing is making America look like the better party in Syria compared to Russia though which is completely untrue.
so let me help you:
1)the US shouldnt be Syria at all. It is a foreign uninvited force which aids antigovernment forces and bombs people when it pleases.
2)Russia was invited by the government and is legimately allowed to be there.
Thats something you wont read on CFR, Stratfor or CNN.
A Russia Today news anchor couldn't have said it better.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
|
TaiIs82 posted...
Really highlights how Obama was doing practically nothing in Syria. He didn't even have a strategy to take on ISIS.
But he did. And you're giving Trump credit for Obama's victories. You hack.
Make 261 Great Again
Not changing this sig until infinitys_7th pays me the $1,000 he owes me(4/6/17)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment