Hundreds of civilians killed in air strikes this month

[NewbieJr 540]

Hundreds of innocent children and adults have been killed over the past month in Iraq by U.S. forces reports the Pentagon and Iraqi government.

Link coming shortly.

 

Ugh, what the hell are we doing?? Can't wait to hear who our Commander in Chief blames.

[Cloaca du jour 2,064]

Its war, happens.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

Down from thousands.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,579]

Knock em out early before they become radicalized. Good idea

[Sho Nuff 719]

Sucks when innocents are killed no matter who is in office.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

I hate the term "surgical strike" it's war, nothing surgical about it. Only a complete focking idiot would think otherwise or use it for their agenda.

[5-Points 2,727]

Hundreds of innocent children and adults have been killed over the past month in Iraq by U.S. forces reports the Pentagon and Iraqi government.

Link coming shortly.

 

Ugh, what the hell are we doing?? Can't wait to hear who our Commander in Chief blames.

You'd come off like less of a doosh if you feigned a little concern about the loss of life.

 

Just sayin.

[NewbieJr 540]

You'd come off like less of a doosh if you feigned a little concern about the loss of life.

 

Just sayin.

ummm, idiot, I started the thread because of the unneccesary loss other innocent lives.

[Big Guy 1,400]

future terrorists?

[cyclone24 1,814]

ummm, idiot, I started the thread because of the unneccesary loss other innocent lives.

Sure ya are.

 

I'm venturing to guess you didn't have one thread about innocents killed while Obama was in office. Actually I have no doubts you didn't have one thread started on it.

 

So it's completely expected douchiness to suddenly care about it now that Trump is in office.

 

Waters wet.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

Sure ya are.

 

I'm venturing to guess you didn't have one thread about innocents killed while Obama was in office. Actually I have no doubts you didn't have one thread started on it.

 

So it's completely expected douchiness to suddenly care about it now that Trump is in office.

 

Waters wet.

And douchy newbie actually thinks that the no fly list radicalized more of these mutants than drone strikes did. He's like a kid rooting for his team.

[5-Points 2,727]

ummm, idiot, I started the thread because of the unneccesary loss other innocent lives.

Sure, but you outed yourself as a piece of sh!t when you failed to mention how bad you felt about it. Retard.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Knock em out early before they become radicalized. Good idea

Just perpetuating the cycle of violence. Hardening the next generation of terrorists.

 

Of course, if we didn't keep doing that, we might find ourselves without an enemy. And we have far too much invested in the military industrial complex to allow ourselves to not have an enemy.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Newbie lost lol

[wiffleball 4,639]

Let's bear in mind the nature of the warfare; door to door where bad guys use human shields and don't allow innocents to leave.

 

One could argue we're using the wrong weps,tactics, but then they'd about losing boots on ground.

[Voltaire 4,558]

Obummer made it a point to minimize civilian deaths, Trump has had a change in policy. So the relevant questions are how have these numbers compared to Obummer era numbers? And further, how have the results of the less restrictive bombings been different?

[wiffleball 4,639]

I know there were at least two major eff ups. One was Azizibad. And Granai.

[NewbieJr 540]

Sure, but you outed yourself as a piece of sh!t when you failed to mention how bad you felt about it. Retard.

I'll add a sad face next time. Lol

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

ummm, idiot, I started the thread because of the unneccesary loss other innocent lives.

How many posts did you start on the topic in the previous 8 years while Obama was raining death from above?

 

You won't respond with the correct answer, which is "I started no threads on the topic in the previous 8 years". Instead, you will insult my intelligence and call me names.

[NewbieJr 540]

How many posts did you start on the topic in the previous 8 years while Obama was raining death from above?

 

You won't respond with the correct answer, which is "I started no threads on the topic in the previous 8 years". Instead, you will insult my intelligence and call me names.

link to a day where we killed 200 innocent civilians under Obama's tenure?

Find that and I'll find the thread I started about it. Go!

[wiffleball 4,639]

link to a day where we killed 200 innocent civilians under Obama's tenure?

Find that and I'll find the thread I started about it. Go!

Look at the two airstrikes I listed above.

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

Here you go, plenty of civilian deaths pre-Trump...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932014)

 

So much for your narrative that Trump is to blame. Your concern would have been more authentic if you hadn't referenced him in your original post.

[drobeski 3,061]

Under obama the casualty rate for OUR guys went way up due to his ROE's.

I'll take the trade off.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Obummer made it a point to minimize civilian deaths

No he didn't. That was all lip service. This is not a partisan issue, it's a reality that drone strikes cause civilian casualties.

[wiffleball 4,639]

Under obama the casualty rate for OUR guys went way up due to his ROE's.

I'll take the trade off.

Link?

 

Obama increased drone strikes - especially in Paki-land tenfold.

 

It's one of the few good things he did.

 

I don't believe your ROE story. You have to actually deploy troops and commit them to Warfare before Rules of Engagement even matter. By and large, he did just the opposite.

[wiffleball 4,639]

No he didn't. That was all lip service. This is not a partisan issue, it's a reality that drone strikes cause civilian casualties.

Albeit far less so than anything other than targeted boots on the ground / sniper type attacks.

 

It's not an either/or. It's a matter of magnitude. I'll take my chances as a civilian against the Drone strike long before I'll take my chances against a B-one dropping death from above.

[drobeski 3,061]

Link?

 

Obama increased drone strikes - especially in Paki-land tenfold.

 

It's one of the few good things he did.

 

I don't believe your ROE story. You have to actually deploy troops and commit them to Warfare before Rules of Engagement even matter. By and large, he did just the opposite.

That's because you live in the fairy tale world of Obama did no wrong. Oh and how's it go ? Simple Google blah blah blah?

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/

 

But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

 

Increase in battlefield deaths linked to new rules of engagement in Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters, said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

[kutulu 1,545]

If they're Muslim oh well.

[Cloaca du jour 2,064]

Hundreds of civilians killed in chicago......crickets

[Reality 2,710]

This thread is a joke right?

[kutulu 1,545]

This thread is a joke right?

I thought they all were?

[the s is ilent 69]

Most are knowingly in harms way. Collateral damage.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Under obama the casualty rate for OUR guys went way up due to his ROE's.

I'll take the trade off.

Way up? Link to this?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

Newbie lost this thread. Bigly.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

575 US troops died in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency. By August 18, 2010, following two troop surges initiated by President Obama, that number had doubled. Today, over 1500 US troops have died in Afghanistan since President Obama took office—and yet, little in that war-torn country has changed.

 

These numbers should give us pause. While the Administration has publicly conceded that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, and claimed that it supports 'Afghan-led reconciliation', its policy on the ground is marked by a refusal to establish a timetable for full military withdrawal even after misleading Americans into thinking that all US troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/obamavsbush

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

Shonuff also lost this thread, but not as big as Newbie did. It's a beat down of epic proportions for the resident punching bags.

[Sho Nuff 719]

That's because you live in the fairy tale world of Obama did no wrong. Oh and how's it go ? Simple Google blah blah blah?

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/

 

But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

 

Increase in battlefield deaths linked to new rules of engagement in Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters, said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

 

http://www.icasualties.org/

Look at the numbers...the amount of our men and women dying went down...not up.

Ill take the trade off of fewer people on the ground...fewer US deaths...and fewer civilian deaths.

You want to talk rate (because fewer people are there)...because that is the number that suits your idiocy.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Most are knowingly in harms way. Collateral damage.

 

Really? Yes...they should just all move right? Become refugees? Oh wait...we don't want that either.

[Sho Nuff 719]

575 US troops died in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency. By August 18, 2010, following two troop surges initiated by President Obama, that number had doubled. Today, over 1500 US troops have died in Afghanistan since President Obama took office—and yet, little in that war-torn country has changed.

 

These numbers should give us pause. While the Administration has publicly conceded that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, and claimed that it supports 'Afghan-led reconciliation', its policy on the ground is marked by a refusal to establish a timetable for full military withdrawal even after misleading Americans into thinking that all US troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/obamavsbush

 

No doubt...more died in Afghanistan...as that was basically forgotten as an issue under Bush while we focused idiotically on Iraq.

Surges where we focused in Afghanistan raised those numbers before they then dropped dramatically.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

If the civilians support our enemy, they are our enemy too, and in no way to me are they "innocent" it's war man, geez.