Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

US airstrikes kill as many as 160 civilians watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    It's pretty clear to me atleast, Daesh are using civilians as human shields. The same applies for a lot of these groups so far - they have used civilians as shields.

    I say end all air-strikes , and focus on the regional forces - not the US- and help them fight this on the ground to minimize civilian deaths.
    I agree with this. We should be committing ground troops. Obama is doing things this way because he doesn't want to send soldiers into the region. He cares for neither our objectives nor the lack of precision necessitated by air strikes. He campaigned on taking us out of war in that region, and now the war is everywhere.

    The enemy is using our sense of morality against us. We're fighting with one hand tied behind our back and dealing with all the condemnations every time we hit civilians, just as they know we inevitably will because they're using them as human shields.

    They can do anything they want in order to win, we have to win while playing by a set of rules that's rigged in the enemy's favor because of a crushing and demanding system of ethics that's geared towards fair fights with European militaries rather than VNSAs like this. It doesn't look good, honestly. This is the same kind of war we lost in Vietnam.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessZara)
    Your mum should have swallowed you.

    Dont use the Rocks GIF, im sure he would rip you apart for your ridiculous and stupid claims.
    ...excuse me?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessZara)
    Not surprised, that's only what Americas good at. Brainwashing and killing innocent people by stuffing "freedom" down their throats.
    The civilian death toll from US airstrikes has been quite low throughout the bombing campaign, and incidents like this are rare (hence why they are newsworthy). Civilian casualties can be minimised but they can never be completely eliminated, especially not when you're fighting a terrorist group who deliberately stay close to civilians and prevent them from leaving warzones to use them as "human shields".

    Do you seriously think that leaving ISIS alone to expand their territory and act with impunity is better for the life and welfare of civilians? Surely defeating them (which will require air strikes) is better in the long term and will result in far fewer civilian deaths, not more?

    It's also worth noting that the details are unclear, and the death toll might not be what it's claimed to be.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    ...excuse me?
    :laugh:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Honestly, only replies I see here are 'let muslims kill muslims' and stuff like that. What's the point of this thread if you aren't saying anything new or constructive? play forum games instead
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comus)
    Even if that is a sentiment that a lot of people hold, it doesn't make advocating genocide somehow okay. This position is morally repungnant.
    The muslims who are constantly blowing us up dont care about moral decency, so why should we.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrahim)
    Honestly, only replies I see here are 'let muslims kill muslims' and stuff like that. What's the point of this thread if you aren't saying anything new or constructive? play forum games instead
    And end to the existence and influence of Islam in the West sounds pretty constructive to me!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It is a great sadness when innocents die in any war, I think most, if not all, of us can agree with this. But for those who oppose the airstrikes, let me ask you this: if we were to stop, then it seems probable that IS would begin to regain territory as these airstrikes have been instrumental in pushing them back - would forcing the innocent civilians to live under them be a fate worse than enduring the airstrikes?

    Obviously it is inevitable that some will be caught in the crossfire, but at least this way the casualties can be minimised. Incidents like this are rare, at least by Western forces (the RAF hasn't hit a single civilian yet, according to one BBC article I read). Leaving IS to its own devices would be a disaster for the local population and just prelong the refugee crisis. If you want to save the innocents, then you must target the head of the snake with force. The airstrikes are this necessary force. Committing ground troops would make little difference as an alternative; they will stil be using civilians as shields except this time they will be hiding from tanks rather than jets. Committing ground troops will also inevitably result in the deaths of a number of British/American soldiers, and if the Chilcott Report has taught us anything then it's caution before commitment.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    ...excuse me?
    It's Zara, in nearly every political, social etc "discussion" that she's in she talks total nonsense.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessZara)
    Your mum should have swallowed you.

    Dont use the Rocks GIF, im sure he would rip you apart for your ridiculous and stupid claims.
    I think you've misunderstood what she was saying. The GIF wasn't even her post, it was from who she was quoting.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Esoteric-)
    On the contrary. If we kill enoigh Syrians and other Arabs/Muslims, then they will finally get the message and stop trying to bomb us. If anything I say brava to the USA.
    The majority of attacks in the West are committed by people born and raised here. If somebody is living in Syria and dies after getting bombed there, then the chances are that they were not going to bomb the West. The people out in Syria right now are be a lesser threat to us than radical individuals who live in our country.

    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    The civilian death toll from US airstrikes has been quite low throughout the bombing campaign, and incidents like this are rare (hence why they are newsworthy). Civilian casualties can be minimised but they can never be completely eliminated, especially not when you're fighting a terrorist group who deliberately stay close to civilians and prevent them from leaving warzones to use them as "human shields".

    Do you seriously think that leaving ISIS alone to expand their territory and act with impunity is better for the life and welfare of civilians? Surely defeating them (which will require air strikes) is better in the long term and will reduce in far fewer civilian deaths, not more?

    It's also worth noting that the details are unclear, and the death toll might not be what it's claimed to be.
    There is an interesting concept called Moynihan's Law which I think explains the attitudes of people like PrincessZara. Moynihan's Law states:

    The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country
    Seeing that America are generally open and subject to scrutiny, people perceive America to be this big bad guy, but the fact is that if other groups and countries received the same level of scrutiny and attention as America, then there would be a lot less comments like PrincessZara's.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevey396)
    The more airstrikes the better I say. Give those savages something to be worried about.
    You're advocating the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians yet they're the 'savage' ones.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Esoteric-)
    The muslims who are constantly blowing us up dont care about moral decency, so why should iwe.
    Then what makes you so different to them? You're willing to murder civilians and innocents for a goal, just like them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    There is an interesting concept called Moynihan's Law which I think explains the attitudes of people like PrincessZara. Moynihan's Law states:



    Seeing that America are generally open and subject to scrutiny, people perceive America to be this big bad guy, but the fact is that if other groups and countries received the same level of scrutiny and attention as America, then there would be a lot less comments like PrincessZara's.
    It does seem sometimes like the US gets more scrutiny than others. If Russia had done this then you can guarantee there'd be loads of people on the internet claiming it never happened and that it's "anti Russian propaganda". Same goes for if the Syrian government carried it out.

    But when something happens with the US loads of edgy people come out of the woodwork to talk about how evil the US is for accidentally killing civilians while bombing a brutal terrorist group. Some people go on about this as though the US is some evil monster deliberately trying to kill large numbers of civilians as standard practice (that would describe ISIS pretty accurately), when the reality is that incidents like this are rare precisely because the US try to avoid civilian deaths where possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    'Suspected U.S. airstrikes in Syria kill scores of civilians, activists say'

    Propaganda Goebbels style
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vikingninja)
    It's Zara, in nearly every political, social etc "discussion" that she's in she talks total nonsense.
    Tbh she does look like some 14yr old sheltered suburban rich girl. Can't expect much.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessZara)
    Not surprised, that's only what Americas good at. Brainwashing and killing innocent people by stuffing "freedom" down their throats.
    America are the good guys here. It is tragic when civilians are killed accidentally. If you think that ISIS/DAESH are going to provide you with a wonderful future you know what to do. *
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    160 civilians killed (according to this group; others say less) but thousands of ISIS killed. Judging by the posting history of some of you lot, you'd probably object to that.

    Still, for the rational around here, I'd point to the fact that undoubtably thousands more civilians would have been killed without the strikes. In late 2014 just before the strikes started, ISIS were closing in fast on Baghdad and we were about to see one of the worst humanitarian disasters in our lifetimes. That's not even taking into account continuation of the genocide against the Yazidis and the annihilation of Kurds that ISIS were on their way to achieving pre-strikes. Again, the way of you numpties go on, it's almost as if you'd like to see these things happen. Of course, you don't but if goes to show how foolish and myopic you and people like Corbyn and the Stop The War Coalition idiots *are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Esoteric-)
    The muslims who are constantly blowing us up dont care about moral decency, so why should we.
    So the actions of a small minority justify the extermination of over 1.6 billion people as a form of 'collective punishment', do they? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    The civilian death toll from US airstrikes has been quite low throughout the bombing campaign, and incidents like this are rare (hence why they are newsworthy). Civilian casualties can be minimised but they can never be completely eliminated, especially not when you're fighting a terrorist group who deliberately stay close to civilians and prevent them from leaving warzones to use them as "human shields".

    Do you seriously think that leaving ISIS alone to expand their territory and act with impunity is better for the life and welfare of civilians? Surely defeating them (which will require air strikes) is better in the long term and will result in far fewer civilian deaths, not more?

    It's also worth noting that the details are unclear, and the death toll might not be what it's claimed to be.
    You're understating the case.people don't remember how much stronger ISIS were pre-strikes. There is absolutely no doubt that far more than 160 civilians would have been killed if ISIS were able to progress if not struck....by an untold magnitude.

    This is why most who object to it tend to be either sympathetic to the cause of ISIS or (in most cases to be fair) thick, ignorant or child-like in their thinking. The responses in this thread - including the person you're responding to - is a prime example. OP falls into the former catagory though*
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.