General Discussion

cali

(114,904 posts) Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:30 PM Sep 2014

Defend this: White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths

You support this? Than defend this, because this is part of what anyone defending/supporting the Syrian/Iraq bombing against ISIS is supporting.

The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.

A White House statement to Yahoo News confirming the looser policy came in response to questions about reports that as many as a dozen civilians, including women and young children, were killed when a Tomahawk missile struck the village of Kafr Daryan in Syria's Idlib province on the morning of Sept. 23.

The village has been described by Syrian rebel commanders as a reported stronghold of the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front where U.S officials believed members of the so-called Khorasan group were plotting attacks against international aircraft.

But at a briefing for members and staffers of the House Foreign Affairs Committee late last week, Syrian rebel commanders described women and children being hauled from the rubble after an errant cruise missile destroyed a home for displaced civilians. Images of badly injured children also appeared on YouTube, helping to fuel anti-U.S. protests in a number of Syrian villages last week.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-exempts-syria-airstrikes-from-tight-standards-on-civilian-deaths-183724795.html

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Defend this: White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths (Original Post) cali Sep 2014 OP

An innocent killed by an intentional act is a dead innocent. morningfog Sep 2014 #1

Ok, I'll defend it: ISIS makes Lindsey Graham frightened, or at least pretend to be frightened. arcane1 Sep 2014 #2

It's how to keep breeding a continuous supply of enemies. scarletwoman Sep 2014 #3

It's Libermann's fault Doctor_J Sep 2014 #4

This is exactly the reason we should not be bombng over there GitRDun Sep 2014 #5

Anyone supporting this nonsensical war deserves every bit as much contempt Maedhros Sep 2014 #6

Or Nader's Doctor_J Sep 2014 #7

Actually it's Greenwald's fault Doctor_J Oct 2014 #8

K & R !!! WillyT Oct 2014 #9

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

1. An innocent killed by an intentional act is a dead innocent.

Reply to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:32 PM

Sep 2014

It is indefensible and ineffective in make us safer.

arcane1

(38,613 posts)

2. Ok, I'll defend it: ISIS makes Lindsey Graham frightened, or at least pretend to be frightened.

Reply to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:33 PM

Sep 2014

That's all I have

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)

3. It's how to keep breeding a continuous supply of enemies.

Reply to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:38 PM

Sep 2014

I mean, if we ran out of enemies, how would the defense contractors and weapons manufacturers make a profit?

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)

4. It's Libermann's fault

Reply to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:43 PM

Sep 2014

I'm pretty sure

GitRDun

(1,846 posts)

5. This is exactly the reason we should not be bombng over there

Reply to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:49 PM

Sep 2014

I understand the sentiment of not wanting an expansion of ISIS.

What I don't understand is why we continually refuse to do the math and ask ourselves how many more terrorists we'll create than the number we'll destroy by indiscriminate bombing.

The countries in that region should get off their collective high horses and get in there to help if they want ISIS gone.

Instead they sit back and let our hyper-testosteroned politicians wielding the blood of someone else's child do their dirty work.

See if America will pay a war tax, put up with a draft, etc. They won't.

What a mess!