I figured this might be easier than starting a new thread everytime something happens in the ME.
I wonder if people will be calling for war crimes against the Coalition for this deplorable act? It seems that desire for punishment for civilian killing during war operations is limited to certain countries while the West continues to do this at will without paying for it in real terms.
First thing you need to investigate if it is true or propaganda. Then judge if the military conducted itself according to its Rules of Conduct. Then probably decide that collateral damage happens in War to achieve objectives.
Guess bombing like this is a reason why we have so many refugees, and perhaps this is the Wests paying for it in real terms.
So you think it is okay that only certain countries should pay for their collateral damage while the West continues to kill innocent civilians in real terms?
… backs away from thread…
What I found very interesting was the use of metadata and AI to determine targets. Just find it astonishing that we can just set up a supercomputer to drop bombs on people, and hope it’s accurate enough.
No IT didn’t say that.
If the question is really about agreeing to a War against IS or leaving the region to sort its own issues then it is a different debate. But if the question is about killing innocents or collateral damage, one can be analytical and conclude that is a cost of winning a war.
It could only be viewed a war crime, if there was a deliberate strategy of killing civilians in order to win military objectives, which has been a common strategy used by the military for centuries.
Not really sure your point.
Never enough oversight and accountability for these acts.
No IT didn't say that.If the question is really about agreeing to a War against IS or leaving the region to sort its own issues then it is a different debate. But if the question is about killing innocents or collateral damage, one can be analytical and conclude that is a cost of winning a war.
It could only be viewed a war crime, if there was a deliberate strategy of killing civilians in order to win military objectives, which has been a common strategy used by the military for centuries.
Not really sure your point.
My point is that only certain countries in the world actually get hung out to dry for collateral damage in a war situation, while others are given a free pass under the banner you just wrote about.
No doubt that that is very true. Winners write history or so they say.
I have never understood USA, British or Australian foreign policy, (same could apply to the European powers and Russia). You supply arms and all sorts of sophisticated weaponry to rogue Nations or Rebels, in order to gain some sort of control and influence. when it all goes to ■■■■■, then send in your own troops to kill the same people you armed in the first place. At the same time, you are still supplying them weapons!
I know it is nonsense, but why the fark, can’t we just go to war against the people who make all the weapons and stop the industry. IS would find it much tougher if they only had rocks and clubs.
Not sure any Government is serious about stopping conflicts.
So you think it is okay that only certain countries should pay for their collateral damage while the West continues to kill innocent civilians in real terms?
Who actually pays for their collateral damage?
What came first ? So it is another chicken vs egg thingo.
IS bomb Paris and 100 die; French Jets bomb Syrian village and 100’s die.
Both sides claim they are reacting to the other. Need to go back a very long way to find out who was first, and then who cares now.
Assuming this thread degrades into ■■■■ about Muslims, it’s probably pertinent to point out that the Middle East isn’t even the most populated Islamic place on earth.
Assuming this thread degrades into ■■■■ about Muslims, it's probably pertinent to point out that the Middle East isn't even the most populated Muslim place on earth.
Why would it descend into what you have just said? No one has even mentioned Islam.
Assuming this thread degrades into ■■■■ about Muslims, it's probably pertinent to point out that the Middle East isn't even the most populated Muslim place on earth.Why would it descend into what you have just said? No one has even mentioned Islam.
yeah, and the israeli jews are also part of the middle east, whether they try to join the euro zone or not.
No doubt that that is very true. Winners write history or so they say.I have never understood USA, British or Australian foreign policy, (same could apply to the European powers and Russia). You supply arms and all sorts of sophisticated weaponry to rogue Nations or Rebels, in order to gain some sort of control and influence. when it all goes to ■■■■■, then send in your own troops to kill the same people you armed in the first place. At the same time, you are still supplying them weapons!
I know it is nonsense, but why the fark, can’t we just go to war against the people who make all the weapons and stop the industry. IS would find it much tougher if they only had rocks and clubs.
Not sure any Government is serious about stopping conflicts.
Because they’re not.
More money to be made in war than in peace time.
Assuming this thread degrades into ■■■■ about Muslims, it's probably pertinent to point out that the Middle East isn't even the most populated Muslim place on earth.Why would it descend into what you have just said? No one has even mentioned Islam.
Coz blitz?
You need to get out of that negative group of Green tossers, and forget about Pauline and well, just peace and love brother !!
You need to get out of that negative group of Green tossers, and forget about Pauline and well, just peace and love brother !!
HA, ok, I foresee this thread to be discussion about what the ■■■■ is frankincense and where the hell to I find it in Damascus.
Wouldn’t be going to Demascus at the moment.
Actually Benfti it could have been a serious discussion until you sidetracked it.