00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

TarikNakich just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Iraq/Syria civilian deaths increase

604 Views | 10 Replies

Sources:

https://news.vice.com/story/us-airstrikes-have-killed-more-and-more-civilians-in-iraq-and-syria-since-trump-took-office

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/26/trumps-war-on-terror-has-quickly-become-as-barbaric-and-savage-as-he-promised/

All I had heard about the war on terror with the new administration was the botched raid in which a 8 year old US citizen and US soldier died trying to get a terrorist who wasn't there. I had no idea that despite the same amount of drone strikes happening, civilian death tolls are increasing rapidly.

Is no one covering this? Does no one care? How is the war on terror supposed to end if you create more terrorists.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, he did say he'd target the families. The only response I've heard from trump supporters (besides the usual "muslim rapists are stealing our women #whitegenocide !!1!!) , is that people die in war. But I thought trump was going to stop the mess in Syria and Iraq? He's not being more effective or doing more strikes then Obama was, but he's killing way more INNOCENT people.

It just seems like a cycle to me. Increase military budget > kill more civilians > create more terrorists > increase military budget, if you disagree you're anti american!

What do you think?

Response to Iraq/Syria civilian deaths increase 2017-03-31 21:29:24


At 3/31/17 08:13 PM, Sause wrote:
At 3/31/17 05:33 PM, Tybia99 wrote: What do you think?
Point 1, I want to point out that in one bombing run, American ships managed to kill 200 civilians. That goes beyond collateral damage and into brain-dead tactics. Are we purposefully targeting the innocent? What exactly is our objective over there?

The idea is to engage targeted groups (mostly, Islamist extremists) in those countries as quickly as possible, without regard to collateral damage, and to end the missions there as soon as possible. It can also be viewed as a terror tactic, to instill fear towards the US, and a sense of repercussions towards anyone who dares goes against us. As pointed out, all that does is lead to hatred and further extremism.

As for point 2, I'm going to use my inside-voice for it...

WHY THE FUCK ARE WE STILL IN IRAQ

Actually, our forces were kicked out by the Iraq Government in 2011, because the people there hated us. But, who can blame them, since we did not have a clear strategy after getting rid of Saddam Husein - not to mention the sectarian violence that erupted after his removal, over a 100,000 civilians killed, destruction of their infrastructure and the poor reconstruction of it, or our attempts to control their oil, and then there are the other atrocities committed by what seemed to the iraqi people as an occupation by a foreign force that didn't treat them much better than their former dictator.

The only service members we have there are only allowed to train the Iraq army, and we still supply air support. And even though we indirectly created ISIS, with the vacuum of power that we left open after we destroyed the previous government there, we still have a common interest with the Iraqi government in getting rid that group's control of northern Iraq.

At 3/31/17 09:14 PM, Blades84 wrote: Keep in mind the Obama administration funded and supported several terrorist organizations in the middle east for years and nobody batted an eye, this is just the media trying to demonize Donald Trump even though he is, for the most part, not all that bad when it comes to Syria and the likes.

You must of got that from Trump's go to media site for all things conspiracy theory related, Infowars.


At 3/31/17 10:13 PM, Blades84 wrote:
At 3/31/17 09:29 PM, EdyKel wrote: You must of got that from Trump's go to media site for all things conspiracy theory related, Infowars.
No, actually. Google "Al-Nusra front" "Noor al din al Zinki" both groups funded by the U.S. and its allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey etc. along with a myriad of other smaller groups who are linked to Al-Qaeda or ISIS. That's not conspiracy or trump, that's fact and was stated by Obama and his administration themselves.

*Sigh

First, a little history lesson. Back in the 80's the US began to fund various rebel groups in Afghanistan against Russian occupation forces there, through a CIA program called "Operation Cyclone" - this was during the Reagan administration. The program was indiscriminate, and was basically funding any opposition groups against the Russians, including Islamist extremists. Long story short, Russia was kicked out of the country, and the country remained fractured, under the rule of various groups, and one of them evolved into Al Queda, which expanded their network into other countries. They saw The US as their biggest threat, because of our constant presence in the middle East, and our support of Israel. Afghanistan was also the country we invaded after the 9-11 attacks, because it was a nesting ground for Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups.

Now, all this relates to Syria. The US does not want a repeat of what happened in Syria. It's true that the US, and other western counties, back the opposition to the Assad regime. And yes, there are opposition groups who have a certain relation to Al Queda, which is why the US has shown timidness in supporting any of the opposition groups, in fear that any weapons, or funds, will fall into the wrong hands. However, not all the Rebel groups are affiliated with Al Qaeda, or ISIS, and are actually moderate, who just want to get rid of Assad, and bring Democracy to Syria. This group is the "Al-Nusra front" and are not classified by the US as a terrorist group - though that is what Russia classifies them as, for obvious reasons, since Russia sides with Assad, and views any opposition group fighting against the Assad government as Extremists. "Noor al din al Zinki" is an offshoot of ISIS (which is sort of related to Al Qaeda), and is labeled as a terrorist group by the US.

Even though Obama has been relentless against Al Qaeda, and other Islamist extremist groups, killing dozens of top leaders in those organizations, and supporting the Iraq's forces against ISIS in Iraq, he has been accused of being a sympathizer to those terrorist organization by Far right media, because he is reluctant to use radical Islamist extremists to describe them. This rumor that he supports them with US funds is pretty ludicrous, considering that such funding, and approval, would have to go through congress. That's the 2nd problem with this conspiracy. This conspiracy got life from a a heavily retracted(blacked out) report that had the following:

"AQI supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media. AQI declared its opposition (to) Assad’s government because it considered it a sectarian regime targeting Sunnis." *AQI= Al Queda.

Since it came out, it's been twisted by conservative media, who keep implying that this means that Obama has funded a terrorist group, even though we know the groups that has received some funding, in the form of weapons, are not Islamist extremist, or associated with ISIS, or Al Qaeda, and have, on occasion, even fought those groups. Unfortunately, This group is being overwhelmed by Russian/Assad Forces, who have mostly ignored the ISIS linked group, "Noor al din al Zinki", because they know the West backs the "Al-Nusra front". And the Obama admin has never said they supported any terrorist group, nor is there any report that says they do. So, if you want to believe this nonsense, then that is fine, but you'll be looked upon as an idiot by anyone with half a brain and with some sense.

Response to Iraq/Syria civilian deaths increase 2017-04-01 11:13:27


its actually a mix of yes and no. no we aren't and yes we are. we're backing the proverbial rebel horse in this three horse race (Assad ISIS and rebels) with weapons and some degree of training in the past this is proven. there have been weapon drops that ISIS and Assad forces have gotten their hands on, but this is expected to happen as is conflict. now there are rebels that have joined over to al-qaeda or ISIS and said weapons with them this is proven,BUT it's expected to happen as is conflict.. there are people switching sides and taking shit with them that has been supplied by the US at this point I'm going to need a infographic and a spreadsheet to keep up with who's who on what side.


At 3/31/17 09:14 PM, Blades84 wrote:
At 3/31/17 05:33 PM, Tybia99 wrote: What do you think?
I think that a huge explosive device detonating in a residential area or marketplace where bases operated by terrorists are active is bound to kill some innocents unfortunately.

If terrorists were held up in a school in the USA do you think we'd be okay with bombing the school and everyone in it?

The media isn't "demonizing" him with this, they aren't even covering it. Look at the numbers, he's been reckless and more civilians are dying. Including the botched raid that Obama held off on because it was reckless, trump signed off on it right away to be strong and he ended up killing a 8 year old US citizen and US soldier. Then Sean Spicer had the Gaul to say critiquing it was unpatriotic.

Response to Iraq/Syria civilian deaths increase 2017-04-01 12:54:26


At 4/1/17 12:52 PM, Tybia99 wrote: If terrorists were held up in a school in the USA do you think we'd be okay with bombing the school and everyone in it?

Bombing? No. Shooting? FUCK YEAH 'MURRICAH!!!


Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.

It's better to die together than to live alone.

Sig by Decky

BBS Signature


Actually, our forces were kicked out by the Iraq Government in 2011, because the people there hated us. But, who can blame them, since we did not have a clear strategy after getting rid of Saddam Husein - not to mention the sectarian violence that erupted after his removal, over a 100,000 civilians killed, destruction of their infrastructure and the poor reconstruction of it, or our attempts to control their oil, and then there are the other atrocities committed by what seemed to the iraqi people as an occupation by a foreign force that didn't treat them much better than their former dictator.

The only service members we have there are only allowed to train the Iraq army, and we still supply air support. And even though we indirectly created ISIS, with the vacuum of power that we left open after we destroyed the previous government there, we still have a common interest with the Iraqi government in getting rid that group's control of northern Iraq.

Poor reconstruction of infrastructure...did we even rebuild infrastructure at all? Looking back at the war in Iraq, it feels like there was only one true reason for the war in the first place...OIL. (Does that mean we could end up going to war against Venezuela if oil prices surge again?) Yup, it was all about the money, the black gold. The corporations took advantage of the pro-war momemtum from the War on Terror and sold us the Iraq threat, and we (well, most of us) bought it, hook, line, and sucker.

I don't think those in charged cared about democratization in any wars, considering the sorry state of Afghanistan and the Taliban resurgence. Even now, the U.S. and U.K. are funding a Saudi campaign in the Yemen war, and thew Saudis are using mass starvation tactics while we and Europe sell them our weapons! So much for condemning Assad over Aleppo...WE'RE NO BETTER!

When this stuff keeps happening, and we get hated more and more around the world, it all comes down to one thing...GREED. Yup, a classic case of the root of all evil. Our leaders care about the money and are indifferent about human lives.

P.S. I am thinking about eventually making topics about the Yemen situation, Big Pharma's role in the opioid epidemic, the intentional obstruction of affordable AIDS meds in Africa in the late 90s, and other plutocratic actions our leaders have made over the years.


I believe in the ultimate triumph of evil over good in this world.


It doesn't help that we keep funding our enemies.

Response to Iraq/Syria civilian deaths increase 2017-04-01 21:32:52


At 4/1/17 06:42 PM, SamPercyWellsDay wrote: No, its called siege warfare, and the very fundamental rule of siege warfare is high civilian casualties, but unless you want ISIS to be defeated later rather than sooner, this is how things are done.

He's creating more terrorists then he is killing. He's not killing nearly enough to justify a complete lack of care whether innocent people die or not.

Here's a picture of the US soldier and little girl who both died. Both US citizens, and both gone forever because the administration couldn't bother to look into why the raid was risky.

Iraq/Syria civilian deaths increase

Response to Iraq/Syria civilian deaths increase 2017-04-02 01:46:25


At 4/1/17 11:32 AM, Blades84 wrote:
At 4/1/17 05:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:
At 3/31/17 10:13 PM, Blades84 wrote:
At 3/31/17 09:29 PM, EdyKel wrote:
So, if you want to believe this nonsense, then that is fine, but you'll be looked upon as an idiot by anyone with half a brain and with some sense.
Noor Al-Din al Zinki had their funding cut and were declared a terror organization by the U.S. only recently due to beheading a 12 year old boy on camera for being a "spy" only then did the U.S. classify them as a terror organization. The Al-Nusra front recently split into Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham who declared the United States as an enemy despite having recieved funds from them as the Al-Nusra front for years.

The fact that the U.S. funded the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is only further proof that this behaviour is typical of the United States, and I don't know why you included that in there. Use google and you'll find pretty much all Syrian rebel groups recieve their funding from theocratic states and Al-Qaeda and other extremists and have links to or outright represent the same ideology as ISIS and Al-Qaeda. That's why your big enemy Russia views them all as extremists, because fundamentally they are. It's not conspiracy and is public knowledge and has been for years.

Your original argument was pretty flimsy. You were claiming that Obama is worse than Trump, because he funded terrorist groups, while having no real proof to support it. Now, you have created this whole spider web, throwing all this unnecessary junk of theocratic states supporting terrorist groups there, while still implying that the US is knowingly doing the same thing. The fact is that it took years before the US started helping out certain rebel groups in Syria, because there was a lot of confusion on who they were, and if we could trust them - It's why I brought up the history in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, a cautionary tale - and even then we have given the minimum support of weapons to these groups, who seem moderate, and not radical Islamists.

There is no guarantee that these groups won't change down the road, or if there are members in these groups with connections to other, more extreme, groups. Things change all the time. Noor al din al Zinki became a terrorist group after the beheading of a kid, and it was found out that their were ISIS connections, even though they were considered moderate in comparison to other extreme Rebel Groups. Members of the Al-Nusra front splintered off to form Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham with members of Al Qaueda, and have since been labeled as a Terrorist group. But the mission of the US in Syria has always been to work with rebel groups who are moderate, not terrorist groups,or Islamist extremist. If they did work with extremist, intentionally, then you would have a sound point. But that's not the case. Incidental, and unforeseen circumstances, don't count. As is, it's the meagerness of US support that has sent more moderate groups to work with more extreme groups in Syria, because they are being overwhelmed by superior military might from Russia. That much is clear.

Now, let's put this into proper perspective, because you have clearly lost sight, in your defense of Trump, and Russia. The original point of this topic was Trump's policy of indiscriminate targeting of areas, and high casualty levels of innocent civilians. Now, what's the difference between terrorist groups, and countries who kill just as many, if not more, innocent civilians? I mean, we have killed more Muslims than they have of us, or even their own fellow people. The Russians, the reason we gave arms to various Afghan groups, was because the soviets were killing millions of Afghans (2 million by some accounts), as well as doing a torch early policy. The US has killed over a 100,000 civilians in Iraq, or over 200,000 if we count Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then, there is Russia in Syria, and between them and Assad, over 200,000
civilian have been killed - not to mention all the other atrocities.

So, this is how things stand. You don't have a strong argument that Obama, or the US, have supported terrorist groups. That's just a distraction to the problems that Trump will create with his reckless indiscriminate military attacks, which are not going to be much different than what Bush did in Iraq, or even the Russian/Assad combo in Syria. It's all going to lead to high civilian casualty numbers. There really is no way to justify it, or justify it so it sounds better than what terrorist groups do. And they won't endear other countries to our cause, or even put an end to these terrorist groups. It will probably just add to them, as a recruitment tool for groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. And this is what Osama bin Laden wanted, to bankrupt us. To always keep fighting them, because they have no real base of operation to really put an end to them. They are all over the place.


where ISIS is getting its firearms
proliferation amongst groups amidst ever changing alliances
ISIS managed to grab tons (literally) of US firearms from rebel groups and Iraqi government in its capture of Mosul in 2015
Obama’s covert drone war in numbers: ten times more strikes than Bush
America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign
and here are some old statistics.

Obama didn't arm them on PURPOSE but he has botched the shit out of the whole situation by trying to war hawk Russia out of regional influence for the last 3 years, and so far it seems like Obama has done more damage than Trump has (So far) in terms of legitimate numbers seeing as Trump has inherited it but he's got 4 years to break that record.

but honestly who cares its Syria its a Third World shithole why should we honestly care? as long as they keep their ass backwards ways to themselves and not start shit on home soil it should be fine and let them just thin the herd a bit it might do the place some good.


At 4/1/17 09:46 PM, SamPercyWellsDay wrote:
At 4/1/17 09:32 PM, Tybia99 wrote: He's creating more terrorists then he is killing. He's not killing nearly enough to justify a complete lack of care whether innocent people die or not.
Who's He!? Trump!? The Personification of America and all Western allied countries? I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but what the fuck is the alternative solution? Let ISIS live? The real problem is abundantly clear, only that its economically or politically nonviable.

The trump administration has had a huge increase in the number of civilian deaths while the combatant deaths stayed the same. Try reading the posts. This isn't an effective way of stopping ISIS in the least.

Here's a picture of the US soldier and little girl who both died. Both US citizens, and both gone forever because the administration couldn't bother to look into why the raid was risky.
More like, who gives a fuck, the war has already seen more than enough death as it is, The war Must go on!

I just find it funny how people can say they want little kids and our vets to be murdered and then turn around and wonder why they "hate us".