Posted on Mar 17, 2017
US admits strike on ‘Al-Qaeda meeting’ in Syria amid reports of deadly mosque attack nearby
2.28K
31
17
6
6
0
Was this an intentional attack on a mosque ala the President's "take out their families" comments to defeat ISIS? Or was it coincidental that the mosque blew up in the vicinity of a US air strike (in both time and space)? Or was it an errant bomb?
US admits strike on ‘Al-Qaeda meeting’ in Syria amid reports of deadly mosque attack nearby
Posted from rt.com
Donald Trump
ISIS
War Crimes
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
6
6
0
4
4
0
5 bucks says the Mosque blew higher when the C-4 and ammo in the basement went off.
M. Morris RVT
M. Morris RVT
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
What is interesting to me about this topic is the subtext that liberals hold us to a standard to which they would never dream of holding terrorists. Terrorists don't do any of the things necessary to qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions -- wear uniforms of any kind, bear arms openly, avoid mingling with civilians, etc. Under the Geneva Conventions, a protected Civilian Object like schools, hospitals, churches/mosques, museums, etc., are supposed to be assumed to be neutral and non-combative unless proven otherwise. But like everything else in the Conventions, terrorists don't give a crap about following the rules. Their only concern with the rules is that we follow them, and how best to use those rules against us. To that end, liberals are once again proving themselves to be useful idiots, functioning once again as a propaganda arm of our enemies. The thing is, though, Civilian Objects lose their protected status when used for military purposes. Storing weapons and munitions in a mosque, for example, is something that makes that mosque a legitimate military target according to the Geneva Conventions.
We need to fight this war against terrorism with the same ruthlessness they use against us, with the goal of killing every last terrorist. And every mosque that is used for military purposes should be destroyed.
We need to fight this war against terrorism with the same ruthlessness they use against us, with the goal of killing every last terrorist. And every mosque that is used for military purposes should be destroyed.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
There's a reason for that. We're supposed to be the "good" guys. The good guys MUST operate with a different set of standards and hold to them - otherwise the good guys are just like the bad guys that have to be killed. I don't think that's a "liberal" thing - I think it's a "just war" thing.
Do you think that "killing every last terrorist" is a quantifiable and achievable objective? If not, how can we make that the end-state we are striving for? That just puts us in never ending warfare in a continuous lose-lose situation.
Do you think that "killing every last terrorist" is a quantifiable and achievable objective? If not, how can we make that the end-state we are striving for? That just puts us in never ending warfare in a continuous lose-lose situation.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
We DO operate with a different set of standards, exactly because we are the good guys. We wear uniforms. We bear arms openly. We don't hide among civilians or use civilians as shields. We don't target civilians. We don't do reprisals with civilians when we are attacked. We don't indiscriminately destroy private property. We don't indiscriminately destroy infrastructure. We try to limit collateral damage. And we go far above and beyond what the Geneva Conventions require with regards to protecting civilian objects such as schools, hospitals and especially mosques.
My position is that we need to ratchet down our level of protection to what the Geneva Conventions require of us, and no more. Let it be known that civilian objects will be protected up until the minute they are used for military purposes, and in that moment they will become military targets and destroyed as soon as munitions can be brought to bear. That needs to be the message both to Americans and to the world.
Killing every last terrorist may not be precisely quantifiable or achievable, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be our goal. As Vince Lombardi once said, the Green Bay Packers will pursue perfection -- they will not achieve perfection, but in the pursuit of perfection, they will achieve excellence. As long as terrorists live and breath, it should be our goal to end them. As far as the never-ending warfare goes, we are already in it, not by our choice. The only choice we have is whether we want to fight it and win it.
My position is that we need to ratchet down our level of protection to what the Geneva Conventions require of us, and no more. Let it be known that civilian objects will be protected up until the minute they are used for military purposes, and in that moment they will become military targets and destroyed as soon as munitions can be brought to bear. That needs to be the message both to Americans and to the world.
Killing every last terrorist may not be precisely quantifiable or achievable, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be our goal. As Vince Lombardi once said, the Green Bay Packers will pursue perfection -- they will not achieve perfection, but in the pursuit of perfection, they will achieve excellence. As long as terrorists live and breath, it should be our goal to end them. As far as the never-ending warfare goes, we are already in it, not by our choice. The only choice we have is whether we want to fight it and win it.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google