Because it was a running gun fight. The Army also released it’s After Action report showing there was in fact RPGs there. Now I’m not saying the reporters were bad guys, but they clearly embedded with an anti coalition militia. That carries the same risk of getting killed as embedding with coalition forces.
You should really read that definition of avoid. Because you keep using it as an absolute term when it very much is not.
And I don’t care if you were some white coat back in the States. I was on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we weren’t worried about avoiding civilian casualties we wouldn’t have gotten out with so few.
Lol what a pathetic taunt.
Mhhhmm. Didn’t read the definition I see.
Your link to the definition of ‘avoid’?
I avoided nothing. I addressed the issue directly.
The USA kills civilians.
Israel does at a much faster rate. A genocidal one in fact.
But that does not give any creedence to the notion the USA is innocent.
QED JFC
Now you’re moving the goalpost. Dude, just admit your wrong. The US goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.
have you ever seen the viral sensation “collateral murder”?
I have actually. I also saw the unedited version WikiLeaks was really hoping nobody would see.
why would they hope no one saw more?
Because it was a running gun fight. The Army also released it’s After Action report showing there was in fact RPGs there. Now I’m not saying the reporters were bad guys, but they clearly embedded with an anti coalition militia. That carries the same risk of getting killed as embedding with coalition forces.
you’re saying embedded journalists are civillians, but the us doesn’t try to avoid killing them? seems like you owe the other commenter an apology.
Nevwr moved the goal posts. You just need a bit more reading comprehension.
And no, civilian damage and deaths will not prevent the USA from striking targets.
Look up Obama’s record of drone striking weddings.
It is why i left the industry.
Ive been inside DARPA and the Pentagon discussong collateral damage.
Avoiding it is not a priority.
Why?
to be feared by tge enemy
so the enemy cannot use human shields
But directly targeting non combatants and hiding behind ‘faulty intelligence’ has been a common occurance.
Remember the car full of water and children the US blew up as they left Afghanistan?
You should really read that definition of avoid. Because you keep using it as an absolute term when it very much is not.
And I don’t care if you were some white coat back in the States. I was on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we weren’t worried about avoiding civilian casualties we wouldn’t have gotten out with so few.
could have avoided all of them. literally every single one.
Yeah. But that’s not a decision the people in uniform get to make.
you can always choose whether to pull the trigger. “following orders” is not a defense.
also, that doesn’t change whether the us avoids killing civillians. they clearly do not.