The hell are you talking about, allied bombings killing civilians is highly scrutinized even with the mistake is genuine and anyone can make it.
Also there is a difference in targeting that makes an action terrorism or not. In war you ARE going to kill civilians, there is no "ifs" about it, it is going to happen. The only difference is if you are trying to minimize it to the best of your ability (lack of intel is the most caused reason for civilian casualties), saying fuck it (Russia, Syria, and Saudis), or outright targeting the civilians (terrorists).
Not sure about other countries, but you can talk to actual soldiers in U.S who were denied air support because civilians were in the area or when strikes are canceled because of civilians in area. There is no "both sides" to this coin and this is like one of the only areas where Neogaf is too damn liberal and use that argument while playing arm chair general.
Yes, we can scrutinize these actions, but posts like "we just created more terrorist" and "How are we different from terrorist?" and posts that says "they should be 100% certain civilians aren't in the area" is really annoying to read.
Yes intel was lacked on this scenario, but outside of assaulting the building (which we don't know if they could, since snipers can snipe people from much further away while switching windows etc.). You got someone on this thread saying, "why didn't they snipe the snipers?" as if that is an easy task with many windows/kill holes a sniper can use. You would also need to find the perfect vantage point (which we don't know if they had), and hope they don't spot you going to it. They chose to bomb the sniper nest and unfortunately, it had 200+ civilians in it with ordnance in the building as well.
That is a fault of IS as a soldier should not be using a building civilians are in as an encampment.
As long as you realise that you're rationalizing away killing innocent men, women and children as part of an effort to stop people who kill men, women and children.
Like I said, I guess it's not a bad kill as long as it's accidental. I'm sure their families at home and abroad see it that way too.
And no we do not fucking scrutinise our armies killing innocent foreigners nearly enough.
You ask an American how many people have died in the UK due to terrorism this year, then ask them how many middle easterners have died due to terrorism this year.
They will know about the tens of people killed in England, but won't be able to name a single instance of innocents killed in the middle east/Asia, either by terrorists or our air strikes.
They will know about chemical attacks on Syrians by Assad, but won't know a thing about the allied air strike on a wedding that killed 200 people the week or so prior to that. Because dead innocent children only suffer during chemical attacks. Explosions and being trapped under a building that just fell on them until they die of starvation, lack of oxygen, being crushed to death etc isn't really a big deal. Chemical weapons though...now that's where we draw the line.
You can't scrutinise events you don't know about and/or don't really care about.
It's just extremely hypocritical what we get upset about. It's understandable, but we DO only cry for our own team, while at the same time accepting the deaths of others as just part of the war.
