Originally posted by Littlefoot:

Any reason to care? The rebels are the ones who will benefit from it, the sooner they can get al-Assad off the place, the better.

The rebels... The same useless rebel scum that took over Libya after Gaddafi and Egypt after Mubarak?

WHAT GOOD will ANOTHER US-Selected Rebel Group taking charge of a nation do? Even more beheadings and unstable government? Even worse treatment of civilians than by the so-called evil dictators that came before them?

Even the CIA and the Pentagon can't get their own respective rebel groups to function properly. They'll even chase after American soldiers trying to help them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWal-EoJgXg

Originally posted by タンク ファッカー:

Stupid niggers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu6ioKjZsGU

Weezy pointing out that it was a White officer that saved him?

Priceless. Fuck that well-funded hate group and the white corporate dick it rode in on.

Originally posted by Lewious-Tan:

Originally posted by Surlaw:

It doesn't have to be that way. But, because of our intervention, we have effectively turned the entire area into a Hell upon this Earth.

Indeed. It doesn't even start with ISIS. This whole mess can be traced back to 9/11, when we overreacted and used the terrorist threat along with some other excuses to invade another country and upset the balance of power.

What we've done to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and even Afghanistan, are well beyond paranoid response. Overreaction doesn't even begin to explain the level of chaos that we have caused in this part of the world; and for things to become so much worse, so quickly? We spent at minimum about 224 million dollars worth of ordinance bombing Gaddafi out of power with cruise missiles; immediately thereafter, the region destabilized and now we have a movie about Benghazi. On top of that, the Bin Laden family is among the richest in the Middle-East.

While we can call the people in positions of power "retards" day and night, the fact of the matter is; they're not. Our government is run by some of the most powerful and intelligent people in the world. There is a strategic reason behind everything we do, and when our fuckups advance our federal agenda, a certain degree of skepticism is required, otherwise we miss out on the opportunity to know what happens next.

Originally posted by Lewious-Tan:

In general, the whole Middle East is one big mess. That's something we can all agree on.

It doesn't have to be that way. But, because of our intervention, we have effectively turned the entire area into a Hell upon this Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxTcPu8tmOs
Samantha Power blaming Russia...

Originally posted by Lewious-Tan:

I can also find no reason how killing 162 soldiers is strategically significant in any way.

There are over 125,000 soldiers in service in the Syrian army, with 100,000 in reserve.

I'd be suspicious if the US bombed a depot, or any other area. But this seems like one of those endless cases of collateral damage, done by a military that, at heart, doesn't really care for the well-being of the people living in the region as it does in taking care of the terrorists that reside there.

Every human life lost here is a family that has lost its father or son. If you see no value in an individual person, of course you can't comprehend the significance of the loss.

What makes these men matter is that they were active personnel, part of an active military group. The 125,000 soldiers you suggest does not include combat-capable individuals, and the reserve numbers most certainly don't suggest that either. Syria is in a state of total war, every person matters, and I can guarantee that the active military groups are fit with the best their army can currently offer because this is a war for the preservation of the State.

Because of this airstrike, they are out 162 combat-capable individuals, and additional fees for the medical treatment of the 100 whom were wounded, likely with life and limb-threatening injuries.

I'll admit, I find your reaction to this situation to be quite callous.

Originally posted by Lewious-Tan:

Originally posted by freeskins.me Sir Illic:

So in the end, we're all assholes?

Absolutely

It's laughable to think that the US wants to help ISIS or pull any weird Illuminati bullshite.

In the end, we probably can chalk this down to one of the many incidents resulting from the US's lack of direct control in the Middle East.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/world/middleeast/his-position-still-secure-bashar-al-assad-smiles-as-syria-burns.html?_r=0

The US has plenty of reasons to want to cut Assad down to size. 62+100 less combat-capable, experienced soldiers means it's that much easier for Syria to fall to the Pentagon/CIA backed militia groups we have there... And FYI, to call those groups a conspiracy is to deny reality. We've already got plenty of evidence and admissions by both the Pentagon and the US Government that our proxy rebels are out there.

https://military.id.me/community-news/cia-backed-syrian-rebels-fighting-pentagon-backed-syrian-rebels/

Originally posted by freeskins.me Sir Illic:

Originally posted by Lewious-Tan:

Specifically, the Russian representative's statements make it seem like the US is actually assisting ISIS by bombing Syrian soldiers.

Both sides are pretty eff'd up anyways. It's a political power game they're both playing. Russia's using this situation to lift up its own reputation and take the US down a peg or two, while the US is doing everything it can to deflect blame and not look as dumb in the face of this show of mass incompetence.

So in the end, we're all assholes?

If you take the cynical view, then yes, we're all assholes.

If you take a realistic view, however, you can ascertain that people deserve better than what they get, and there is a deeper meaning to things. To kill 62 soldiers, and wound 100 others, requires more meticulous planning than a simple "military fuckup" can explain. We have some of the most expensive targeting systems in the world, and the most in-depth intelligence gathering techniques in the west. We also have the most dishonest media, and at that, you have to ask...

Is killing 62 people and shrugging it off sheer incompetence, or simple denial of mission?

Originally posted by freeskins.me Sir Illic:

So if I'm reading right, the U.S. attacked Syrian soldiers, then when Russia asked for an explanation the U.S. just called them cynical? Am I reading this right?

Absolutely.

If you're still not sure, see for yourself; https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-latest-us-un-envoy-accuses-russia-of-pulling-a-stunt/2016/09/17/6beb1b46-7d3c-11e6-8064-c1ddc8a724bb_story.html