(06-14-2017, 10:18 AM)Kotite Wrote:

(06-12-2017, 04:07 PM)FBT Wrote: Gotta love the lengths some will go to in order to twist something to fit their anti-Trump narrative.

There was a report just yesterday talking about how compared to the micromanaging that was done under Bush and Obama, Trump has taken a more hands-off approach to allow the military to do their job without having to worry about how the White House would need to frame a political narrative. The OP is trying desperately to link something that more than likely will turn out to be yet another non-story to Trump because that's what the left does.  They're like Pavlov's dogs.  Ring a bell and you can pretty much predict their reaction.

The original post indicated it should not have been done. No matter who it was under. And predictably it was excused because of who it was under by the usual suspects. The same people who would be blasting Obama if this happened under him.

"No matter how white phosphorus is used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa and Mosul and any other areas with concentrations of civilians. US-led forces should take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm when using white phosphorus in Iraq and Syria."

As for Trump's hands off approach, the article I posted in this thread shows this approach is increasing civilian deaths. Those who repeatedly bashed Obama for his drone strikes are quiet as a church mouse that the Trump strategy is killing significantly more innocent bystanders. 

Same as it ever was in the echo chamber. Any fact is subject to what it means for the party one supports.

Not that I agree at all with civilians being collateral damage, but ISIS hides among civilian populations, so how does anyone fight them without there being collateral damage? There is no doubt they need to be neutralized because they are a serious threat to everyone so the question is, how do you fight an enemy that doesn't fight fair?

---