(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.

Those who bashed Obama for his limp-wristed approach to conducting a war recognize that in war, there is always going to be collateral damage, especially when the spineless enemy you're dealing with hides among the civilian population. 

The use of WP in the manner the US military does is not forbidden.  You should try to dig up an article that says the increasing use of explosives in war zones poses a high risk of horrific and long lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa.  It would have the same level of relevance.  War ain't pretty, and it's impossible to be surgical when your enemy is using human shields. 

My viewpoint has nothing to do with party.  My viewpoint has much to do with having at least one foot in reality, not the fantasy world you and your buddies live in where war is run by drones, and only the bad guys get killed.  Even your beloved messiah killed civilians with his video game approach to war.  It's sad, but it happens.  The only time Trump was actually criticized by anyone for his drone strikes was when he went after US citizens, and even then, it was barely a ripple in the water because your pals in the media just ignored it.  Oddly enough, the first military assault under Trump had civilian casualties, and you would have thought the media stumbled across the story of the century.

---