My point was not about US or Iraq or ISIL does. My point was about how it is reported. There’s a huge difference between reporting about Mosul and reporting about Aleppo, but the situations were about the same (they aren’t now, because the Battle of Aleppo is close to its end).
But you raised one interesting point — are they really trying their best to prevent civilian casualties?
As one British American says — that is some weapons grade bul…..
Why? Because — if they start to do that, they stop the strikes (exactly what they wanted Russians to do — no matter the intentions, and exactly why they ignored that). Because they can’t protect any civilian, because bombs are not magic. They are bombs. And that brings forward only one thing — if they really want to take Mosul, they have to forget about that. It’s horrible, but that’s the way it is. A simple calculation. And the hell the ISIL will use the civilians exactly to make the number of civilian deaths by bombs as high as they can. Like it is in Aleppo, like it was everywhere else.
And the hard truth is, generals do know. But they also know, they either win and kill innocent people, or they just surrender and go home.
And that was what was different with Dresden — it was nothing else than deliberate targeting of population in order to achieve a military goal.
In the brutal, real world, there is a difference between what they say (trying to minimize civilian casualties) and what they do (cold-blooded calculations).
My intention was not to start a flame war. My intention was to show that it is something very wrong about how the things are reported. And now I added, that it’s perfectly normal that any military says something which is not as ugly as the reality, rather than to tell the sad and unfortunate truth.