There are people who will complain about anything related to war no matter what. It doesn't matter what the military does or what actually happens. All they understand is that war=violence=bad.
I don't know anything about this other than reading it here, but according to Wikipedia at least, the US claimed this was a mistake, apologized for it, and paid reparations.
Not that that makes this ok, but it does put it in the category of "error", not deliberate targeting of civilians (if you believe that narrative, of course).
Not sure how well that aged now that the US essentially took all the money from the Afghan central bank.
Also, there have been leaked documents showing that the US would delibrately target ambulances and civilian infrastructure. I don't understand why anybody would take the US military's word as gospel without substantial evidence (and no, apologising and paying reparations after controversy is not compelling evidence that these actions were not delibrate).
Of course it's possible to name incidents that sound bad on paper after spinning the narrative to serve the purpose of arguing that war=violence=bad. This happens all the time. That's the whole point I'm trying to make.
Any time the military kills a terrorist, a certain group of people will say "You monster! He had kids for God sakes! Look at these pictures of his family! He never got a fair trial!" When a genuine fuckup happens, these same people naturally jump on the opportunity and criticize endlessly. The American population is especially apt for this kind of behavior.
Yeah, cute to spin it this way but it's more like the military kills a terrorist and also a large number of civilians surrounding that terrorist and then half of the media play apologetics for an operation that essentially caused the deaths of innocent people - with terrorist deaths as a rounding error.
The last problem the American people have is that they're too anti-war. It's literally the opposite.
They literally blew up a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders. How is your reply in any way relevant? Is the argument that we're supposed to ignore civilian deaths when judging whether war is a good idea?
https://www.msf.org/attack-kunduz-trauma-centre-internationa...