I absolutely do stand by my statements at the time for several reasons.clakclak wrote: ↑Sat, 18. Sep 21, 08:48I do not agree with this assessment of the situation. The Biden administration said it wanted to take revenge for the Americans killed in the Airport attack, thus I assume they put pressure on the military to find a good target. The military then hastily decided to bomb what may with a lot of luck be a military target and celebrate the, like you put it in an earlier comment "160 saved lives", only that no lives were saved as the targets were simply normal people going about their day.
The worst part is: If it had not been for Journalists investigating the strike and throwing up doubts that the official version was wrong, I am 100% sure this would all have been swept under the rug and people would have trusted the US military completely. Hell you Vertigo were 100% convinced that this was an attack against terrorists even after reports came out that gave a very reasonable different angle. A bit more distrust towards those in power might be healthy.
1, reporters are not experts in military tactics or forensic evidence (half the time they're not even experts in journalism). That was evidenced by their insistence that there was no 2ndary explosion, carrying on like the car was hit with a cruise missile, when it absolutely wasn't the case. Not to mention, reporters rarely, if ever, get access to intelligence reports. The last people I would expect to have the full picture are reporters in any situation involving military operations. I assume you noticed that all of their reporting came entirely from civilians in and around the area where the strike occurred.
2, The US military does not knowingly or arbitrarily order attacks on civilian targets. Every bit of their intel told them this was their guy and he very easily could have been. I, for one, am glad I'm not in the position to make a decision on whether or not I should launch a strike because I can't say for sure I would have made any different decision given the circumstances.
Here's the thing. Yeah, Biden said he wanted to take revenge against ISIS for the suicide bombing that killed 13 US service members and 160 Afghan civilians. That was a statement aimed at ISIS, not an order given to the joint chiefs. The US military still abides by the rules of engagement, in this case, section 2, paragraph 2e and 3 of the SROE and SUOF very much applied. The military is not allowed to deviate from that and "revenge" is not part of the doctrine.
It's easy to armchair quarterback after an event has occurred. Again, I'll point out that these mistakes are the exception, not the rule and the US military gets it right far more often than things like this happen.