The ENORMOUS difference between killing civilians in Mosul and killing civilians in Aleppo
At least there is according to the talking heads in Washington DC.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said:
“What we have seen [in Aleppo] is the regime carry out continued fighting against moderate Syrian opposition forces and really not target in meaningful way Daesh or [Al-] Nusra,”
As the battle for Mosul raged for a second day, Toner was asked about differences between the US-led fight and similar anti-terrorist efforts in Aleppo.
“First of all, we are working in a supportive capacity, it’s the Iraqi government, Iraqi forces that are carrying out operation in Mosul and that is to go after and destroy Daesh, drive it out of Mosul,” he said. “It has been very successful in doing so throughout other cities and regions in the country.” (source)
Let me translate for you.
What he is trying to say is that depending on where you live and your definition of what a terrorist actually is – oh and don’t forget the all-important fact of the value of the region concerned, a few hundred civilian deaths is an acceptable price to pay.
Really? So dead children and orphans only matter if they live in a US-friendly country, but not at all if they reside in a country where the leader has decided to stand his ground against the US government?
“With no clear safe routes out of Mosul, thousands are now in danger of getting caught up in the crossfire,” said Aleksandar Milutinovic, the International Rescue Committee’s director for Iraq. “Civilians who attempt to escape the city will have little choice but to take their lives into their own hands and pray that they are able to avoid snipers, landmines, booby traps and other explosives.” (source)
Just when you thought you couldn’t be any more disgusted with our foreign policy, our State Department seems to have taken it as a personal challenge to prove you wrong.