• New Registration

    To become a member of JackpineRadicals please see post https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/new-members/

Home Main Forums General Discussion U.S. Dropped 26,171 Bombs on 7 Muslim-Majority Countries in 2016

  • WillyT (10724 posts)
    Profile photo of WillyT Donor

    U.S. Dropped 26,171 Bombs on 7 Muslim-Majority Countries in 2016

    U.S. Dropped 26,171 Bombs on 7 Muslim-Majority Countries in 2016 – AlterNet



    The last year of the presidency of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama was marked by heavy bombing throughout the Middle East and South Asia. The United States dropped at least 26,171 bombs in seven Muslim-majority countries in 2016. And, given limitations on available government data, this estimate is “undoubtedly low,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko and Jennifer Wilson, who conducted the research.

    Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan were the countries targeted by U.S. airstrikes. 2016 saw an increase in bombing since 2015, when the U.S. dropped at least 23,144 bombs on six Muslim-majority countries (Libya was the seventh country bombed in 2016).



    Most of the bombs, 24,287, used in 2016 were dropped in Iraq and Syria, where the U.S. is leading a coalition to fight the self-declared Islamic State. Afghanistan was hit with at least 1,337 bombs. The war in Afghanistan entered its 15th year in 2016, one of the longest standing wars in U.S. history. President Obama was reelected in 2012 on the promise to end the war in 2014, but he prolonged and even expanded it multiple times.

    Another 496 bombs were dropped by the U.S. in Libya. The U.S. quietly launched an air campaign in the oil-rich North African country in 2016 in order to beat back Islamic State militants. NATO carried out a regime change operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the government of longtime leader Muammar Qadhafi and plunging the nation into chaos. Extremist groups filled the void, and ISIS established in Libya its largest so-called caliphate outside of Iraq and Syria.

    The U.S. also carried out dozens of airstrikes in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan…



    More: http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/us-dropped-26171-bombs-7-muslim-countries-2016


    xynthee, Spanishprof27, ozoneman and 8 othersPADemD, historylovr, jwirr, PennLawyer, Sadie, HomerRamone, Charles, djean111 like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
8 replies
  • djean111 (5612 posts)
    Profile photo of djean111 Donor

    1. Honestly, I don't know why any country that is on the "Great American Kill Ya

    and Yer Family with a BOMB” guest list, or suspects it will be there in the future,  would not have wanted Trump, given the choice between Trump and Hillary.

    • *Obligatory disclaimer - when I say "Democratic Party" I mean the DNC - the Clintons and the un-elected people and the consultants and the lobbyists and the corporations who actually run things.  The people who work and vote and are registered as "D" are no more the actual party than Trekkies are Star Trek.   Extra credit - the Democratic Party gets to actually fuck up your life. When you vote for it.
    You think the only reason that people won't vote for a warmongering Third Way fracking-enabling cluster bomb throwing H-1B increasing lying pandering corporate and Wall Street shill who says she has no problem putting abortion rights on the table is because we are mad about Bernie?  Um, nope.
  • ThouArtThat (6155 posts)
    Profile photo of ThouArtThat Donor

    2. Mr. Hope And Change At His Finest


    "In America Today, Power Corrupts and Money Corrupts Absolutely" - Anonymous  
    • Sadie (3069 posts)
      Profile photo of Sadie Donor

      5. Infuriating

      We are the bullies of the world.  

        Wake up, peeps, their kids go to Harvard and Yale; your kids go to Iraq & Afghanistan.   
  • vattel (1572 posts)
    Profile photo of vattel

    3. Should we defeat ISIS?

    Most of the bombing was aimed at defeating ISIS.  I am inclined to think that we should be doing that so long as we do everything we can to minimize harm to innocent bystanders.

    • PennLawyer (2536 posts)
      Profile photo of PennLawyer Donor

      6. Ever heard of "Innocent until proven guilty"? That requires a court of law.

      The U.S. foreign policy has long been awash in extralegal, i.e., illegal activities, whether the CIA’s rendition flights/prisons or Charismatic Barack’s weekly Tuesday Terror meetings where he approves Kill Lists.  So under international and U.S. law,  when you refer to “innocent bystanders”, you’re referring to everyone who has not been charged and adjudicated guilty of criminal activities.  That’s why the world’s civilized countries developed international war tribunals, Geneva Conventions, etc.

      But, hey!  let’s get with the Third Way times!  As Bill Clinton will tell ya, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is, or in this case, what the meaning of “innocent bystanders” is.  The Clintons and Obama believe they are above the law; they don’t need no stinkin’ international tribunals or Geneva Conventions.  As former U.S. Congressman and retired Navy Admiral Joe Sestak (whom Schumer  spent $4million to knock out of Pennsylvania’s last Senate primary because Sestak would not agree to be Schumer’s butt boy/yes man) pointed out in a lecture he gave on foreign policy at the University of Pittsburgh’s school of law last year, Obama should have closed the prison at Guantanamo immediately and provided a trial for every single prisoner therein.

      It’s called Habeas Corpus.  And Sestak spelled out why.  It’s not only to follow U.S. law & international treaty law, which should be reason enough,  but because whenever the U.S. govt. treats those it accuses of being enemy combatants the way they are treated in Guantanamo, it exposes all U.S. military forces to the same inhumane treatment if they are captured.

      And as Sestak pointed out,  many of the prisoners in Guantanamo were detained solely on being denounced as terrorists by fellow countrymen in exchange for a bounty of several thousand dollars.  No proof was required.  Just an unfounded accusation.


      Of the 116 men currently detained at Guantánamo Bay military prison, only three were captured by U.S. forces, while the rest were apprehended by foreign spies and warlords—new revelations which cast yet another layer of doubt on the veracity of their alleged crimes and the general purpose of the facility.

      According to a Guardian analysis of U.S. military capture information, nearly 85 percent of detentions at Guantánamo Bay come from “foreign partners with their own interests in round-ups—overwhelmingly of Arab men in south Asian countries.”

      It has been known for years that many of the men were sold to the U.S. for a bounty, a practice which Amnesty International in 2007 said created a “culture in Pakistan where abductions, unlawful detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and deaths in custody occur with total impunity.”

      Habeas Corpus

      [Latin, You have the body.] A writ (court order) that commands an individual or a government official who has restrained another to produce the prisoner at a designated time and place so that the court can determine the legality of custody and decide whether to order the prisoner’s release.

      A writ of habeas corpus directs a person, usually a prison warden, to produce the prisoner and justify the prisoner’s detention. If the prisoner argues successfully that the incarceration is in violation of a constitutional right, the court may order the prisoner’s release. Habeas corpus relief also may be used to obtain custody of a child or to gain the release of a detained person who is insane, is a drug addict, or has an infectious disease. Usually, however, it is a response to imprisonment by the criminal justice system.

      A writ of habeas corpus is authorized by statute in federal courts and in all state courts. An inmate in state or federal prison asks for the writ by filing a petition with the court that sentenced him or her. In most states, and in federal courts, the inmate is given the opportunity to present a short oral argument in a hearing before the court. He or she also may receive an evidentiary hearing to establish evidence for the petition.

      The habeas corpus concept was first expressed in the Magna Charta, a constitutional document forced on King John by English landowners at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. Among the liberties declared in the Magna Charta was that “No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or injured in any way, nor will we enter on him or send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” This principle evolved to mean that no person should be deprived of freedom without Due Process of Law.

      The writ of habeas corpus was first used by the common-law courts in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century England


      • vattel (1572 posts)
        Profile photo of vattel

        8. In the context of discussions of the ethics of war, "innocent bystander"

        is not usually used to refer to people who have not been found guilty of a crime.  In war, combatants are not innocent bystanders, for example, but obviously not all combatants are convicted criminals.  Perhaps I should have used the term “noncombatants” to avoid confusion.  Directly attacking noncombatants is a war crime, but killing noncombatants as a predictable side effect of directly attacking military targets is not a war crime and is permitted under the laws of war if the attack is necessary and proportionate.

        I agree with you about Guantanamo and habeas corpus.  If I recall, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once said that there was no constitutional right to habeas corpus.  I respectfully disagree.

  • PennLawyer (2536 posts)
    Profile photo of PennLawyer Donor

    4. As of Feb'16,war on ISIS cost U.S. $6.2 billion, w/ no end in sight

    (Yes, I know this article is from last February – if someone has more current numbers, please be my guest and post them!)


    The US War on ISIS Is Costing a Fortune (headline)
    More than a year and a half and $6.2 billion later, there’s no end in sight. (subheadline)
    Bryan Schatz/Feb. 22, 2016 6:00 AM

    It’s been a year and a half since the United States launched Operation Inherent Resolve, unofficially declaring war on ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The numbers are already staggering: As of January 31, after 542 days of airstrikes, the cost of the campaign reached $6.2 billion, or about $480,000 for every hour of the campaign. And the expenses are set to grow: The Pentagon is asking for another $7.5 billion to continue battling ISIS—double the amount requested for 2016.

    Beyond the money, the war itself is ramping up, including more airstrikes with fewer restrictions on civilian casualties and more special-forces troops on the ground. The scope of the battle has also expanded to Afghanistan and Libya (where last Friday airstrikes hit an ISIS camp). And as plans are being drawn up for major battles to recapture the ISIS strongholds of Raqqa, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq, there are calls for more US troops to be deployed in combat or advisory roles.

    As Operation Inherent Resolve continues to escalate, here’s a closer look at some of the stats behind America’s war on ISIS:

    Officially, 3,650 American troops and contractors are currently involved in the campaign against ISIS. The actual number may be closer to 6,000.




  • Tierra y Libertad (2040 posts)
    Profile photo of Tierra y Libertad Donor

    7. How's that working so far? Are we safe yet?

    “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime,” Ernest Hemingway


    But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing. Thomas Paine