I’m not splitting hairs over dead vs wounded.
The headline says thousands were gunned down (dead and wounded: total casualties), but the article says combined dead and wounded are in the hundreds.
I’m “splitting hairs” over the headline exaggerating an already horrific event by an order of magnitude.
No. The article says the number wounded is likely in the hundreds. The headline is exaggerating a tragic event.
A little ironic considering France’s recently approved plans for mass surveillance.
“We have the people we need. We have the training that we need. We have the equipment that we need to fight and win," Lt Colonel Omar Minott, who is among the 1,500 to be deployed, said.
Oh, so it’s completely different this time around. They’ve got it figured out now, everyone.
You’re being obtuse and misleading. OP is clearly referring to alleged Iraqi WMDs in the lead up, and justification for, the 2003 invasion.
Stockpiles of WMDs were never found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
You’re getting down voted but it’s a reasonable question. It’s not as if there is violence being perpetrated by only one side.
Nobody wants civilians to be harmed. What solution is there that keeps Israeli and Palestinian civilians safe? Will Hamas actually respect a cease fire?
Two nuclear states engaging in combat; what an incredible risk that poses to the entire world.