To be consistent the US military now needs to launch missiles against itself

The UK-based, US-friendly Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says the US is now killing more Syrian civilians than the Syrian military.

The group says in the past month US munitions killed 225 civilians while Syria's own killed 146. The pro-opposition outfit has no obvious incentive to exaggerate the former body count.

Of course, last month the US 'tomahawked' a Syrian military base because the latter allegedly killed some 90 people in a chemical gas attack. Syria denied such an attack, claiming it had only bombed a rebel warehouse, and the US didn't wait for an investigation, but never mind – let's say Syria had indeed done such a thing.

So now, if the Syrian military needed to be bombed for killing 90 civilians, does the American military need to be bombed for killing 225?

Should US Navy ships in the Mediterranean now launch cruise missiles against the American section of Incirlik Air Base?

If the US Navy is to keep things consistent it appears that they should.

Of course, the US will claim that the alleged Syrian attack was worse because it was carried out with poison gas, and because civilians in its own raids are not targeted but die as "collateral damage".

But dying in a building-collapsing blast is no less gruesome than dying in a chemical attack. The distinction is completely arbitrary.

Also, let's get serious, if you're 'non-deliberately' killing more civilians than a guy who is supposedly so brutal that he will "gas his own people" it's hard to argue you're running a particularly life-cherishing bombing campaign.



If Assad is waging a bona fide war against civilians and he's still only managing to kill just two-thirds of the number you are...what does that say about you?