The U.S.-backed Afghan military bombed a religious gathering in late March, killing 70 people and wounding 30. Afghan officials said they knew it was a religious gathering but decided to bomb it anyway because armed militants were in attendance.

What then do we have going on here? Is it only wrong to kill civilians using chemical weapons?

Newsletter signup for email alerts

If Syrian President Bashar al-Assad killed civilians the same way the U.S.-backed Afghan military does, he would not be in trouble, apparently. If Assad used conventional bombs to kill civilians, the way the U.S. did in Mosul, what could the U.S. say?

This is simply a game to take attention away from U.S. government crimes against civilians in the Middle East. The U.S. government cares very little about the lives of civilians in the Middle East.

Do those in the West really believe they are more responsible than Assad because they blow up civilians using weapons not banned by international law?

Frank Erickson

Minneapolis