Dozens of Syrian civilians died last month after being jailed by ISIS for violating Sharia Law. But it wasn’t Islamic extremists who ended their lives—it was the United States.

An airstrike carried out Dec. 28 on an ISIS headquarters in the northern Syrian town of Al Bab may have killed more than 50 civilians, according to McClatchy. Reports gathered from eyewitness and a Syrian opposition human rights group revealed a death toll ranging between 55 and 61 civilian prisoners inside the building that was demolished by American missiles. Between 13 and 25 ISIS guards also died in the attack. If those numbers are accurate, it would represent the worst case of civilian deaths caused by the U.S. bombing of Syria.

One source told McClatchy that 35 prisoners were imprisoned for minor infractions of Islamic Law, “such as smoking, wearing jeans or appearing too late for the afternoon prayer,” Roy Gutman and Mousab Alhamadee reported.

The U.S. military did not confirm the airstrike until last weekend. An early Pentagon statement said there had been no evidence of civilian casualties but a later email from the Defense Department acknowledged there had been reports of some deaths.

Only $33 million? Must not be that important.

encryption is the only protection for privacy left.

Threats are a violation of someone's rights, so it wouldn't be applicable to my scenario where violence is initiated in response to expression, as freedom of expression does not include a threat. As for mental abuse, if someone is mentally abusing you, they are most likely physically abusing you as well, otherwise you would be free to remove yourself from the situation. If you're not free to leave of your own volition, I can see where the initiation of force in your own defense is warranted. If you are free to leave and do not, that does not make it OK to initiate violence, because you have chosen not to take the least destructive path. I cannot think of a situation where the initiation of physical violence is an appropriate response to someone who is being only mentally abused. (Maybe you have a scenario in mind that might change my mind?) Also, what constitutes mental abuse is in the mind of the sufferer. If you called me an idiot on this board for my views, I could be sensitive enough that it would cause me legitimate mental distress. That's hardly any fault of your own, but the fact that the threshold can vary so greatly person-to-person does not place liability on someone who expresses an opinion, even if it's offensive. But we're also not talking about these situations. (I take your point thought about never saying never. I was imprecise.)

The crux of this issue is how people are likely to react to someone else's expression, and really, that is irrelevant to me. If we know jihadi's kill people cuz they're mad at the depiction of their prophet, that never makes it OK when they kill people. The killers are wrong, every time, no matter how likely it is that they react in an unacceptable manner to someone else's expression. Expression can be a liability in a semantic sense only, not a legitimate sense that makes victim-blaming OK. Well, he shouldn't have said that because it was likely to provoke a reaction sounds an awful lot like well, she shouldn't have worn that because it was likely to provoke someone to rape her. No. The person committing the crime is wrong every time.

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

Is there a difference in your mind between a business that won't serve gays and a business that won't serve people of color, or are both refusals equivalent? (General question to anyone in this thread.)

Nah, he just doesn't like it cuz it came from Obama, even though it's an action in defense of the traditional conservative value of local autonomy.

If, however, you are actually being (non-hypothetically) hostile to me with your post, then yes, you are actually being a jerk since the insult is uncalled for.

Rand Paul is not a fan of the United Nations, and on a campaign-style swing through New Hampshire on Wednesday, the likely Republican presidential hopeful said that he would support dissolving the international governing body entirely.

Speaking to a room full of gun rights advocates at the Londonderry Fish & Game Club, Paul said that while the concept of having a multinational body to "discuss diplomacy" isn't necessarily a bad one, he objects to the current structure, in which the United States has to foot "a huge chunk" of the U.N.'s bill.

“I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States,” Paul said. “There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like the U.N., and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it.”

The Kentucky senator’s swing through the first-in-the-nation primary state came a day after The Washington Post reported that Paul has hired a campaign manager for his now all-but certain White House run.

Paul was in his element among the libertarian-leaning crowd here, as he took a range of questions on gun policy and noted that he began his successful 2010 Senate bid at a machine gun festival in Kentucky.

“From a freedom perspective, I’m against limiting magazines,” Paul said in response to one question about ammunition. “From a practical point of view, I’m not that great a shot, so I need a few more chances.”

The remark drew laughter from the standing-room crowd that had gathered near the club’s gun range.

Though Paul’s 2016 candidacy is not yet official, the freshman senator mostly dispensed with any attempt to play it coy as he asked for the club members’ support.

“I don’t think you’ll probably find anybody in our primary who’s going to come up here and say they don’t support the 2nd Amendment and they’re not for gun rights,” he said. “So really the job of voters sometimes is sifting through who they think can best advocate for the position, who has advocated for the position, and how do we do it best. I think there’s a lot of overlap between all of the people you’ll see and hear from. But I think one thing that may be unique about my message is that I try to intertwine and make it not just about guns and not just the 2nd Amendment. I tend to make it more about freedom.”

I am as biased as you are. I always will be. You always will be (although, I don't pay attention to names on any forum, so I don't know what you stand for on anything exactly.)

There always will be something new to discuss, yes.

Unless changing my wordings, no need to say you are sorry. Too many pictures in this case.

Although, thanks to my deeply held belief in my supreme faith of my bias, those images were ULTRA relevant to all. I understand you do not agree. If you are my polar opposite in Bizarro World, then it was imperative you'd found these images irrelevant to your own bias...

If you believe what the author of the article said is wrong, then provide the links and prove the author wrong. To me the article was clear, concise and fabulous.

One could almost read it as effortlessly as playing Chopin on a Bösendorfer.........