Reporting.

This is coolbert:

From the Chicago Tribune today and the section "FOCUS MIDDLE EAST".

"A war in the shadows"

"Few details divulged in fight against Islamic State."

Thanks to the McClatchy group.

The news media now able to cover the air war against the Islamic State, reporters now embedded with combat units. Those combat units also to a large extent a single-seat fighter/bomber flying off an aircraft carrier or the various types of combat UAV.

Those press releases as are available from the U.S. and British military concerning the air strikes against ISIL targets those of BRITISH ORIGIN TO BE PREFERRED.

From the American:

"U.S. and partner nations conducted 14 air strikes near Kobani, destroying four ISIL fighting positions, three ISIL occupied buildings, two ISIL staging areas, two ISIL tanks, a motorcycle, a mortar, and struck eight tactical ISIL and units and two ISIL fighting positions. Near Raqqa, an air strike struck and electronic warfare garrison."

From the English:

"On Thursday evening, Kurdish peshmerga reported coming under fire from a dug-in machine-gun position, A RAF [Royal Air Force] Reaper remotely piloted air system succeeded in locating the ISIL position, and attacked it with a Hellfire missile. The crew operating the Reaper then identified further ISIL positions, allowing another coalition aircraft to conduct an attack. Before the end of its patrol, the Reaper crew used another Hellfire to engage an ISIL check-point set up to control a road."

And the difference is? Those releases attributed to the English are superior and better for what reason exactly?

coolbert.