Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

24567…18

Comments

  • #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Both attackers meant to kill. Calling this a "mistake" does not justify the fact that it is blatant state sanctioned murder of innocent men women and children
    One intended to kill innocent civilians.
    The other intended to kill IS soldiers in an act of war, but inadvertantly killed civilians.

    Both are wrongful acts, but the latter does not carry the same degree of moral culpability, since inadvertent acts of violence are less blameworthy than deliberate acts of violence.


  • #33
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You have evidence that they were sure these were isis fighter's?

    Because if they were not 100% absolutely positive then they shouldn't have pushed the damn button to launch!
    Thanks Captain Hindsight!


  • #34
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,862 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    One intended to kill innocent civilians.
    The other intended to kill IS soldiers in an act of war, but inadvertantly killed civilians.

    Both are wrongful acts, but the latter does not carry the same degree of moral culpability, since inadvertent acts of violence are less blameworthy than deliberate acts of violence.

    85 dead

    If they are not 100% sure then don't fcuking fire


  • #35
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Unspeakable horrors?

    The ones that are shown and reported on constantly in the news?

    I wonder if the aftermath of this bombing will be broadcast around the world.

    Eventually found it hidden away on the BBC site, Middle East section. If it were the Russians, I guarantee that it would be front page.


  • #36
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,862 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Thanks Captain Hindsight!

    Oops

    Sorry folks we thought you were all is is fighters, even the little kids.

    Oh wait, apology not needed cos your all fcuking dead!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,275 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    So how many people will lose their jobs over this?

    In any other walk of life if a mistake you make leads to the death of someone (never mind 85 someones) you'd be at least charged with criminal neglect.

    These lads will probably be awarded medals for their bravery. Like the soldiers involved in shooting down that flight full of civilians a few years back.


  • #38
    RustyNut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    One intended to kill innocent civilians.
    The other intended to kill IS soldiers in an act of war, but inadvertantly killed civilians.

    Both are wrongful acts, but the latter does not carry the same degree of moral culpability, since inadvertent acts of violence are less blameworthy than deliberate acts of violence.

    Dropping a bomb is hardly inadvertent.


  • #39
    andekwarhola
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    I think the deaths from both events are comparable in their awfulness.

    That said, I don't believe the very act of instantly dredging the internet for comparable drone or missile deaths whenever there's a 'terrorist' event will usher the end of either type of event that bit closer.

    Still an important maneuver in the ideological internet wars, mind you.


  • #40
    Its dead Jim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭Its dead Jim


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    One was a deliberate killing of innocents, one was an accident.

    It wasn't an accident. They intended to kill them. They just ****ed up in identifying them but the plan was to kill them and that's exactly what they did.


  • #41
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,738 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    Shocking to have 85 innocent people killed
    This has to stop. Killing of innocent women and children is as big deal as anything in Europe.

    The problem is most people in America and Western Europe don't want this. Sadly it's the Government's who win and cause carnage

    EVENFLOW



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    So the message here is....don't make mistakes? Lads if we had your astute military minds out in Syria, isis would be history.


  • #43
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    Is this another case of;
    '100 Iraqis/Syrians/other dead by Western forces' SHOCK - HORROR - SHAME
    '100 Iraqis/Syrians/other dead by local terrorists/regime forces/Russian actions' That's not news!


  • #44
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Be interesting to see if this actually happened at all ,
    The story broke on some minor Syrian website's yesterday with 20 + dead under rubble and then it was 56 and then it was 85 but there not sure because of the supposed rubble
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    85 dead
    RustyNut wrote: »
    Dropping a bomb is hardly inadvertent.
    Are you both deliberately avoiding understanding the point?

    It's not that complicated. An inadvertent attack on innocent civilians is less morally culpable than a deliberate attack on innocent civilians.

    It isn't that the air strike was inadvertent per se, it was an airstrike on innocent civilians that was inadvertent.

    Both Nice and this airstrike are wrongful acts, but are fundamentally different in character. One is an act of terrorism, the other an act of negligence.


  • #46
    unseenfootage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭unseenfootage


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    And when some young Muslim outraged at this committs another Nice or Paris like attack then he will be labeled a terrorist.

    Yes.
    Anybody who targets and kills civilians to achieve a political objective (or even a criminal objective) is a terrorist, even if he did so in retaliation.
    So the label is correct.
    The issue is that it needs to be applied to state players as well, who use violence against their enemies and don't seem to care much about the innocent civilians who are killed in the process.

    This may very well be a mistake but that doesn't gel with the civilians who are getting killed by these aircraft.


  • #47
    testaccount123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    Is this another case of;
    '100 Iraqis/Syrians/other dead by Western forces' SHOCK - HORROR - SHAME
    '100 Iraqis/Syrians/other dead by local terrorists/regime forces/Russian actions' That's not news!
    Some might say the leaders of our western liberal democracies ought to be held to a slightly higher moral standard than some brainwashed Islamist or Vladimir Putin...


  • #48
    Walter H Price
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭Walter H Price


    RobertKK wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/



    Apart from the death toll being similar to the Nice massacre, and we are told who killed all these people in Nice, the fact is no one will be held accountable for killing all these people, it is being put down as a mistake.
    At the very least it is manslaughter, but 8 families have been wiped out. I don't think it is aceptable with all the technology we have these days for these kind of mass casualty events to be happening by accident.
    A terrorist couldn't use the excuse they killed up to 85 people by accident, these events are done to kill.
    It is very disturbing these events continue to happen, with seemingly no accountability.

    Yeh the diffence is Syria is a warzone , unless your suggesting that France is now on an equal footing to Syria you can clearly see why its more shocking that 85 people are killed on a promanade in Nice celebrating bastile day the 85 people killed in Syria an active warzone .

    Its not the numbers or the race that cause the shock and outrage its the locaton.


  • #49
    unseenfootage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭unseenfootage


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    One intended to kill innocent civilians.
    The other intended to kill IS soldiers in an act of war, but inadvertantly killed civilians.

    Both are wrongful acts, but the latter does not carry the same degree of moral culpability, since inadvertent acts of violence are less blameworthy than deliberate acts of violence.

    The mother sheds tears whether her baby is inadvertently or deliberately killed.
    To her it is the same.
    She will not grieve any less.

    If your highly sophisticated inadvertent bombs have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents then maybe you should fight differently or not fight at all.

    Theresa May said in parliament yesterday, with a smile on her face, that she would press the nuclear button even if it meant that 100 000 innocents got killed.
    Inadvertently of course.


  • #50
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    unseenfootage wrote: »

    Theresa May said in parliament yesterday, with a smile on her face, that she would press the nuclear button

    In Defence of a Nuclear attack on the uk
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #51
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,220 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    You disagree that the Nice and Paris attacks were terrorism?

    People in the US and UK should be up on war criminal charges for these and similar killings IMO.

    The poster is trying to convey that both acts are awful but only one of them is terrorism... somehow...
    suicide_circus wrote: »
    One was a deliberate killing of innocents, one was an accident.

    Ah, sure that's grand. Sorry lads, we blew you to bits, but sure it was an accident, so we're all good, right?
    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Are you both deliberately avoiding understanding the point?

    It's not that complicated. An inadvertent attack on innocent civilians is less morally culpable than a deliberate attack on innocent civilians.

    It isn't that the air strike was inadvertent per se, it was an airstrike on innocent civilians that was inadvertent.

    Both Nice and this airstrike are wrongful acts, but are fundamentally different in character. One is an act of terrorism, the other an act of negligence.

    That would really depend on your point of view, wouldn't it? To the people living in the area, it's bloody terrorism. Terrorism seems to be exclusively reserved for us western folk.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    unseenfootage wrote: »
    The mother sheds tears whether her baby is inadvertently or deliberately killed.
    To her it is the same.
    She will not grieve any less.
    Oh go easy on the maudlin syrup, please. Of course it's drastic personal catastrophe, regardless of the blameworthiness, as I mentioned earlier.

    But if people are trying to compare the two catastrophes, then it needs to be pointed-out that there are stark logical differences between the two. It doesn't detract from the legitimate sense of loss & anger which victims' families feel in either case.
    Kamari Tight Computer wrote: »
    That would really depend on your point of view, wouldn't it?
    No, I don't believe so. Locals might see this as terrorism, but they probably believe it was deliberate, and there's no evidence for that, nor any logical reason to even believe it.


  • #53
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    How do you propose combatting isis?

    Not making 'mistakes' like the one mentioned in the OP.


  • #54
    beach_walker
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 976 ✭✭✭beach_walker


    I'm sure Obama and his administration will be held to account on this, by the media and their supporters in the US and abroad. Right?!


  • #55
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Not making 'mistakes' like the one mentioned in the OP.

    And in your opinion how do you not make mistakes in a live battle space
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #56
    unseenfootage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭unseenfootage


    Gatling wrote: »
    In Defence of a Nuclear attack on the uk

    Is that an inference you are drawing?

    [watch the video in the link]
    Ms May was challenged by the SNP’s George Kerevan, who asked: "Are you prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children?”

    Ms May replied with one word: “Yes.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-trident-debate-nuclear-bomb-yes-live-latest-news-a7143386.html


  • #57
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Gatling wrote: »
    And in your opinion how do you not make mistakes in a live battle space

    By verifying 100% that these are not civilians.
    This was not some heat of the moment thing. This was an air strike, with the aircraft coming in from the safety of an airbase in Turkey.


  • #58
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    The fact that there are people here trying to defend this, or at the very least paint some veneer of acceptability onto it, is legitimately stomach turning. Shame on you.


  • #59
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Phoebas wrote: »
    By verifying 100% that these are not civilians.
    This was not some heat of the moment thing. This was an air strike, with the aircraft coming in from the safety of an airbase in Turkey.
    And with your extensive military experience, how would you go about doing that?


  • #60
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    The fact that there are people here trying to defend this, or at the very least paint some veneer of acceptability onto it, is legitimately stomach turning. Shame on you.
    How do you propose isis are defeated?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    unseenfootage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭unseenfootage


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    No, I don't believe so. Locals might see this as terrorism, but they probably believe it was deliberate, and there's no evidence for that, nor any logical reason to even believe it.

    They deliberately use these weapons in an urban warfare environment, knowing full well that there will be "collateral damage" among the civilian population.
    Its inconsequential that they "didn't inadvertently set out to kill civilians" in a particular instance. The deliberate use of these bombs is problematic in an of itself.


Advertisement