Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-07-2016 01:20PM

jacksie66 wrote: »

Sure didn't the yanks bomb a hospital last year. Collateral damage again..
Biggest war criminals on the planet. But they're somehow immune to repercussions..

But but but, they're doing it so we can all enjoy our freedoms which we wouldn't have if they didn't go to war with everyone.

Dohnjoe · 21-07-2016 01:37PM

HensVassal wrote: »

What one needs to understand is that the US routinely targets civilians for killing as part of a wider campaign.

The US military does not currently deliberately target civilians, there is no policy, no doctrine, no mission specifying this

They invest heavily in better drone tech and precision weapons to specifically avoid civilian casualties

Unfortunately they haven't been able to "not **** up" or been able to completely avoid civilians casualties. It's unlikely tech will ever completely eradicate that risk, their only hope there is not to be involved in the first place

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-07-2016 01:42PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The US military does not currently deliberately target civilians, there is no policy, no doctrine, no mission specifying this

They invest heavily in better drone tech and precision weapons to specifically avoid civilian casualties

Unfortunately they haven't been able to "not **** up" or been able to completely avoid civilians casualties. It's unlikely tech will ever completely eradicate that risk, their only hope there is not to be involved in the first place

Well seeing as they have been at war consistently (I think it's 95%) since their countries birth I don't see that happening any time soon.

Gatling · 21-07-2016 01:43PM

jacksie66 wrote: »

Sure didn't the yanks bomb a hospital last year. Collateral damage again..

No collateral damage they were asked by Forces on the ground for airsupport a C130 was tasked to engage the site unknown to them the Afghan forces targeted the wrong site .

How many hospitals have been bombarded in Syria and schools too this year and the previous 4+years by the Assad regime

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-07-2016 01:46PM

Gatling wrote: »

No collateral damage they were asked by Forces on the ground for airsupport a C130 was tasked to engage the site unknown to them the Afghan forces targeted the wrong site .

How many hospitals have been bombarded in Syria and schools too this year and the previous 4+years by the Assad regime

LOL

but am not surprised you would swallow the "official" Washington report :rolleyes:

Gatling · 21-07-2016 01:56PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

LOL

but am not surprised you would swallow the "official" Washington report :rolleyes:

Oh so something else happened care to enlighten .

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 02:03PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Well my take on this is that the vast majority of terrorist incidents are committed by males in the 18-30 age bracket. In the hotspots like the mid east or areas like Molenbeek, I would favour to see all males in this demographic, unless gainfully employed or in education, detained indefinitely. Perhaps there may be treatments that can make them a lesser risk? I don't know.

The Afghan kid who committed the terror attack in Germany was 17.
Should we adjust the lower limit to 17. I think 16, just to be double sure.
We should also indefinitely detain the hundreds of thousands who will turn 16 every year.
Since these are dangerous terrorists, we should ideally imprison them on some island, preferably in Guantanamo bay like conditions.
Wait.
The yanks did that already but it only created more terrorists and it failed.
Bad idea.
Hitler would be proud of you tho!

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-07-2016 02:08PM

Gatling wrote: »

Oh so something else happened care to enlighten .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike

On November 25, 2015, General John F. Campbell, the American commander in Afghanistan, spoke about the results of the investigation and described the incident as "the direct result of avoidable human error, compounded by process and equipment failures."[52] Campbell said that the investigation had showed that the AC-130 gunship crew misidentified the clinic as a nearby Taliban-controlled government building.[52] The American gunship had identified the building based on a visual description from Afghan troops, and did not consult their no-strike list, which included the co-ordinates of the hospital as provided by MSF.[52] Electronic equipment malfunctions on the gunship prevented it from accessing email and images, while a navigation error meant its targeting equipment also misidentified the target buildings.[53] The aircraft fired 211 shells at the building in 29 minutes, before American commanders realized the mistake and ordered the attack to stop.[53] The report found that the MSF facility "did not have an internationally-recognized symbol to identify it as a medical facility,".[54] This finding was contested by Joe Goldstein stating that the facility had a MSF symbol on it.[55] According to the report, 12 minutes into the operation, the US military was contacted by MSF, but the faulty electronics on the plane prevented the message from getting through until the attack was over.[53]

Gatling · 21-07-2016 02:18PM

Isn't that the official version lol

But what about the hospitals and schools in Syria . Or is it a case if America didn't do it no need to get upset rule

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-07-2016 02:24PM

Gatling wrote: »

Isn't that the official version lol

But what about the hospitals and schools in Syria . Or is it a case if America didn't do it no need to get upset rule

Yeah that's one of the official reports, a bit different to what you were claiming though.

I'll condemn each and every attack on civilians by any country.

Dohnjoe · 21-07-2016 02:25PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike

but am not surprised you would swallow the "official" Washington report

That is the official report

A series of "**** ups" and bad luck led to the attack. None of it was deliberate.

Gatling · 21-07-2016 02:28PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah that's one of the official reports, a bit different to what you were claiming though.

I'll condemn each and every attack on civilians by any country.

It's not actually Afghan forces called and asked for airsupport and directed where and what to hit ,

And it was previously covered across several forums in detail .

So do we have any Verified facts on the supposed 56 killed by any chance it's gone fairly quite

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-07-2016 02:30PM

Gatling wrote: »

It's not actually Afghan forces called and asked for airsupport and directed where and what to hit ,

Wrong!

Campbell said that the investigation had showed that the AC-130 gunship crew misidentified the clinic as a nearby Taliban-controlled government building.[52] The American gunship had identified the building based on a visual description from Afghan troops,

Afghan troops described the building where the Taliban were, American gunship shot at wrong building.

Billy86 · 21-07-2016 02:31PM

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.

The lack of accountability isn't only worrying from that perspective, this kind of thing is a massive, massive propaganda boost for the likes of ISIS too. Not all too different to Bloody Sunday, and even though marked as an accident the locals over there must be so disillusioned with everything that I wouldn't really expect them to accept that excuse.

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 02:37PM

Billy86 wrote: »

The lack of accountability isn't only worrying from that perspective, this kind of thing is a massive, massive propaganda boost for the likes of ISIS too. Not all too different to Bloody Sunday, and even though marked as an accident the locals over there must be so disillusioned with everything that I wouldn't really expect them to accept that excuse.

The hashtag #prayforsyria, sparked by the massacre in Manbij, trended at number 1 yesterday with over 500k tweets when I last checked.
People are naturally outraged and are exposing the USA's hypocrisy.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/PrayforSyria

Retweeted 11,668 times
Lexi AlexanderVerified account ‏@Lexialex 1d1 day ago

Next time you wonder why so many young ppl join a terror group that hates the west,keep this in mind: #PrayforSyria

Gatling · 21-07-2016 02:43PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

The hashtag #prayforsyria, sparked by the massacre in Manbij, trended at number 1 yesterday with over 500k tweets

Seen some of the tweets using using images from 3-4 years ago in Assad regime attacks bit hypothetical aswell as pray for Syria hash tag has been around for the last few years

Billy86 · 21-07-2016 02:44PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

The hashtag #prayforsyria, sparked by the massacre in Manbij, trended at number 1 yesterday with over 500k tweets when I last checked.
People are naturally outraged and are exposing the USA's hypocrisy.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/PrayforSyria

And that is definitely good to see, but the authorities need to come out and take some form of action or they are basically doing ISIS' bidding for them in that respect. Sadly it's a lot easier from a propagandist viewpoint to ignore thousands and thousands of tweets than it is to ignore a single head of state or any action taken.

Jelle1880 · 21-07-2016 02:46PM

HensVassal wrote: »

This is complete and utter bullshit. The same argument was tabled by the clueless regarding the Viet Cong, the IRA, The Algerian Resistance and was always spectaculary wrong much like you are now.

And the Nazis analogy is absurd as well. The Nazis were the Action not Reaction. ISIS are the Reaction.

You get your house consistently pelted with eggs by neighbourhood kids because, surprise surprise, you are an asshole who slashes their football every time it comes over your wall and you think that maybe continuing this action will coerce them into desisting from egging your house and vandalising your car?

Don't apply for any jobs that involve any kind of diplomacy, compromise or negotiating. You won't last long.

What utter bollocks, you clearly haven't got any idea as to what their aims are. They are not 'defending themselves', they are waging an active jihad with the aim of conquering and/or killing every non-believer.

If you think that leaving IS alone will make them stop then you have no clue.

And my analogy makes perfect sense: Just like the Nazis IS deserve to be fought every step of the way because doing nothing is even worse. They would do everything in their power to exterminate every Kurd, Yazidi, Shia Muslims,... If you are perfectly fine to let them do their thing then I despair.
They are a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East.

Billy86 · 21-07-2016 03:00PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Accident me bollix

85 men, women and children are dead, blown to bits by so called fcuking precision targeting. No one should be allowed to pass this sh/t off as an "accident"

Brown people killed = accident

White people killed = terrorism

To be fair I would put it down to an accident, or rather negligence (though I have not seen any video etc, if there is any available?). There need to be consequences and repercussions for that as standard in my opinion, and failure to do so is going to make this a(nother) winning lottery ticket for ISIS' recruitment guys, but (at least from what I know) listing it as terrorism is OTT.

Musketeer4 · 21-07-2016 03:03PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

The Afghan kid who committed the terror attack in Germany was 17.
Should we adjust the lower limit to 17. I think 16, just to be double sure.
We should also indefinitely detain the hundreds of thousands who will turn 16 every year.
Since these are dangerous terrorists, we should ideally imprison them on some island, preferably in Guantanamo bay like conditions.
Wait.
The yanks did that already but it only created more terrorists and it failed.
Bad idea.
Hitler would be proud of you tho!

Of course there will be outliers, the odd 16 or 17 year old, or the odd woman who engages in terror related activities, but the greatest bulk of this trouble is caused by young men in their 20s. I don't think anyone can credibly argue otherwise.
This segment of society needs to be taken out of the picture in order to reduce terrorism. By taking them out of the picture I mean through employment, pursuing study, then if that isn't possible through recruitment into the armed forces and, only as a last resort, detention.
Its a case of idle hands do the devils work. Anything that distracts or stops young men hanging around corners and getting mixed up with dodgy crowds will work to mitigate terror.

Billy86 · 21-07-2016 03:09PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

This American "policy" of not negotiating with terrorists is untenable and hypocritical options should be on the table.
I recall that ISIS didn't have the West in its sights. Their whole objective was to fight the enemy on their turf. Al Qaida strategy was to attack westerners. It was only when American Alliance entered the war after Mosul that ISIS adopted this terrorism tactic in the West. Obama even acknowledged that ISIS are just regional players. You can check.
I am fearing that when they finally get crushed, that they will morph into a purely terrorist group and focus on terror attack. Attacks here in the West will then escalate dramatically. It doesn't look good at all.

Great post, and excellent point on the 'not negotiating with terrorists' bit - it really is incredibly short sighted and pretty much willfully shooting themselves in the foot over and over. Not to say that they should be openly bartering with the likes of ISIS, but dialogue is typically the best solution - even if that means years, decades even, of dialogue before really breaking through. It always mystifies me when Irish people of all people think a 'be tough and bomb them into submission' approach will work.

Gatling · 21-07-2016 03:19PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Great post, and excellent point on the 'not negotiating with terrorists' bit - it really is incredibly short sighted and pretty much willfully shooting themselves in the foot over and over. Not to say that they should be openly bartering with the likes of ISIS, but dialogue is typically the best solution - even if that means years, decades even, of dialogue before really breaking through.

So while your dialogues for decades and hundreds of thousands are been butchered in the mean time what do you do offer them free hugs in return for not butchering and hundreds of thousands and carrying out hundreds of thousands of rapes ( offer them free sex education)

21-07-2016 03:20PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Anything that distracts or stops young men hanging around corners and getting mixed up with dodgy crowds will work to mitigate terror.

If Arthur Rimbaud, Ezra Pound and James Joyce were young men today, this guy would put them on a Fas course to learn Microsoft Excel.

I'd rather live in a tolerant society where people are entitled to a basic level of dignity and human respect, rather than being profiled as potential miscreants based on their gender & economic status.

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 03:50PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Great post, and excellent point on the 'not negotiating with terrorists' bit - it really is incredibly short sighted and pretty much willfully shooting themselves in the foot over and over. Not to say that they should be openly bartering with the likes of ISIS, but dialogue is typically the best solution - even if that means years, decades even, of dialogue before really breaking through. It always mystifies me when Irish people of all people think a 'be tough and bomb them into submission' approach will work.

Thanks .

Columbia made peace recently with the FARC terrorists, in USA backed negotiations, after decades of conflict.
The Taliban have also been in preliminary talks and have an office in Qatar. The Good Friday Agreement was between, some would argue, two groups of Terrorists. Israel routinely negotiates with Hamas, who is now being courted by them to ward off the ISIS threat. America even has an uneasy alliance with Al-Qaida in Syria (JN.)

Beating ISIS in Iraq and Syria will not let them go away. They'll just pop up elsewhere, like they have in Libya, Nigeria, Egypt, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Yemen et al. They've now mastered the art of inspiring lone wolf attacks through their social media networks, with deadly force that results in the deaths of tens of civilians. Killing villagers, in Syria, who probably hate ISIS, "in retaliation," does not diminish their strength. It makes them stronger and some young man in France has probably started plotting the next attack in revenge.

Unwinnable. It's time to talk.

I just finished watching a documentary called "Unmanned: Americas Drone Wars" about the effects of the drone warfare on Pakistanis population and how innocents get killed. There are parallels between this scenario and what is happening in Syria and Iraq.

Take a look, when you have time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpzk7OdbjBw

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 03:53PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Of course there will be outliers, the odd 16 or 17 year old, or the odd woman who engages in terror related activities, but the greatest bulk of this trouble is caused by young men in their 20s. I don't think anyone can credibly argue otherwise.
This segment of society needs to be taken out of the picture in order to reduce terrorism. By taking them out of the picture I mean through employment, pursuing study, then if that isn't possible through recruitment into the armed forces and, only as a last resort, detention.
Its a case of idle hands do the devils work. Anything that distracts or stops young men hanging around corners and getting mixed up with dodgy crowds will work to mitigate terror.

Okay.

We're making progress. Initially, the illegal detention of these terrorist suspects was as a first resort.

Now it's the last resort but only after the rehab program has failed.

Nevertheless.
Should we not have a similar program for our leaders whose foreign policy is radicalizing these youths in the first place?

Musketeer4 · 21-07-2016 03:57PM

radicalisation is not the policy of any legitimate government.

I don't think ISIS can even be compared to Nazi Germany. The latter was a functioning state but was, by comparison, logical and somewhat limited in their goals - creation of defined lebensraum. ISIS on the other hand have no definite goal other that wholesale murder and world domination.

FishOnABike · 21-07-2016 04:02PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

How do you propose combatting isis?

Avoiding killing innocent civillians would be a good start. These sort of atrocities fuel future recruitment for militants.

Billy86 · 21-07-2016 04:02PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

What utter bollocks, you clearly haven't got any idea as to what their aims are. They are not 'defending themselves', they are waging an active jihad with the aim of conquering and/or killing every non-believer.

If you think that leaving IS alone will make them stop then you have no clue.

And my analogy makes perfect sense: Just like the Nazis IS deserve to be fought every step of the way because doing nothing is even worse. They would do everything in their power to exterminate every Kurd, Yazidi, Shia Muslims,... If you are perfectly fine to let them do their thing then I despair.
They are a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East.

The average 18 year old Iraqi has lived with US soldiers in and among them since they were 4-5 years old, e.g. about as far back as their memories go. These soldiers have been there under false pretenses in an illegal war built on lies about 'weapons of mass destruction'. In that time, they have seen countless numbers of their countrymen wrongly imprisoned, they have seen over 100,000 of their (civilian) countrymen killed a good number of which are family members to many, but just listed as 'collateral damage' (a term with no human element to it). They have seen these people being humiliated and tortured by western authorities in many cases. They have not seen much action taken against the torturers, and they have seen the west basically acknowledge that is was an illegal war built on lies... only to do absolutely nothing about it.

They have seen their country - which while far from good under Saddam - descend into utter chaos as a result of this military intervention. They have seen their country vilified for the position it finds itself in. They have seen their religion be used against them by the west to make them out as 'the bad guys' simply on the basis that they are Muslim, completely regardless of their own personal beliefs, when the vast majority of them ever asked for any of this. Right now, they are looking at the US and seeing that the guy who overwhelmingly won the Republican presidential nomination is in no small part doing so on the back of vilifying them as an entire religion and calling to ban them from entering the country. And he could be their next president.

And this is all they have ever known. The very most they will know outside of this are a small handful of fleeting memories from when they were about four years of age or younger. I don't know about anyone else here, but I have about 2-3 extremely vague, extremely brief memories from when I was that age... essentially none. What I am saying here is this isn't "our current situation" for these young men joining ISIS... this is literally the only existence they have ever known.

And this is why they are such easy pickings for ISIS, as were young Irishmen to the IRA a few decades ago. Whenever the British government decided to 'put the foot down' we saw the IRA and republican movement get a boost - the hunger strike and Thatcher generally, Bloody Sunday, the shooting of the GPO rebels, and so on. Yet whenever they opened dialogue or looked to make concessions, we tended to see actual inroads made that eventually led to peace.

Why some people are so determined to go out of their way to see this is beyond me. Regardless of what ISIS' leadership wants, the 'war on terror' is a war against an idea, and you can not kill an idea with bombs. What you can do is kill an idea with words, by winning over those who follow it, or at the very least letting them know that you are not the 'big, soulless baddie' they have been made out to be. And the harsh truth is that process can taken years, decades even, it is a process of untangling a knot while someone else (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc) continue to attempt to add more twists and tangles to it. The only actual way of winning the people over is showing the west cares and wants to make life better for people in those countries, and mass bombing campaigns combined with no action being taken for the deaths of 85 innocent civilians does nothing for that.

There is no easy answer here as much as some people want there to be, and using guns and bombs as the only or primary means of 'communication' only complicates things further and makes the general populace more open to radicalisation. It's self defeating.

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 04:03PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Saying that all they want is to just fight their local enemies is wrong.

I agree that in other circumstances negotiations and discussions would be the best option, but you simply can not do this with them, they are not open to it.
And after the acts they carried out and still carry out to this day I also don't see why we should negotiate with them. They are pure evil.

Not sure why you quoted Choudary. Those guys talk from their own self. They aren't official ISIS spokesmen. Are they?

My point was that originally they were purely a regional player and had no designs to attack the West on foreign soil.
See for yourself if they launched any attacks on the West before the US coalition intervened in Iraq and then in Syria.

Gatling · 21-07-2016 04:03PM

FishOnABike wrote: »

Avoiding killing innocent civillians.

And how do you do that in Isis stronghold like Mosul university for instance

Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

Comments