Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

Gatling · 21-07-2016 04:06PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

My point was that originally they were purely a regional player and had no designs to attack the West on foreign soil.

Do you honestly think if the west sat back and did nothing while hundreds of thousands were butchered based off your own opinion that they had no desire to attack the west do you think that borders would have stopped them.

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 04:09PM

Gatling wrote: »

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

So we should just willy nilly believe that Mosul University was an ISIS stronghold because uncle sam said so.

I cant fathom why they would choose to operate there when they can choose from thousands of buildings in Mosul.

America probably attacked the university to dismantle the functions of the State. The intent here is to make the lives of the people unbearable in order to provoke them to rebel against ISIS.

Skylinehead · 21-07-2016 04:16PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

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.

I think you forgot to mention the "exterminate the Jews" bit.

Gatling · 21-07-2016 04:16PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

I cant fathom why they would choose to operate there when they can choose from thousands of buildings in Mosul.

Ah because you can't see why they would choose a university as a HQ ,
Ask why they use schools across Syria and parts of Iraq not because America said so but because it's known facts where they occupy,

It's a simple mistake that they believed that nobody would strike them while using a university campus.
They destroyed historical buildings , religious buildings museum's and then decided oh they won't bomb us because we're using a school or university

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 04:17PM

Gatling wrote: »

Do you honestly think if the west sat back and did nothing while hundreds of thousands were butchered based off your own opinion that they had no desire to attack the west do you think that borders would have stopped them.

My own opinion?
Obama himself said that they are regional players.
And for the third time I said that this was the case before western intervention and that they changed strategy once they were attacked.
What part don't you understand.
Are you saying that we has to attack them because they would've eventually attacked us so we made the first move?

Gatling · 21-07-2016 04:20PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

My own opinion?
Obama himself said that they are regional players.
And for the third time I said that this was the case before western intervention and that they changed strategy once they were attacked.

What strategy mass terror and killings while trying to wipe out history ,
What changed so far how many Isis attacks have been carried out specifically by Isis

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 04:22PM

Gatling wrote: »

Ah because you can't see why they would choose a university as a HQ ,
Ask why they use schools across Syria and parts of Iraq not because America said so but because it's known facts where they occupy,

It's a simple mistake that they believed that nobody would strike them while using a university campus.
They destroyed historical buildings , religious buildings museum's and then decided oh they won't bomb us because we're using a school or university

This is the same mentality that the Zionists use when they bomb schools and hospitals in Gaza.
Not buying it sorry.
America destroys the civilian infrastructure to make life unbearable for the people and not because terrorists are occupying it.
Last year they bombed a children's hospital.
Were ISIS terrorists holed up there too?

Gatling · 21-07-2016 04:28PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

This is the same mentality that the Zionists use

Bingo

unseenfootage wrote: »

We're getting nowhere.
So lets just stop here.
Discuss with someone else.

You put it up

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 04:30PM

Gatling wrote: »

Bingo

You put it up

I've politely asked you to stop replying to me.
So for the second time. Please stop.

Gatling · 21-07-2016 04:32PM

Any how .

Does anyone actually having a discussion with Isis ( been they apparently don't answer to anyone)
Would or currently prevent thousands been butchered or raped or in the future

Memnoch · 21-07-2016 04:36PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

You have evidence that the US knew these werent isis fighters? Do share

Surely the burden of proof is on the people dropping the bombs? If you are going to do that you better have indisputable proof that the people you are killing are guilty. If not then it is no different to terrorism.

It is not acceptable to escape any moral responsibility for such acts. The killing was intentional. The people killed were innocent. The intentional killing of innocent civilians should come with grave consequences. Life in prison for all concerned.

Unless there is accountability these kind of 'accidents' will keep happening. Why should people living in Islamic countries condemn terrorism when western states treat their lives as worthless.

21-07-2016 04:39PM

Memnoch wrote: »

Surely the burden of proof is on the people dropping the bombs? If you are going to do that you better have indisputable proof that the people you are killing are guilty. If not then it is no different to terrorism.

Indisputable proof?

That's ridiculous. It's a far more onerous standard than the criminal standard of proof, of beyond reasonable doubt.

If yours were the required standard of proof, no law-abiding government could ever practicably launch an airstrike against a terrorist. How can anyone possibly hold any military to such an exacting standard? Terrorists would have a carte blanche without risk of retaliation from the air. You might as well abolish the airforce.

There's no need to invent such OTT nonsense.

Decent Skin · 21-07-2016 04:41PM

RobertKK wrote: »

[/url]

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.

Someone's revised the link text down to 60; I wonder if that's because of the numeric correlation between this mass murder and that in Nice ?

Gatling · 21-07-2016 04:43PM

Memnoch wrote: »

It is not acceptable to escape any moral responsibility for such acts. The killing was intentional. The people killed were innocent. The intentional killing of innocent civilians should come with grave consequences. Life in prison for all concerned.

Were they innocent people through,
Obviously take away the kids that may have been killed ,
An Isis stronghold where they apparently have had large support in the local community and the fact there was 'prisoners " also killed would suggest something isn't entirely right with the various unverified reports from people ,

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-07-2016 04:44PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Indisputable proof?

That's ridiculous. It's a far more onerous standard than the criminal standard of proof, of beyond reasonable doubt.

If yours were the required standard of proof, no law-abiding government could ever practicably launch an airstrike against a terrorist. How can anyone possibly hold any military to such an exacting standard? Terrorists would have a carte blanche without risk of retaliation from the air. You might as well abolish the airforce.

There's no need to invent such OTT nonsense.

Yeah instead let's just state that any male over military age is a combatant that way they can always claim (through un-named sources) that "militants" were killed in these strikes.

unseenfootage · 21-07-2016 04:50PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Indisputable proof?

That's ridiculous. It's a far more onerous standard than the criminal standard of proof, of beyond reasonable doubt.

If yours were the required standard of proof, no law-abiding government could ever practicably launch an airstrike against a terrorist. How can anyone possibly hold any military to such an exacting standard? Terrorists would have a carte blanche without risk of retaliation from the air. You might as well abolish the airforce.

There's no need to invent such OTT nonsense.

Well, our air forces have killed them in the thousands on actual battle fields. It's mostly when our armies lose patience (Manbij front started two months ago and has dragged on,) that we start bombing civilian areas where 'mistakes' are prone to happen.

Jelle1880 · 21-07-2016 04:51PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

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.

They are probably a lot more educated about what IS want or don't want than people give them credit for. They are indeed not official spokesmen, but if the UK allowed it they'd be in Syria or Iraq right now.

As for that they never launched any attacks prior to Western involvement in the region, I disagree but maybe that's semantics.

IS is a spawn from other organisations like al-Qaeda, who absolutely carried out attacks on Western targets prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

21-07-2016 05:05PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah instead let's just state that any male over military age is a combatant that way they can always claim (through un-named sources) that "militants" were killed in these strikes.

Where are you going with that tangent, and is that a straw man under your arm?

Nobody implied any such thing, so I don't know what you're on about. Nor have I an interest in pursuing whatever that is.

unseenfootage wrote: »

Well, our air forces have killed them in the thousands on actual battle fields. It's mostly when our armies lose patience (Manbij front started two months ago and has dragged on,) that we start bombing civilian areas where 'mistakes' are prone to happen.

Mistakes happen all the time. More British soldiers were killed in the Persian Gulf War by friendly fire than by the Iraqi army. Mistakes (inadvertence) is fundamentally different in character to terrorism.

Anyway, I responded to a different point, which was to say that your expectation of "indisputable" evidence is an unrealistically high burden, which does not have any practical utility. In fact, it would render any military utterly useless, or certainly, its airforce.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a sufficiently stringent standard, indisputable is totally unreasonable & unworkable.

BalcombeSt4 · 21-07-2016 05:09PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

How do you propose combatting isis?

The British didn't combat the IRA by dropping bombs on say the Creaggan, the Falls or Crossmaglen and they were Republican stongholds, the British couldn't even send in regular patrols to Crossmaglen for fear of landmines and snipers. And the IRA was a much bigger threat to Britain than ISIS are to the US.

But the IRA were white English speaking people so it was Okay.

Memnoch · 21-07-2016 05:09PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Indisputable proof?

That's ridiculous. It's a far more onerous standard than the criminal standard of proof, of beyond reasonable doubt.

If yours were the required standard of proof, no law-abiding government could ever practicably launch an airstrike against a terrorist. How can anyone possibly hold any military to such an exacting standard? Terrorists would have a carte blanche without risk of retaliation from the air. You might as well abolish the airforce.

There's no need to invent such OTT nonsense.

The burden of proof for killing innocent civilians and the consequences of this should be the same. Regardless if they are Muslim, Christian, Brown, Black or white.

Otherwise western moral authority is hollow and bankrupt.

How many innocent civilians have been killed vs terrorists beyond reasonable doubt? All brown looking males aged 16+ are legitimate targets?

Billy86 · 21-07-2016 05:13PM

Gatling wrote: »

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)

You do what you can to mitigate it as much as possible, without being too heavy handed and losing public support (or any chance thereof), and yes that does include force where needed and tactical attacks. You do not bomb and kill for the sake of 'sending a message' because all that message will be for the locals is an affirmation that the west side evil and doesn't care about them whatsoever.

What do you think multiple series of heavy bombings from the British and refusal to open/continue dialogue in the North would have done for the peace process?

Memnoch · 21-07-2016 05:16PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Where are you going with that tangent, and is that a straw man under your arm?

Nobody implied any such thing, so I don't know what you're on about. Nor have I an interest in pursuing whatever that is.

Mistakes happen all the time. More British soldiers were killed in the Persian Gulf War by friendly fire than by the Iraqi army. Mistakes (inadvertence) is fundamentally different in character to terrorism.

Anyway, I responded to a different point, which was to say that your expectation of "indisputable" evidence is an unrealistically high burden, which does not have any practical utility. In fact, it would render any military utterly useless, or certainly, its airforce.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a sufficiently stringent standard, indisputable is totally unreasonable & unworkable.

The rate at which they are killing innocent people would suggest to me that they are already pretty ****ing useless. The current standard is neither sufficient nor just and if these level of casualties were being inflicted on white people there is no way that it would be allowed to stand. There would be severe consequences for those concerned.

When you treat the lives of a population as expendable, which is how the US military has behaved, regardless of the rhetoric of collateral damage and accidentally killing, this is fundamentally no different to terrorism. Except that those conducting these atrocities do so at very little risk to themselves and with no accountability.

21-07-2016 05:28PM

Memnoch wrote: »

The burden of proof for killing innocent civilians and the consequences of this should be the same. Regardless if they are Muslim, Christian, Brown, Black or white.

Nobody said anything different.

What's with all the straw men in this thread?

How many innocent civilians have been killed vs terrorists beyond reasonable doubt? All brown looking males aged 16+ are legitimate targets?

Seriously, where are you getting this shit? You seem obsessed with colour. The Americans aren't bombing indiscriminately at Arabs and black people FFS. In Cameroon, for example, the US military is supporting the domestic government against Islamist insurgency. In Syria and ISIS controlled territory, they're again specifically targeting ISIS. They're not going around bombing anyone brown. Yours is an incredibly simplistic analysis. It is depressingly misinformed, which is the kindest way of putting it.

Memnoch wrote: »

The current standard is neither sufficient nor just

There is no current standard in customary international law, and although I think there ought to be a minimum standard, yours is not a practical suggestion.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-07-2016 05:36PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Where are you going with that tangent, and is that a straw man under your arm?

Nobody implied any such thing, so I don't know what you're on about. Nor have I an interest in pursuing whatever that is.

Mistakes happen all the time. More British soldiers were killed in the Persian Gulf War by friendly fire than by the Iraqi army. Mistakes (inadvertence) is fundamentally different in character to terrorism.

Anyway, I responded to a different point, which was to say that your expectation of "indisputable" evidence is an unrealistically high burden, which does not have any practical utility. In fact, it would render any military utterly useless, or certainly, its airforce.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a sufficiently stringent standard, indisputable is totally unreasonable & unworkable.

No tangent, it's common knowledge that innocent people get killed all of the time in these strikes but because most of them are males of military age the US just calls them "militants" so the us public think that their government isn't killing innoceny people.

BalcombeSt4 · 21-07-2016 07:41PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No tangent, it's common knowledge that innocent people get killed all of the time in these strikes but because most of them are males of military age the US just calls them "militants" so the us public think that their government isn't killing innoceny people.

Half of them probably wouldn't care either way atleast not the republicans.

Fleawuss · 21-07-2016 07:46PM

HensVassal wrote: »

What one needs to understand is that the US routinely targets civilians for killing as part of a wider campaign. In Korea the US bombed every single urban area in the North so that no building higher than one storey remained. After Nixon spoke of "Peace with Honour" in Vietnam he then proceeded to drop more bombs on that tiny country than the combined bomb load dropped in WW2. It was basically saying "We've lost this war on the ground and have to leave but we're gonna destroy everything and kill as many as we can before we go, so fuck you".

Targetting and killing civilians is used to completely terrorise and traumatise a population thus removing any abilty they might have of fighting back. It's a ruthless form of collective punishment. It was standard practice in Iraq to target civilian centres killing thousands of men, women and children.

Anyone who has read Power and Terror by Noam Chomsky would know this. It's a worthwhile read for some of the rose-tinted fantasists on here.

People need to grow a pair and face up to this very unsavoury fact. Their Hollywood version of war where civilians deaths are always a tragic accident and are always attempted to be avoided, where the Geneva Conventions are strictly adhered to and violators are harshly punished is a fantasy

You too need to produce evidence of the targeting of this group of innocent people as innocent people in order to kill innocents.

rjpf1980 · 21-07-2016 08:07PM

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

So ISIS should not be destroyed?

There is no way to accurately tell civilian from terrorist on the battlefield.

ISIS territory should be taken back.

That means dropping bombs on presumed ISIS targets - high ranking commanders, headquarters, communications centers, arms dumps, vehicles, groups of fighters etc etc

As the ground forces fighting against ISIS take back villages towns and cities in their hands there is heavy fighting with artillery, mortars, tanks and infantry battling it out street by street house by house and room by room.

Civilians who get caught up in the fighting will get killed.

This is war.

When France was liberated in World War 2 the Nazis resisted the Allied advanced and whole swathes of the country were devastated.

When a French railyard was crammed with trains full of panzers and infantry on their way to the frontline it was bombed by Allied planes. Civilians living nearby were also killed. Should the trains not have been bombed? Should the Nazis have been allowed win?

You have a completely unrealistic view of what is possible in war.

Is no war just? Should no war be fought? Nonsense.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-07-2016 08:26PM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

So ISIS should not be destroyed?

There is no way to accurately tell civilian from terrorist on the battlefield.

ISIS territory should be taken back.

That means dropping bombs on presumed ISIS targets - high ranking commanders, headquarters, communications centers, arms dumps, vehicles, groups of fighters etc etc

As the ground forces fighting against ISIS take back villages towns and cities in their hands there is heavy fighting with artillery, mortars, tanks and infantry battling it out street by street house by house and room by room.

Civilians who get caught up in the fighting will get killed.

This is war.

When France was liberated in World War 2 the Nazis resisted the Allied advanced and whole swathes of the country were devastated.

When a French railyard was crammed with trains full of panzers and infantry on their way to the frontline it was bombed by Allied planes. Civilians living nearby were also killed. Should the trains not have been bombed? Should the Nazis have been allowed win?

You have a completely unrealistic view of what is possible in war.

Is no war just? Should no war be fought? Nonsense.

Speaking as someone who has actually fought in one I find your keyboard warrior mentality at best laughable and at worse naive and as for godwinning the thread? :rolleyes:

Nowhere have I said ISIS shouldn't be taken out, I said those responsible for this massacre of innocent civilians (no matter who they are or whom they fight for) should be bought to justice.

But you keep drinking the old star spangled koolaid there kiddo.

rjpf1980 · 21-07-2016 08:53PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Speaking as someone who has actually fought in one I find your keyboard warrior mentality at best laughable and at worse naive and as for godwinning the thread? :rolleyes:

I've read every book I could get my hands on about modern war. I have met war veterans and I know exactly what war is. It is utter horror. If as you say you fought in a war then you have my sympathy.

If you did fight what unit did you serve in? What rank did you hold?

Nowhere have I said ISIS shouldn't be taken out, I said those responsible for this massacre of innocent civilians (no matter who they are or whom they fight for) should be bought to justice.

There is no moral equivalence between ISIS, a brutal terrorist organisation who have killed thousands in the most hideous way imaginable and who have designs on creating a global Caliphate, and the free democratic civilized West which is fighting a military campaign to erradicate them.

None whatsoever.

But you keep drinking the old star spangled koolaid there kiddo.

I am under no illusions about the ghastly war that lies ahead in which thousands if not millions more will die before ISIS and Islamic movements like it which will crop up in the decades are wiped out.

We cannot co-exist with Islamic extremist fundamentalists. They all have to go.

Gatling · 21-07-2016 08:53PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Speaking as someone who has actually fought in one

On a serious note what war did you fight in

Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

Comments