Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

BalcombeSt4 · 26-07-2016 12:57AM

Andrewf20 wrote: »

For every civilian casualty killed by the USA, they are probably created 10 more people radicalized and hell bent on seeking revenge.

This is the kind of behavior that will continue to prolong the hatred of the USA and the "west" who support them.

This is why our policy of neutrality is a good idea.

I'm not saying we arent prone attack but it makes the odds a lot less likely. We haven't suffered a major terror attack since 1974.

BalcombeSt4 · 26-07-2016 01:04AM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The West have been slaughtering innocents for decades with barely a peep from the very vocal 'opponents' of violence

Yes, in Central America, South East Asia, Africa & the Middle East, millions have been killed by them.

ebbsy · 26-07-2016 01:08AM

Half of them probably would have grown up to be machete wielding gun toting bomb carrying extremists anyway.

Manic Moran · 26-07-2016 03:39AM

Gatling wrote: »

nacho libre wrote: »

The Russians agree with you Gatling . Its good to know you look at these cases objectively whether it be Russia or America killing civilians in Syria.

How many civilians have been killed in Syria in russian strike's since September 8000 don't see any outrage why is that exactly.
Or can that not be explained

The Russians have a philosophy, which makes a certain amount of sense, that killing a larger number in the short term will reduce the overall casualties in the long term. Go in hard, go in fast, and get it over with. They are a very pragmatic lot, they don't care about international opinion as much as the final result that they want.

BalcombeSt4 · 26-07-2016 08:54AM

ebbsy wrote: »

Half of them probably would have grown up to be machete wielding gun toting bomb carrying extremists anyway.

Who would have? Africans?

rjpf1980 · 28-07-2016 08:25AM

How exactly would the bleeding hearts on this thread defeat Islamic State without bombs, shells and bullets that will often kill civilians as well as the intended terrorist targets?

If you are fighting a war you are using violence and violence means killing. In Westerns when civilians see two gunslingers about to shoot it out they disappear from the streets or in barfight scenes when the tough detective takes on the Mafia goons the regulars clear out. In reality civilian life continues in a war zone while the various sides fight it out. Those who can leave just like the civilians in the movies get out. Those who can't are stuck and they will be casualties.

War is intelligence led in that the attack or defender must find out the enemy's intentions while keeping his own secret. So when the US has intelligence that IS targets are gathering in one place and they can hit them they aren't going to tell the public in advance and risk warning terrorists. Taking out the terrorists is the priority and civilian deaths are an acceptable loss if the terrorist target is valuable.

If you can't understand that logic there is no talking to you. Plus nobody with a bleeding heart mindset is going to ever be allowed to be a decision maker in the corridors of power or military commander. The decisions and actions necessary for defence will be made by rough men and women so that naive innocent little children who bleat about rights and wrongs of a world they thankfully will never have to encounter will sleep soundly in their beds.

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-07-2016 08:43AM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

How exactly would the bleeding hearts on this thread defeat Islamic State without bombs, shells and bullets that will often kill civilians as well as the intended terrorist targets?

What terrorists were targeted in the incident that this thread is about?

If you are fighting a war you are using violence and violence means killing. In Westerns when civilians see two gunslingers about to shoot it out they disappear from the streets or in barfight scenes when the tough detective takes on the Mafia goons the regulars clear out. In reality civilian life continues in a war zone while the various sides fight it out. Those who can leave just like the civilians in the movies get out. Those who can't are stuck and they will be casualties.

Stop watching movies :rolleyes:

You say civilians can leave to get away from the fightIng? What do you think the people in the cars were trying to do when they were blown to bits? Do you think they were heading to the desert for a picnic?

War is intelligence led in that the attack or defender must find out the enemy's intentions while keeping his own secret. So when the US has intelligence that IS targets are gathering in one place and they can hit them they aren't going to tell the public in advance and risk warning terrorists. Taking out the terrorists is the priority and civilian deaths are an acceptable loss if the terrorist target is valuable.

You sure do talk a good war from the comfort of your home, if your mother, sister, father, child was killed tomorrow would you seek revenge on the people who did it?

If you can't understand that logic there is no talking to you. Plus nobody with a bleeding heart mindset is going to ever be allowed to be a decision maker in the corridors of power or military commander. The decisions and actions necessary for defence will be made by rough men and women so that naive innocent little children who bleat about rights and wrongs of a world they thankfully will never have to encounter will sleep soundly in their beds.

You could honestly be describing yourself there, go back to playing call of duty and living your fantasy life.

A Dub in Glasgo · 28-07-2016 01:03PM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

How exactly would the bleeding hearts on this thread defeat Islamic State without bombs, shells and bullets that will often kill civilians as well as the intended terrorist targets?

If you are fighting a war you are using violence and violence means killing. In Westerns when civilians see two gunslingers about to shoot it out they disappear from the streets or in barfight scenes when the tough detective takes on the Mafia goons the regulars clear out. In reality civilian life continues in a war zone while the various sides fight it out. Those who can leave just like the civilians in the movies get out. Those who can't are stuck and they will be casualties.

War is intelligence led in that the attack or defender must find out the enemy's intentions while keeping his own secret. So when the US has intelligence that IS targets are gathering in one place and they can hit them they aren't going to tell the public in advance and risk warning terrorists. Taking out the terrorists is the priority and civilian deaths are an acceptable loss if the terrorist target is valuable.

If you can't understand that logic there is no talking to you. Plus nobody with a bleeding heart mindset is going to ever be allowed to be a decision maker in the corridors of power or military commander. The decisions and actions necessary for defence will be made by rough men and women so that naive innocent little children who bleat about rights and wrongs of a world they thankfully will never have to encounter will sleep soundly in their beds.

You must have just finished a marathon session watching films starting with John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris and finished off with Jack Nicolson

unseenfootage · 28-07-2016 01:50PM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

How exactly would the bleeding hearts on this thread defeat Islamic State without bombs, shells and bullets that will often kill civilians as well as the intended terrorist targets?

If you are fighting a war you are using violence and violence means killing. In Westerns when civilians see two gunslingers about to shoot it out they disappear from the streets or in barfight scenes when the tough detective takes on the Mafia goons the regulars clear out. In reality civilian life continues in a war zone while the various sides fight it out. Those who can leave just like the civilians in the movies get out. Those who can't are stuck and they will be casualties.

War is intelligence led in that the attack or defender must find out the enemy's intentions while keeping his own secret. So when the US has intelligence that IS targets are gathering in one place and they can hit them they aren't going to tell the public in advance and risk warning terrorists. Taking out the terrorists is the priority and civilian deaths are an acceptable loss if the terrorist target is valuable.

If you can't understand that logic there is no talking to you. Plus nobody with a bleeding heart mindset is going to ever be allowed to be a decision maker in the corridors of power or military commander. The decisions and actions necessary for defence will be made by rough men and women so that naive innocent little children who bleat about rights and wrongs of a world they thankfully will never have to encounter will sleep soundly in their beds.

Righteo, Mr. heart of Stone.

Killing their innocents is an acceptable loss to you personally, but not to them.

In your worldview, are our civilians deaths an acceptable loss, to you, if the terrorists strike back in retaliation?

RustyNut · 28-07-2016 06:14PM

And meanwhile somewhere in Brussels, Berlin or Barcelona an is extremist keyboard warrior posts the following. ..........

rjpf1980 wrote: »

How exactly would the bleeding hearts on this thread defeat infidels without bombs, knives and trucks that will often kill civilians as well as the intended infidel targets?

If you are fighting a war you are using violence and violence means killing. In Westerns when civilians see two gunslingers about to shoot it out they disappear from the streets or in barfight scenes when the tough detective takes on the Mafia goons the regulars clear out. In reality civilian life continues in a war zone while the various sides fight it out. Those who can leave just like the civilians in the movies get out. Those who can't are stuck and they will be casualties.

War is intelligence led in that the attack or defender must find out the enemy's intentions while keeping his own secret. So when the IS has intelligence that infidel targets are gathering in one place and they can hit them they aren't going to tell the public in advance and risk warning infidels. Taking out the infidels is the priority and civilian deaths are an acceptable loss if the infidel target is valuable.

If you can't understand that logic there is no talking to you. Plus nobody with a bleeding heart mindset is going to ever be allowed to be a decision maker in the corridors of power or military commander. The decisions and actions necessary for defence will be made by rough men and women so that naive innocent little children who bleat about rights and wrongs of a world they thankfully will never have to encounter will sleep soundly in their beds.

Manic Moran · 28-07-2016 10:34PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Righteo, Mr. heart of Stone.

Killing their innocents is an acceptable loss to you personally, but not to them.

In your worldview, are our civilians deaths an acceptable loss, to you, if the terrorists strike back in retaliation?

Is this not, fundamentally, the nature of warfare?

Decent Skin · 29-07-2016 12:28AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is this not, fundamentally, the nature of warfare?

To those of that mindset, yes.

The rest of us would like to see those who signed up for same battle it out amongst themselves and leave civilians out of it.

Gatling · 29-07-2016 12:47AM

Decent Skin wrote: »

To those of that mindset, yes.

The rest of us would like to see those who signed up for same battle it out amongst themselves and leave civilians out of it.

But unfortunately when one side doesn't wear a uniform and is happily mingling and killing civilians ,

How many people have been outraged at the 4/5 hospitals deliberately bombarded in Aleppo this week by Russian aircraft .

Decent Skin · 29-07-2016 12:54AM

Gatling wrote: »

But unfortunately when one side doesn't wear a uniform and is happily mingling and killing civilians ,

How many people have been outraged at the 4/5 hospitals deliberately bombarded in Aleppo this week by Russian aircraft .

Why single out one side ?

Did the night-time "shock and awe" bombs in Baghad magically target an "enemy" ?

Did the bomb in Omagh magically only target Protestants ?

Those who condone such acts and use the phrase "collateral damage" when innocents are murdered cannot then object when another group with similar mindset does likewise.

Either way, both are responsible for murdering innocents while those ordering such murders sit safely in their distant HQ.

Pushing a button isn't clever or brave; let them go out and murder their enemy hand-to-hand if they're that determined. Leave innocents out of it.

BalcombeSt4 · 29-07-2016 03:15AM

Gatling wrote: »

But unfortunately when one side doesn't wear a uniform and is happily mingling and killing civilians ,

How many people have been outraged at the 4/5 hospitals deliberately bombarded in Aleppo this week by Russian aircraft .

How many people were outraged when American soldiers gathered up the people in the village of Mi Lai, lined up 600+ old men, women, children & babies who could barely move & started pumping American led into their fragile bodies & heads? the locals refer to it as the day "the soldiers came" like a name given to a village in France were Nazi's carried out a similar massacre. It was a blood orgy, children were being held down & kicked to death, old men & women were being held down as soldiers emptied their magazines into their heads, the blood of the victims was being smeared over the faces of the US soldiers as they carried out their orgy of mass murder, the hair of the Vietnamese girls was being cut off, scalped, the hair of the Vietanmese girls was being stuck in the head bands of the US soldiers ast hey made their way from burning little grass house to house, every thing in the village was killed every cow, every dog, every pig & human. And when the man responsible for it was given a slap on the rist? And when other anti-war vets came out & said after the war nearly every company had their own Mi Lai. And this was not something unique to the USA, its the inevitability of atrocities & massacre in wars and occupations.

"there's a man with a gun over there telling me i got to beware"

BalcombeSt4 · 29-07-2016 03:17AM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

How exactly would the bleeding hearts on this thread defeat Islamic State without bombs, shells and bullets that will often kill civilians as well as the intended terrorist targets?

If you are fighting a war you are using violence and violence means killing. In Westerns when civilians see two gunslingers about to shoot it out they disappear from the streets or in barfight scenes when the tough detective takes on the Mafia goons the regulars clear out. In reality civilian life continues in a war zone while the various sides fight it out. Those who can leave just like the civilians in the movies get out. Those who can't are stuck and they will be casualties.

War is intelligence led in that the attack or defender must find out the enemy's intentions while keeping his own secret. So when the US has intelligence that IS targets are gathering in one place and they can hit them they aren't going to tell the public in advance and risk warning terrorists. Taking out the terrorists is the priority and civilian deaths are an acceptable loss if the terrorist target is valuable.

If you can't understand that logic there is no talking to you. Plus nobody with a bleeding heart mindset is going to ever be allowed to be a decision maker in the corridors of power or military commander. The decisions and actions necessary for defence will be made by rough men and women so that naive innocent little children who bleat about rights and wrongs of a world they thankfully will never have to encounter will sleep soundly in their beds.

Jesus Christ, other people have pointed out your warped logic, but the whole point is if we don't hold the people accountable for war crimes done in our names & speak out against it who will?

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 11:21AM

Civilian death toll from US strikes in Iraq and Syria on the rise.

Civilian casualties from airstrikes by the US-led coalition fighting Isis have spiked in the past two months, activists and rights groups have warned, after the US said it was investigating a village bombing that appears to be one of the deadliest single air attacks on civilians of the entire war.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/29/us-airstrikes-isis-death-toll

29-07-2016 12:11PM

The use of 'human shields' by IS, both in Manbij and across the region, is an important feature of this campaign, which deserves acknowledgement when discussing civilian casualties. From the above article:

Western jets are just one of many threats for civilians living under Isis, who have reported snipers picking off those trying to flee, and the use of locals as human shields, tactics that make them more vulnerable to coalition bombs.

This is admitted by the Syrian Network of Human Rights, whose spokesman said the US should be implementing measures to alleviate this.

Interestingly, he didn't specify what precise measures he'd like them to take in order to identify and exclude the use of civilians in this way?? If you're working on the assumption that I.S. are using civilian shields, and therefore are untouchable, you might as well hand I.S. the keys to the territory right now and be done with it.

If I.S. are using human shields, civilian blood is on their hands, and blame rests with them.

Skylinehead · 29-07-2016 12:15PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The use of 'human shields' by IS, both in Manbij and across the region, is an important feature of this campaign, which deserves acknowledgement when discussing civilian casualties. From the above article:

This is admitted by the Syrian Network of Human Rights, whose spokesman said the US should be implementing measures to alleviate this.

Interestingly, he didn't specify what precise measures he'd like them to take in order to identify and exclude the use of civilians in this way?? If you're working on the assumption that I.S. are using civilian shields, and therefore are untouchable, you might as well hand I.S. the keys to the territory right now and be done with it.

If I.S. are using human shields, civilian blood is on their hands, and blame rests with them.

Of course blood is on ISs hands, that's obvious. Doesn't absolve the US of recklessness though. If someone takes hostages, you don't shoot through the hostages to kill them.

29-07-2016 12:18PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

If someone takes hostages, you don't shoot through the hostages to kill them.

You should write to the U.S. Military and tell them how easy it is.

What do you do if someone takes hostages as a means of advancing their position? Negotiate?

Skylinehead · 29-07-2016 12:20PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You should write to the U.S. Military and tell them how easy it is.

What do you do if someone takes hostages as a means of advancing their position? Negotiate?

If you're going to bomb them knowing that you're killing hundreds of civilians, you might as well go with the lunatic (but oft-mentioned here) idea of nuking Raqqa. Same thing isn't it?

29-07-2016 12:26PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

If you're going to bomb them knowing that you're killing hundreds of civilians, you might as well go with the lunatic (but oft-mentioned here) idea of nuking Raqqa. Same thing isn't it?

The whole point of using civilian shields is that they are indistinguishable from I.S; at a distance, one cannot differentiate between them.

Perhaps the U.S. Military might suspect, because I.S. rely on civilian shields so heavily, that they are about to kill civilians incidentally. But I.S. don't walk around with arrows floating over their heads.

Sometimes it is justifiable to attack a legitimate target where it is suspected that civilians who are being used as hostages, may also suffer.

Otherwise, you would be rewarding I.S. by allowing them free rein to go anywhere as long as they shield themselves with civilians.

Skylinehead · 29-07-2016 12:29PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The whole point of using civilian shields is that they are indistinguishable from I.S; at a distance, one cannot differentiate between them.

Perhaps the U.S. Military might suspect, because I.S. rely on civilian shields so heavily, that they are about to kill civilians incidentally. But I.S. don't walk around with arrows floating over their heads.

Sometimes it is justifiable to attack a legitimate target where it is suspected that civilians who are being used as hostages, may also suffer.

Otherwise, you would be rewarding I.S. by allowing them free rein to go anywhere as long as they shield themselves with civilians.

But this is totally counterproductive. Indiscriminately killing civilians doesn't help defeat ISIS, it just radicalises more and more people to join them.

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 12:31PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The use of 'human shields' by IS, both in Manbij and across the region, is an important feature of this campaign, which deserves acknowledgement when discussing civilian casualties. From the above article:

This is admitted by the Syrian Network of Human Rights, whose spokesman said the US should be implementing measures to alleviate this.

Interestingly, he didn't specify what precise measures he'd like them to take in order to identify and exclude the use of civilians in this way?? If you're working on the assumption that I.S. are using civilian shields, and therefore are untouchable, you might as well hand I.S. the keys to the territory right now and be done with it.

If I.S. are using human shields, civilian blood is on their hands, and blame rests with them.

Previous reports stated that US bombed 10s of villagers whom it mistook for ISIS. Even if the human shield allegation is true, (I doubt this, since these are Sunnis and they won't risk alienating those who live in their territory,) then how do you explain these bombings?

There are also incidents where the US trained operatives who call in air strikes act negligently and call in strikes even when civilian lives are at risk.

29-07-2016 12:45PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

But this is totally counterproductive. Indiscriminately killing civilians doesn't help defeat ISIS, it just radicalises more and more people to join them.

I'm not talking about indiscriminate killing. I'm talking about targeting known I.S. locations, even though I.S. may be holding civilians as shields in those specific locations.

In these circumstances, the Coalition forces cannot even say for sure whether civilians are being held captive in I.S. quarters. But what can they do? Do nothing and let I.S. destroy the region and massacre thousands of innocents?

It's not feasible to argue that everybody steps back for fear of harming a limited number of civilians, when the cost of doing nothing will put a far greater numbers of civilians in danger.

unseenfootage wrote: »

Even if the human shields allegation is true, (I doubt this, since these are Sunnis and they won't risk alienating those who live in their territory,)

It's pretty widely accepted. The Syrian Network of Human Rights, whom earlier in this thread was being referenced as a reliable source on civilian deaths, accepts that I.S. are using civilian shields.

Previous reports stated that US bombed 10s of villagers whom it mistook for ISIS... then how do you explain these bombings?

Show me a reliable source confirming that and I'll see. I have no idea which instance you're referring to.

I think errors have probably arisen, and should be punished where they have arisen, but I think it's foolish to deny that the known use of human shields is contributing to civilian deaths.

whisky_galore · 29-07-2016 12:54PM

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

This is why our policy of neutrality is a good idea.

I'm not saying we arent prone attack but it makes the odds a lot less likely. We haven't suffered a major terror attack since 1974.

'Neutrality' is a fig leaf and a nonsense that has been trotted out for years.
We don't participate overtly but no way are we truly neutral.

In the eyes of IS and fellow travellers, we are a 'Crusader' (sic) country.

Our saving grace is that we're on the fringes of Europe and we don't have ghettos of disenfranchised people like the uk, France and elsewhere.

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 01:02PM

Who is reporting this quote? It is not very clear. It reads as if ISIS is reporting?

Western jets are just one of many threats for civilians living under Isis, who have reported snipers picking off those trying to flee, and the use of locals as human shields, tactics that make them more vulnerable to coalition bombs.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Show me a reliable source confirming that and I'll see. I have no idea which instance you're referring to.

SNHR are reporting that 10s of civilians having been killed by US, up to above the 200 mark. Check the airwars links as well.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think errors have probably arisen, and should be punished where they have arisen, but I think it's foolish to deny that the known use of human shields is contributing to civilian deaths.

The US bombardment in populated centers is contributing to civilian deaths.
Even if ISIS terrorists are using human shields, are you suggesting that it is acceptable to kill them.

29-07-2016 01:13PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Who is reporting this quote? It is not very clear. It reads as if ISIS is reporting?

It's a quote from your own Guardian link earlier, did you read it? "Reported" in this context is an adjective, not a verb.

"Reported snipers" are 'alleged' snipers.

SNHR are reporting that 10s of civilians having been killed by US, up to above the 200 mark.

No, but where's the link to the detail? You said they mistook these individuals for I.S., i.e. they weren't civilian shields. Do you have a link substantiating that?

Even if ISIS terrorists are using human shields, are you suggesting that it is acceptable to kill them.

Like I said, the Coalition Forces cannot see inside buildings to see which I.S. buildings are holding civilian prisoners, or which convoys contain human shields.

It is never acceptable to deliberately kill civilians, but where the primary intention is to target I.S., and their use of human shields means that civilians die, I think that's simply unavoidable, and I don't think it amounts to criminality on behalf of the Coalition forces per se. It's completely the fault of I.S.

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 01:33PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's a quote from your own Guardian link earlier, did you read it? "Reported" in this context is an adjective, not a verb.

"Reported snipers" are 'alleged' snipers.

Doesn't make any sense to used reported as an adjective in that sense. Nevertheless, the only source that I can find for that allegation are from the YPG and the SDF who are on the ground fighting ISIS terrorists. The sources for the civilian death tolls are from independent local activists who have compiled a list of all the names of the civilian killed in US coalition airstrikes.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Like I said, the Coalition Forces cannot see inside buildings to see which I.S. buildings are holding civilian prisoners, or which convoys contain human shields.

It is never acceptable to deliberately kill civilians, but where the primary intention is to target I.S., and their use of human shields means that civilians die, I think that's simply unavoidable, and I don't think it amounts to criminality on behalf of the Coalition forces per se. It's completely the fault of I.S.

It is quite convenient to accuse the enemy of using human shields in order to justify airstrikes against them using loosened rules of engagement and then after the civilians have been killed by our bombs we blame the enemy. How the f*ck can we claim to be liberating them from ISIS when we're killing them in the hundreds.

29-07-2016 01:48PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Doesn't make any sense to used reported as an adjective in that sense.

If it's not being used as an adjective, then it's clear that it's civilians or the western jets themselves reporting these I.S. snipers targeting fleeing civilians.

Are you seriously interpreting the article as saying that I.S. are reporting this to the Guardian? You cannot be suggesting that as a sensible interpretation?

It is quite convenient to accuse the enemy of using human shields in order to justify airstrikes...

Let me stop you there. It's not convenient, it's something that's been observed or accepted by human rights groups like the Syrian Network for Human Rights whom you have yourself quoted, so they must be considered reliable by you.

...against them using loosened rules of engagement

What loosened rules of engagement, specifically?

Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

Comments