Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 02:10PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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?

I'm not suggesting that.
My contention is that this quote is unreliable.
I would like to see the source of that allegation.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

What loosened rules of engagement, specifically?

SNHR did not make that observation. I quoted them earlier regarding the casualty figures which are corroborated by multiple activist sources on the ground. SNHR are based in London and rely on reports from activists in Syria. I cannot find a source for that allegation in the article but will search later.

US Military revises their rules of engagement depending on time, place and operating conditions. If you do research you will find that they loosened these in Afghanistan and in Iraq and Syria. They're not static as some people claim. The airstrikes targeting are also subject to intelligence from their allies on the ground who call them in. There are many cases where the operatives have been negligent or even malevolent in calling strikes. Check all the cases of wedding parties being wiped out, due to these "mistakes."

Gatling · 29-07-2016 02:14PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

There are many cases where the operatives have been negligent or even malevolent in calling strikes. Check all the cases of wedding parties being wiped out, due to these "mistakes."

How many cases ,

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 02:17PM

Gatling wrote: »

How many cases ,

That is something you can easily search research yourself with your favorite search engine.
I'm not going to substantiate every little point I make.

29-07-2016 02:20PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

SNHR did not make that [civilian shields] observation.

I said 'observed or accepted'. They certainly accept it, as is clear from the Guardian article.

You cannot on the one hand rely on the Syrian Network for Human Rights in respect of civilian mortalities, and on the other hand imply that they are wrong or misinformed about civilians used as human shields.

US Military revises their rules of engagement depending on time, place and operating conditions. If you do research you will find that they loosened these in Afghanistan and in Iraq and Syria.

I'm not going to waste time trawling over documents to substantiate your claim.

Be specific, what 'rules of engagement' have been loosened?

Gatling · 29-07-2016 02:23PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

That is something you can easily search research yourself with your favorite search engine.
I'm not going to substantiate every little point I make.

Sooooo basically you don't know ,

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-07-2016 02:27PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I said 'observed or accepted'. They certainly accept it, as is clear from the Guardian article.

You cannot on the one hand rely on the Syrian Network for Human Rights in respect of civilian mortalities, and on the other hand imply that they are wrong or misinformed about civilians used as human shields.

I'm not going to waste time trawling over documents to substantiate your claim.

Be specific, what 'rules of engagement' have been loosened?

Well the one where ANY male of military age is considered an "militant" for one

29-07-2016 02:28PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well the one where ANY male of military age is considered an "militant" for one

Yeah, got a link for that?

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-07-2016 02:33PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yeah, got a link for that?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/u-s-labels-all-young-men-in-battle-zones-as-militants-and-american-soil-is-now-considered-a-battle-zone.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/08/nobody-knows-the-identity-of-the-150-people-killed-by-u-s-in-somalia-but-most-are-certain-they-deserved-it/

https://www.rt.com/usa/drone-strike-obama-casualties-604/

Gatling · 29-07-2016 02:34PM

I seemed to clearly remember the Americans rules of engagement in iraq was pretty tight

Gatling · 29-07-2016 02:36PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/u-s-labels-all-young-men-in-battle-zones-as-militants-and-american-soil-is-now-considered-a-battle-zone.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/08/nobody-knows-the-identity-of-the-150-people-killed-by-u-s-in-somalia-but-most-are-certain-they-deserved-it/

https://www.rt.com/usa/drone-strike-obama-casualties-604/

All the links are the same story with no official statement saying that all males of military age are considered militants

29-07-2016 02:37PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/u-s-labels-all-young-men-in-battle-zones-as-militants-and-american-soil-is-now-considered-a-battle-zone.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/08/nobody-knows-the-identity-of-the-150-people-killed-by-u-s-in-somalia-but-most-are-certain-they-deserved-it/

https://www.rt.com/usa/drone-strike-obama-casualties-604/

None of these articles relate to rules of engagement. Thanks for wasting my time in going-over them though.

The next time you present an irrelevant article as proof of a loosening in the rules of engagement, could you possibly just limit it to one irrelevant article, instead of a handful?

Gatling · 29-07-2016 02:42PM

A wall Street journal article about American ROEs in Afghanistan from February .

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-military-rules-of-engagement-in-afghanistan-questioned-1454349100

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-07-2016 02:45PM

Gatling wrote: »

All the links are the same story with no official statement saying that all males of military age are considered militants

LOL

You want an "official" statement? :rolleyes:

Maybe ask Obama to make it yeah?

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

29-07-2016 02:49PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

LOL

You want an "official" statement? :rolleyes:

Maybe ask Obama to make it yeah?

That article refers to an apparent counting treatment ex post facto, and not the rules of engagement. Big difference.

I didn't really expect the previous poster to be able to substantiate his claim, but lets not let-on that any of your links substantiate it, either.

Gatling · 29-07-2016 02:50PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You want an "official" statement

Your claiming it's the Official Rules of engagement ,

So that's a no then,

Decent Skin · 29-07-2016 03:01PM

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.

Then don't feckin' bomb them from "at a distance".

At a distance, a black / Muslim / Catholic / whatever-you're-having-yourself might be indistinguishable from a reported criminal - do we shoot them all from a distance ?

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

No, it's not. And nice use of the word "suffer" instead of "be maimed and / or murdered", btw.

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

So you reckon it's farbetter to reward them by reinforcing their argument that lives are expendable ? Or add to their numbers by increasing those with a gripe against "the West" because their families were murdered ?

29-07-2016 03:11PM

Decent Skin wrote: »

Then don't feckin' bomb them from "at a distance".

Yeah, why not ask for their identity cards and their references before killing militants in a war.

Seriously, these people are using human shields to travel from place to place, and during airstrikes. How do you propose the U.S. sift inside the target buildings or convoys?

So you reckon it's farbetter to reward them by reinforcing their argument that lives are expendable ?

I don't think I.S. are drawing moral lessons from this. They're not going to start sitting around camp fires with ukuleles braiding one another's hair and singing Kum Bah Yah, if the U.S. stop bombing them.

Civilians will die in airstrikes on I.S so long as I.S. use civilians as human shielfd. It is undesirable, but far better that this should occur, than for Coalition withdrawal, and I.S. to be left to itself in Syria.

Unless you have a better solution? And I don't mean another criticism, I mean a specific solution.

Decent Skin · 29-07-2016 03:29PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yeah, why not ask for their identity cards and their references before killing militants in a war.

Seriously, these people are using human shields to travel from place to place, and during airstrikes. How do you propose the U.S. sift inside the target buildings or convoys?

I don't think I.S. are drawing moral lessons from this. They're not going to start sitting around camp fires with ukuleles braiding one another's hair and singing Kum Bah Yah, if the U.S. stop bombing them.

Civilians will die in airstrikes on I.S so long as I.S. use civilians as human shielfd. It is undesirable, but far better that this should occur, than for Coalition withdrawal, and I.S. to be left to itself in Syria.

Unless you have a better solution? And I don't mean another criticism, I mean a specific solution.

Since you're ok with murdering and maiming innocents I doubt that you'd view any suggestions as "better", and since my suggestions would be to avoid that, we wouldn't agree.

Those who engage in war and who are highly-paid professionals in same should be the ones devising "better" solutions, but if they have the same disregard for innocent life as their opponents then they won't, unless severe pressure is put on them to change their ways.

If there's a rightful outcry re murdered civilians then the "terrorists" will know that they can reuse the tactic; if an alternative strategy is devised by those fighting them then that avenue is cut off and the "terrorists" will have to devise alternatives too.

N.B. Terrorists is in inverted commas not to excuse them, but to highlight the fact that the term is far broader than most people are brainwashed into believing, with the "good guys" also complicit in murdering innocents and keeping people in a state of terror.

29-07-2016 03:31PM

Decent Skin wrote: »

Since you're ok with murdering and maiming innocents I doubt that you'd view any suggestions as "better", and since my suggestions would be to avoid that, we wouldn't agree.

I'm not ok with targeting innocent civilians, as I have made clear. I think you know that.

But why criticise my reasoning if you yourself have no better alternative to offer?

Gatling · 29-07-2016 03:37PM

Maybe look at the Assad /Putin way .
Bombard schools and as many hospitals and doctors clinics as you can find ,
Then relentlessly bombard the rest of civilian populations ,
While you surround them on the ground and prevent humanitarian assistance to get in ,
Allowing hundreds if not thousands to needlessly die from starvation and illness ,,

Round of applause boys and girls

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-07-2016 03:41PM

Gatling wrote: »

Maybe look at the Assad /Putin way .
Bombard schools and as many hospitals and doctors clinics as you can find ,
Then relentlessly bombard the rest of civilian populations ,
While you surround them on the ground and prevent humanitarian assistance to get in ,
Allowing hundreds if not thousands to needlessly die from starvation and illness ,,

Round of applause boys and girls

A tactic America and the rest of the west has used in Iraq.

Gatling · 29-07-2016 03:48PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A tactic America and the rest of the west has used in Iraq.

Really

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-07-2016 03:54PM

Gatling wrote: »

Really

Yeah but they use the word "sanctions"

Gatling · 29-07-2016 03:58PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah but they use the word "sanctions"

So no then

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-07-2016 03:59PM

Gatling wrote: »

So no then

Are you denying that sanctions have killed many thousands in Iraq?

Gatling · 29-07-2016 04:04PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you denying that sanctions have killed many thousands in Iraq?

That wasn't the question but nice try ,

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-07-2016 04:15PM

Gatling wrote: »

That wasn't the question but nice try ,

That's because there wasn't a question.

Decent Skin · 29-07-2016 04:27PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not ok with targeting innocent civilians, as I have made clear. I think you know that.

But why criticise my reasoning if you yourself have no better alternative to offer?

Your reasoning excuses murdering innocent civilians, and therefore implies that you're ok with it.

It is undesirable, but far better that this should occur, than for Coalition withdrawal, and I.S. to be left to itself in Syria.

You're viewing it as a binary equation. I'm saying that those responsible should put their heads together to come up with other options.

As long as "the West" screams about the murder of innocents in Europe or the US and says SFA about the equivalent in the East, then "we" are adding to the problem.

Either innocents are expendable or they're not; we cannot complain about them murdering innocents for their "greater good" if "we" do it "ourselves".

RustyNut · 29-07-2016 05:00PM

Decent Skin wrote: »

Either innocents are expendable or they're not; we cannot complain about them murdering innocents for their "greater good" if "we" do it "ourselves".

That's it in a nutshell. Both sides are happy to kill innocents civilians to further their political goals.

Gatling · 29-07-2016 05:00PM

A maternity hospital just hit with airstrikes in Idib in Syria ,

Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

Comments