Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

darkpagandeath · 29-07-2016 05:01PM

Has this been verified ???

Gatling · 29-07-2016 05:02PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Has this been verified ???

Confirmed by save the children and MSF

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 05:08PM

Gatling wrote: »

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

Thankfully these precious ones survived.
https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/759046249886674944
Any idea on the casualties?

Gatling · 29-07-2016 05:15PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Any idea on the casualties?

No confirmation as yet ,

MSF says it's the 100th hospital/medical facility attacks so far in.syria ,
50 deaths during the week when another MSF facility was bombard from the air

RustyNut · 29-07-2016 05:18PM

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

I agree with you. The Russians are no better than any of the other protagonists in this conflict.

karma_ · 29-07-2016 05:20PM

Gatling wrote: »

No confirmation as yet ,

MSF says it's the 100th hospital/medical facility attacks so far in.syria ,
50 deaths during the week when another MSF facility was bombard from the air

You are going to have to go into overtime mode to unconfirm it all when it gets confirmed eh.

Gatling · 29-07-2016 05:21PM

karma_ wrote: »

You are going to have to go into overtime mode to unconfirm it all when it gets confirmed eh.

Yaaaawn

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 05:21PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

And I'm waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the SNHR reported that ISIS was using human shields.
I also want to know who the actual source of this claim is.

May I remind you that the Israeli Army also made big claims that Hamas was using human shields and that was their their justification for murdering +1600 civilians.

29-07-2016 05:24PM

Decent Skin wrote: »

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

No it doesn't. It means I can imagine some circumstances where it's not a crime to unintentionally kill civilians, such as in circumstances where the primary intention is to target I.S., where there is no reasonable way of confirming the presence of civilians (if any), and where the strike is proportionate.

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.

What makes you so sure there are better options? I can't see any.

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 05:29PM

If it is wrong for one side for use human shields then it is also wrong for the other side to bomb human shields.

Decent Skin · 29-07-2016 05:31PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No it doesn't. It means I can imagine some circumstances where it's not a crime to unintentionally kill civilians, such as in circumstances where the primary intention is to target I.S., where there is no reasonable way of confirming the presence of civilians (if any), and where the strike is proportionate.

What makes you so sure there are better options? I can't see any.

As I said, we differ so, and if you can imagine those when I can't, then you won't be able to see other options as "better".

"No reasonable way of confirming the presence of civilians (if any)" ? Why is that not "No reasonable way of confirming the absence of civilians" ? Why is your default to be justified unless absolutes can be proven ? Why not unjustified until absolutes can be proven ?

Why - as I asked previously and you denied - is your default to be OK with the (potential) murder of civilians ? Why not do the checks and balances the opposite to how you're proposing and refrain from acting if in doubt ?

29-07-2016 05:32PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

And I'm waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the SNHR reported that ISIS was using human shields.
I also want to know who the actual source of this claim is.

I didn't say they reported it.

I said they 'observed or accepted' it happened, because that is the clear implication contained in the article you linked to earlier, and I have no doubt but that you have not read all of the 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.

As a result, the US should be making sure strict measures are in place to protect people on the ground during complex battles, said Wael Aleji, spokesman for the Syrian Network for Human Rights.

I can stand over what I write. You can't substantiate your ridiculous, false claim about Rules of Engagement being loosened.

RustyNut · 29-07-2016 05:33PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No it doesn't. It means I can imagine some circumstances where it's not a crime to unintentionally kill civilians, such as in circumstances where the primary intention is to target I.S., where there is no reasonable way of confirming the presence of civilians (if any), and where the strike is proportionate.

What makes you so sure there are better options? I can't see any.

So each side gets to make up it's own rules on when its ok to kill innocents?

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 05:35PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I didn't say they reported it.

I said they 'observed or accepted' it happened, because that is the clear implication contained in the article you linked to earlier, and I have no doubt but that you have not read all of the article.

I can stand over what I write. You can't substantiate your ridiculous, false claim about Rules of Engagement being loosened.

Where have they accepted it?

I'll substantiate the claim.
Hang on.

Decent Skin · 29-07-2016 05:35PM

RustyNut wrote: »

So each side gets to make up it's own rules on when its ok to kill innocents?

Seems like it.

"We couldn't think of a way to get our own way otherwise"
"OK so. Case closed"

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 05:42PM

USA Today ran this report in April 2016

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/19/new-rules-allow-more-civilian-casualties-air-war-against-isil/83190812/

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-07-2016 05:42PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

And I'm waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the SNHR reported that ISIS was using human shields.
I also want to know who the actual source of this claim is.

May I remind you that the Israeli Army also made big claims that Hamas was using human shields and that was their their justification for murdering +1600 civilians.

Especially when it was shown that it is actually the IDF that use Palestinian children as human shields.

29-07-2016 05:44PM

RustyNut wrote: »

So each side gets to make up it's own rules on when its ok to kill innocents?

What I described are the circumstances in which I think it's permissible to attack a target which may contain human shields.

If one party to a conflict adapts a position that it's never acceptable to attack a target that contains human shields, they might as well all go home. Because the other party will increasingly rely on 'human shields' and render themselves immune from attack.

It's not a viable idea. You have to balance the rights of the (unconfirmed) few civilians with the rights of the many future victims of an outfit like I.S.

RustyNut · 29-07-2016 05:52PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What I described are the circumstances in which I think it's permissible to attack a target which may contain human shields.

If one party to a conflict adapts a position that it's never acceptable to attack a target that contains human shields, they might as well all go home. Because the other party will increasingly rely on 'human shields' and render themselves immune from attack.

It's not a viable idea. You have to balance the rights of the (unconfirmed) few civilians with the rights of the many future victims of an outfit like I.S.

So it ok to kill innocents as long as you follow "your" acceptable reasons.

Something you have in common with isis, they are also good with killing innocents when they follow "their" rules.

Gatling · 29-07-2016 05:53PM

RustyNut wrote: »

So it ok to kill innocents as long as you follow "your" acceptable reasons.

Something you have in common with isis, they are also good with killing innocents when they follow "their" rules.

So what do you propose exactly ,

darkpagandeath · 29-07-2016 05:58PM

Gatling wrote: »

Confirmed by save the children and MSF

No the OP...

RustyNut · 29-07-2016 06:03PM

Gatling wrote: »

So what do you propose exactly ,

Don't bomb hospitals, don't behead priests, don't fire missiles at wedding parties. How about stay within your own borders and defend yourself from there.

Gatling · 29-07-2016 06:04PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No the OP...

Oh the original 85 civillians ,

Confirmed 20 deaths and 9 of them were prisoners (who or what kind of prisoners ) hasn't been .

According to the UN ,

It's possible it was a French airstrike, so far the other 30+ coalition partners have been quite

Gatling · 29-07-2016 06:06PM

RustyNut wrote: »

How about stay within your own borders and defend yourself from there.

And when attacked inside your own border what just sit there and take it ,
Or what happens when it's people can't defend themselves from a group like Isis .

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-07-2016 06:07PM

Gatling wrote: »

And when attacked inside your own border what just sit there and take it ,
Or what happens when it's people can't defend themselves from a group like Isis .

When have isis attacked the us within their own border?

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 06:07PM

RustyNut wrote: »

Don't bomb hospitals, don't behead priests, don't fire missiles at wedding parties. How about stay within your own borders and defend yourself from there.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-bombs-kill-or-wound-at-least-120-at-afghan-wedding-1.428325

http://fair.org/uncategorized/a-wedding-was-bombed-dont-worry-it-was-by-the-us-not-in-the-us/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-wedding-was-bombed-dont-worry-it-was-by-the-us-not-in-the-us

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/28/wedding-party-death-toll-jumps-131-us-backed-coalition-denies-wrongdoing

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 06:09PM

Gatling wrote: »

Oh the original 85 civillians ,

Confirmed 20 deaths and 9 of them were prisoners (who or what kind of prisoners ) hasn't been .

According to the UN ,

It's possible it was a French airstrike, so far the other 30+ coalition partners have been quite

You're very defensive about America.
Why is that?

Gatling · 29-07-2016 06:10PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

You're very defensive about America.

Where

unseenfootage · 29-07-2016 06:35PM

Another strike by the US led coalition.
This time in Ghandura Northern Syria.

Beirut (AFP) - At least 15 civilians were killed and dozens wounded in air strikes by a US-led coalition in Syria, a monitor said.

The strikes hit a northern town controlled by the Islamic State jihadist group, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

"Airstrikes by international coalition fighter jets after midnight (Thursday morning) on the town of Ghandoura killed at least 15 civilians and wounded dozens," said the monitoring group's head, Rami Abdel Rahman.

The town lies 23 kilometres (14 miles) northwest of Manbij, a strategic waypoint between Turkey and the jihadist stronghold of Raqa.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-military-confirms-14-civilian-deaths-iraq-syria-010456454.html?nhp=1

Gatling · 29-07-2016 06:37PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Another strike by the US led coalition.
This time in Ghandura Northern Syria.

Tit for tat posts

Yey

Up to 85 civilians killed by mistake

Comments