Support NeoGAF

[Kin5290]

maybe not USe bombs?

Is this where you reveal that you are Tony Stark, and that you have invented an Iron Man suit that can magically absorb anything from heavy machinegun fire to tank rounds without killing its occupant to kill ISIS militants with precision small arms?

I think people are confused or ignorant when they hear the word "bomb", and they think that it's this massive 1000 lb beast that can bring a building down singlehandedly. The US military has been developing low yield PGM specifically for the purpose of striking targets in built up, populated environments. That's not to say that smaller "traditional" laser guided bombs would be able to level a building, as happened here.

 

[Sunster]

Not sure if the is a popular opinion here on GAF. But lets assume the report from the military is correct and they couldn't have known of the civilians there.

It's just a shitty situation. You have snipers that are very dangerous to counter with ground forces. And you have an option to kill them from above. But these cowards use civilians as human shields and purposely set up the building with explosives.

Just awful all around. And only helps ISIS. Which is why they need to be VERY vigilant with explosive force.

I love when people start a post with something like "Not sure if this'll fly here on GAF".

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Yup, they'll just read the GAF thread OP and will surely understand.
We're never the baddies. It was all the Iraqi intelligence/security force's fault!

This is an insanely simplistic view, and ignores the context that ISIS has been occupying Mosul for over 2 years. And we know what kind of treatment residents of ISIS held settlements experience under their occupiers. It's not pretty.

A not so friendly reminder that living under ISIS rule is literally hell on earth for these people:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/09/life-under-isis-raqqa-mosul-giant-prison-syria-iraq

Mobile phones are banned, people are not allowed to smoke cigarettes and those caught listening to music are punished. The militants punish people who use the internet and mobile phones, fearing that they may provide intelligence to their enemy.

About a month ago, a man was found with a mobile phone in his possession and punished with 45 lashes. As he was being whipped, he cried out, swearing at the Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and for that he was executed, according to locals in the city.

With a haunted look, Salah described how his best friend Rabi'eh was executed by Isis, which filmed him as he was drowned in a cage.

"I cried, my childhood friend was gone," said Salah. "If the time comes to liberate Mosul, I will be the first one to go and kill Daesh."

In Raqqa, the Isis surveillance state is in full swing. Cameras on major roads and near Isis headquarters keep a close eye on the civilians in the city, and patrols of the local police are unrelenting.

The men also have a dress code – loose clothes, no beard shaving, and are prone to being stopped and searched at random, with police inspecting mobile phones for any signs of dissidence or immorality.

Propaganda and indoctrination are everywhere. Images of medieval beheadings and hand chopping, characteristic of Isis's law enforcement and which evoke such outrage abroad, are so commonplace in Raqqa that locals have been desensitised. When every minor infraction engenders a few dozen lashes in a public square, there is little that shocks people.

"Before, people used to close their eyes," says Ramadan. "Isis has succeeded in making it normal."

Worse, they have infused their ideology into school curricula, and recruited youngsters into their feared police apparatus, sending many as suicide bombers and appointing teenagers to run security within the city.

"In school, the books don't have math problems that ask you what two plus two is; the math problem is always two guns plus two guns equals what," Ramadan says. "They will bring a bomb to class to show it to the children and tell them they have nothing to fear from it because they are men, and the creative writing exercise is about a boy whose father carries out a suicide bombing."

ISIS doesn't have a problem recruiting by force, rationing of supplies, and indoctrination. The people live in a fear-wrapped totalitarian state straight out of 1984 or The Hunger Games. Any loss of civilian life is certainly a tragedy, but there is no "easy" button for removing their kind of filth from the world, aside from going back in time and never removing Saddam Hussein.

Apparently we don't care that much about civilian casualties either if we're willing to bomb a building without knowing what's inside it. You gonna burn your neighbors house down trying to kill a wasp nest and claim it's not your responsibility that 3 people burned alive because you didn't know they stored a gasoline drum under the hive? I mean, those hornets were stinging people!

Read the article I just posted. "Hornets", yeah. Ground warfare isn't like COD. If you send a team of (in this case, Iraqi ) troops into a line of fire, you have to weigh the loss of life vs the potential loss of life of heavy artillery. Based on the information they had, they believed civilian casualties would be minimum. They were grossly mistaken. It's not something that can ever be 100% fool-proof in a battlefield until we develop technology to see and hear through walls from miles away.

 

[JP_]

Can't Suicide if we preemptively kill them all, right????

I get that you're being cute but the reality is that those people had family members that just lost someone they care for.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

Apparently we don't care that much about civilian casualties either if we're willing to bomb a building without knowing what's inside it. You gonna burn your neighbors house down trying to kill a wasp nest and claim it's not your responsibility that 3 people burned alive because you didn't know they stored a gasoline drum under the hive? I mean, those hornets were stinging people!

If we werent' thinking that way before, we will be thinking that way now. Any juicy looking ISIS target is going to have be assumed to be booby trapped with hostage civilians and additional explosives. Additional intel is going to have to be conducted to show otherwise.

 

[pa22word]

Apparently we don't care that much about civilian casualties either if we're willing to bomb a building without knowing what's inside it. You gonna burn your neighbors house down trying to kill a wasp nest and claim it's not your responsibility that 3 people burned alive because you didn't know they stored a gasoline drum under the hive? I mean, those hornets were stinging people!

It's a fucking war zone over occupied territory in a siege that's been on going for months. You think it's easy or even possible to waltz over there and check the building from top to bottom? In the meantime while you stall your position waiting on the check, how many iraqi soldiers die holding that position which may be very precarious? How many die in the effect to check the building? How many teams do you end up having to send to finally get the building checked if you lose the first one? What if in the meantime while you try and search the building isis moves more troops into the location to fortify the position while you stall, making you either use a larger artillery strike to take the position in the end and kill more people than you theoretically would have with the small ordinance blast or storm it by force costing countless lives in an army already stretched to the limits as it is?

This isn't really as simple most are making it out to be. There are no good choices here, only less bad ones. Personally I think if the headline was "Iraqi artillery triggers blast on isis compound where materials were stored, leading to civilian casualties" no one in this thread would care. This is a literal war, not some drone strike in Waziristan on a compound in a civilian area. Unforeseen shit happens. It's tragic, but there's not a lot you can do about it.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Im not buying that part about them not knowing the civilians were there. specially since the article also mentions the strike was supposed accounted to minimize civilian damage.

Good think you making up "facts" that directly contradict all that is being reported isn't the threshold to determine whether something is terrorism. SMH.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

If we werent' thinking that way before, we will be thinking that way now. Any juicy looking ISIS target is going to have be assumed to be booby trapped with hostage civilians and additional explosives. Additional intel is going to have to be conducted to show otherwise.

That's all it is. Don't bomb a goddamn building if you don't have the intel. No matter what anyone here tries to say, 2 snipers for 100+ civilians just isn't worth it. Those people are dead and the blood is once again on every American's hands.

 

[SapientWolf]

A not so friendly reminder that living under ISIS rule is literally hell on earth for these people:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/09/life-under-isis-raqqa-mosul-giant-prison-syria-iraq







ISIS doesn't have a problem recruiting by force, rationing of supplies, and indoctrination. The people live in a fear-wrapped totalitarian state straight out of 1984 or The Hunger Games. Any loss of civilian life is certainly a tragedy, but there is no "easy" button for removing their kind of filth from the world, aside from going back in time and never removing Saddam Hussein.

Saddam laid the groundwork for ISIS when he cynically embraced Islamization and implemented his own fucked up version of Sharia law.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

You killed two but how many more did you create?

Surely our military minds consider this, but their actions sure as shit don't show it. This buchering of civilians is fucking infuriating every time.

 

[Ryuuroden]

I wonder who has killed more people in the war on terror, the US or the terrorists?

The terrorists have but most people whining in the west don't care about the other Muslims ISIS kills, they only care about the Muslims the West kills. They should care about collateral damage but for fucks sake if no one was fighting ISIS the entire region would be collateral damage. We can argue about what created ISIS but we can't argue that it does not exist now and has to be wiped out as a militaristic bloodthirsty ideology now. Diplomacy certainly does not work with these people, nearly every person who has approached them on humanitarian grounds has been captured, tortured and beheaded. They kill human rights activists and anti war activists and people who want to bring aid in.

The argument could be made that we could just let them take over there and let them be but they certainly have shown no thought of staying in the middle east. Their ideology calls for taking it to Europe and the Americas and the rest of the world regardless of whether we fight back or not. It's totally set up as a lose- lose proposition for the West regardless of the options the West takes and talking to these people certainly hasn't saved journalists and others who have gone to meet them. Your damned if you do fight them, damned if you don't. Shits going to happen, especially in close city fighting. At least you are not seeing what happened in Vietnam to civilians. The vast majority of civilian casualties in Vietnam were caused by the US and if anything that was a massive war crime. The vast number of casualties in the war on terror has been caused by the terrorists and their armies (which in ISIS's case should be regarded as occupying armies not terrorists.) I have a bigger issue with the Kunduz hospital airstrike in Afghanistan than this attack.

 

[Mahonay]

That's all it is. Don't bomb a goddamn building if you don't know have the intel. No matter what anyone here tries to say, 2 snipers for 100+ civilians just isn't worth it. Those people are dead and the blood is once again on every American's hands.

And this is definitely not a "freak accident" or "isolated incident". We are constantly killing scores of civilians in air strikes in that area of the world.

 

[Skyzard]

I'd like to see an official report that isn't from the US look into it.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

That's all it is. Don't bomb a goddamn building if you don't have the intel. No matter what anyone here tries to say, 2 snipers for 100+ civilians just isn't worth it. Those people are dead and the blood is once again on every American's hands.

Like I said earlier, I think the whole thing was a setup by ISIS. Those 2 snipers were probably easily visible from overhead surveillance, making them a nice, juicy, target for a low ordinance airstrike, and ISIS would know this. Fill the building with hostages and explosives, and when the US takes the bait now the headline reads US bombs kill 100+ civilians.

 

[reckless]

And this is definitely not a "freak accident" or "isolated incident". We are constantly killing scores of civilians in air strikes in that area of the world.

I mean just yesterday

May 24, #Coalition forces conducted 34 strikes consisting of 78 engagements against #ISIS in #Syria & #Iraq.

https://twitter.com/CJTFOIR/status/867720493125840897

Every day dozens of airstrikes are carried out, civilians are going to die but we spend a lot more money then pretty much anyone else trying to keep that number down.

 

[Breads]

Like I said earlier, I think the whole thing was a setup by ISIS. Those 2 snipers were probably easily visible from overhead surveillance, making them a nice, juicy, target for a low ordinance airstrike, and ISIS would know this. Fill the building with hostages and explosives, and when the US takes the bait now the headline reads US bombs kill 100+ civilians.

IS with that 9d chess right?

 

[Kin5290]

That's all it is. Don't bomb a goddamn building if you don't know have the intel. No matter what anyone here tries to say, 2 snipers for 100+ civilians just isn't worth it. Those people are dead and the blood is once again on every American's hands.

No, it's not. The blood is on the hands of ISIS, who invaded and occupied Mosul in the first place.

You are holding US forces to an impossible standard of intelligence that cannot be achieved given available technology. And considering that this airstrike was conducted in support of pinned down Iraqi security forces, what you're really saying is that it is okay for Iraqi soldiers and police to die unnecessarily solely to preserve western consciences.

 

[Mahonay]

Like I said earlier, I think the whole thing was a setup by ISIS. Those 2 snipers were probably easily visible from overhead surveillance, making them a nice, juicy, target for a low ordinance airstrike, and ISIS would know this. Fill the building with hostages and explosives, and when the US takes the bait now the headline reads US bombs kill 100+ civilians.

Well then it should be OUR JOB to not be so stupid to take that bait with out checking the building first.

Being baited by ISIS is not an acceptable excuse for killing over 100 civilians.

We (America) dropped the bomb. We do this all the time. This is not an isolated incident whatsoever.

 

[Ray Wonder]

IS with that 9d chess right?

set bombs around citizens

make target appealing

Seems more like 2d checkers

 

[Vincent Alexander]

No, it's not. The blood is on the hands of ISIS, who invaded and occupied Mosul in the first place.

You are holding US forces to an impossible standard of intelligence that cannot be achieved given available technology. And considering that this airstrike was conducted in support of pinned down Iraqi security forces, what you're really saying is that it is okay for Iraqi soldiers and police to die unnecessarily solely to preserve western consciences.

Blood is on the hands of ISIS and the United States. Whether the standard is impossibly high or not. Whether we agree with the strikes or not. Whether intentional to take those lives or not. We still took civilian lives.

I agree with this being a shit situation, and a lose-lose in most cases with how we are fighting them. But what other options are there.

 

[Tawpgun]

I love when people start a post with something like "Not sure if this'll fly here on GAF".

I don't want to get off topic here, but I've seen members get piled on pretty bad for unpopular opinions.

Killing civilians is awful and it has happened way too much in this conflict. Everyone saying "Don't bomb them" needs to think a little more. I know none of us (that I know of) are military experts here outside of playing some ARMA sims or some shit. So people on both sides "They needed to be bombed it was tragic what happened vs. it was stupid to bomb them" are all being literal armchair generals.

But how are we supposed to fight an enemy that sets up like this? Quagmire all around. I think its important to realize this rather than just painting the decision in one light.

 

[Kin5290]

Well then it should be OUR JOB to not be so stupid to take that bait with out checking the building first.

Being baited by ISIS is not an acceptable excuse for killing over 100 civilians.

And how would we do that? Wave a magic wand? Use your tricorder? Take teams of twitchy, wary men with heavy weapons to assault a building that unbeknownst to them is full of civilians, somehow bypassing the snipers? Because that could only turn out peacefully.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Well then it should be OUR JOB to not be so stupid to take that bait with out checking the building first.

Being baited by ISIS is not an acceptable excuse for killing over 100 civilians.

We (America) dropped the bomb. We do this all the time. This is not an isolated incident whatsoever.

Again, as others have been saying, how do you check? We don't have magic heartbeat sensors, we can't scan it for life signs like Star Trek. We are working from second hand intelligence given to us by spotters who are being shot at. What would you do? NOT bomb them? Just leave the forces on the ground shit out of luck? Sorry guys, you are just going to have to die. Or maybe retreat? Sure, that's how you beat an enemy force, by running the minute they shoot back.

You do the best with what you have, but civilian casualties are an unfortunate side effect of war. They will always happen, and if you want to blame someone, blame the side using them as human shields.

 

[Faddy]

And how would we do that? Wave a magic wand? Use your tricorder? Take teams of twitchy, wary men with heavy weapons to assault a building that unbeknownst to them is full of civilians, somehow bypassing the snipers? Because that could only turn out peacefully.

Well it becomes simple. If you don't have the intelligence, don't drop the bomb.

 

[show me your skeleton]

If it was your mother, brother, or sister in that building, do you really think you'd respond by saying, "oh well, at least they tried."

over five times the amount killed in the attack in manchester.
god damn the world is a tragic place.

 

[Bunta]

Well then it should be OUR JOB to not be so stupid to take that bait with out checking the building first.

Being baited by ISIS is not an acceptable excuse for killing over 100 civilians.

We (America) dropped the bomb. We do this all the time. This is not an isolated incident whatsoever.

How do you propose the buildings are checked?

Well it becomes simple. If you don't have the intelligence, don't drop the bomb.

Bombing enemy combatants in buildings would essentially come to a halt. Either our forces or Iraqi forces would have to enter the buildings to confirm what's inside.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Well it becomes simple. If you don't have the intelligence, don't drop the bomb.

So fuck the soldiers on the ground who need the support? Guess they just have to die.

 

[Skyzard]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/25/us-mosul-airstrikes-deadliest-attack-iraq-2003

It [Pentagon investigation] says the bomb should have killed the pair, but instead caused a blast that leveled the house, which was made of reinforced concrete and considered by locals to be the sturdiest structure in the area.

Four more civilians sheltering in another home were killed by debris from the blast. US Central Command said it did not know civilians had taken shelter in the home.

Witnesses said close to 150 people had been in the home when it was bombed. Most locals interviewed said that people had willingly taken shelter. However, several also claimed that Isis had urged fighters to use the home as a refuge.

Witnesses made no mention of secondary explosions and instead pointed to houses all around that had endured similar destruction.

The final toll could be as high as 141, an investigation into the 17 March attack has found, with 36 people still unaccounted for.

 

[SyenceLabb]

Well it becomes simple. If you don't have the intelligence, don't drop the bomb.

They did have intelligence. It was just bad intelligence.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

It's weird how you guys are all "fuck America" when it isn't actually the military's fault, but a significant change in ISIS strategy towards scorched earth practices, yet when Trump literally threatens NATO directly (and continues to do so! ) you're all "oh that's fine". Don't get me wrong, this is horrible, but it is done by ISIS setting explosives to a dead man switch of some kind, not the US bomb itself.

Yes, the headline doesn't look good, but given the context there probably really wasn't any way to know that. Thermal imaging doesn't work like movies or video games, apparently.

 

[cyba89]

So fuck the soldiers on the ground who need the support? Guess they just have to die.

You mean like the 105 civilians?

 

[Mahonay]

And how would we do that? Wave a magic wand? Use your tricorder? Take teams of twitchy, wary men with heavy weapons to assault a building that unbeknownst to them is full of civilians, somehow bypassing the snipers? Because that could only turn out peacefully.

Again, as others have been saying, how do you check? We don't have magic heartbeat sensors, we can't scan it for life signs like Star Trek. We are working from second hand intelligence given to us by spotters who are being shot at. What would you do? NOT bomb them? Just leave the forces on the ground shit out of luck? Sorry guys, you are just going to have to die. Or maybe retreat? Sure, that's how you beat an enemy force, by running the minute they shoot back.

You do the best with what you have, but civilian casualties are an unfortunate side effect of war. They will always happen, and if you want to blame someone, blame the side using them as human shields.

How do you propose the buildings are checked?



Bombing enemy combatants in buildings would essentially come to a halt. Either our forces or Iraqi forces would have to enter the buildings to confirm what's inside.

They have been using airstrikes in heavily populated areas since 2003. After 14 years one would think maybe it would be protocol to check a building for civilian presence before you drop a bomb on it.

We should be surgeons at this shit by this point. We have an insane military with almost unlimited resources, yet we are still incapable of detecting large group of civilians in bombing areas on a pretty regular basis?

 

[Cake Boss]

We need more moderate Americans to speak up against these senseless attacks killing civilians 🙄

 

[GrizzleBoy]

The hell are you talking about, allied bombings killing civilians is highly scrutinized even with the mistake is genuine and anyone can make it.

Also there is a difference in targeting that makes an action terrorism or not. In war you ARE going to kill civilians, there is no "ifs" about it, it is going to happen. The only difference is if you are trying to minimize it to the best of your ability (lack of intel is the most caused reason for civilian casualties), saying fuck it (Russia, Syria, and Saudis), or outright targeting the civilians (terrorists).

Not sure about other countries, but you can talk to actual soldiers in U.S who were denied air support because civilians were in the area or when strikes are canceled because of civilians in area. There is no "both sides" to this coin and this is like one of the only areas where Neogaf is too damn liberal and use that argument while playing arm chair general.

Yes, we can scrutinize these actions, but posts like "we just created more terrorist" and "How are we different from terrorist?" and posts that says "they should be 100% certain civilians aren't in the area" is really annoying to read.

Yes intel was lacked on this scenario, but outside of assaulting the building (which we don't know if they could, since snipers can snipe people from much further away while switching windows etc.). You got someone on this thread saying, "why didn't they snipe the snipers?" as if that is an easy task with many windows/kill holes a sniper can use. You would also need to find the perfect vantage point (which we don't know if they had), and hope they don't spot you going to it. They chose to bomb the sniper nest and unfortunately, it had 200+ civilians in it with ordnance in the building as well.

That is a fault of IS as a soldier should not be using a building civilians are in as an encampment.

As long as you realise that you're rationalizing away killing innocent men, women and children as part of an effort to stop people who kill men, women and children.

Like I said, I guess it's not a bad kill as long as it's accidental. I'm sure their families at home and abroad see it that way too.

And no we do not fucking scrutinise our armies killing innocent foreigners nearly enough.

You ask an American how many people have died in the UK due to terrorism this year, then ask them how many middle easterners have died due to terrorism this year.

They will know about the tens of people killed in England, but won't be able to name a single instance of innocents killed in the middle east/Asia, either by terrorists or our air strikes.

They will know about chemical attacks on Syrians by Assad, but won't know a thing about the allied air strike on a wedding that killed 200 people the week or so prior to that. Because dead innocent children only suffer during chemical attacks. Explosions and being trapped under a building that just fell on them until they die of starvation, lack of oxygen, being crushed to death etc isn't really a big deal. Chemical weapons though...now that's where we draw the line.

You can't scrutinise events you don't know about and/or don't really care about.

It's just extremely hypocritical what we get upset about. It's understandable, but we DO only cry for our own team, while at the same time accepting the deaths of others as just part of the war.

 

[thepotatoman]

Fox News is reporting this with the headline: "ISIS tricked US into bombing building where 100 innocents held captive."

Were they really held captive?

Almost certainly. Those snipers would probably shoot anyone that tried to leave.

Using human shields like this has become a very common tactic for them.

 

[Sunster]

I don't want to get off topic here, but I've seen members get piled on pretty bad for unpopular opinions.

Killing civilians is awful and it has happened way too much in this conflict. Everyone saying "Don't bomb them" needs to think a little more. I know none of us (that I know of) are military experts here outside of playing some ARMA sims or some shit. So people on both sides "They needed to be bombed it was tragic what happened vs. it was stupid to bomb them" are all being literal armchair generals.

But how are we supposed to fight an enemy that sets up like this? Quagmire all around. I think its important to realize this rather than just painting the decision in one light.

yea we all have but starting your post like that won't protect you from a dog pile. just say your thing. your post is hardly controversial "here on GAF" most of the thread agrees with you.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

Almost certainly. Those snipers would probably shoot anyone that tried to leave.

Using human shields like this has become a very common tactic for them.

Yep, absolutely. The snipers were probably told to shoot anyone who tries to escape and shoot/take pot shots at any opposing forces. This would keep the hostages inside, and draw as much attention as possible i.e. the bait.

 

[Skyzard]

Almost certainly. Those snipers would probably shoot anyone that tried to leave.

Using human shields like this has become a very common tactic for them.

Yep, absolutely. The snipers were probably told to shoot anyone who tries to escape and shoot/take pot shots at any opposing forces. This would keep the hostages inside, and draw as much attention as possible i.e. the bait.

"Most locals interviewed said that people had willingly taken shelter."


US doesn't check shit. They've killed hundreds if not thousands of civilians this way. Terrorising the middle-east more than anyone else.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

"Most locals interviewed said that people had willingly taken shelter."

However, several also claimed that Isis had urged fighters to use the home as a refuge.

These two statements are not a contradiction. In fact, one informs upon the other.

 

[paperboywriter]

Thanks america. We gonna pay the price for this in Europe and your puppet of a president is lecturing us on how much we should pay to stay in NATO. Fucking unbelievable.

Edit: to be fair, mostly people in the middle east are suffering the consequences of this.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

You mean like the 105 civilians?

Unfortunate deaths that could have been prevented if ISIS didn't willingly use them as human shields. If they want to fight dirty then the dirt is on their hands. Wars are not won by inaction, and ISIS has shown they can fight a war and organize/encourage terror attacks abroad at the same time. Time only plays to their favor.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

Almost six pages deep and a disturbingly small of people actually read the content of the article. It sucks, yeah, but it wasn't a situation created by reckless or careless overuse of force.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

They have been using airstrikes in heavily populated areas since 2003. After 14 years one would think maybe it would be protocol to check a building for civilian presence before you drop a bomb on it.

We should be surgeons at this shit by this point. We have an insane military with almost unlimited resources, yet we are still incapable of detecting large group of civilians in bombing areas on a pretty regular basis?

Again, I ask you, how? Because unless you know of some magic technology I don't, have x-ray vision, or are willing to knock on the front door and ask there isn't really a good way to count how many people are on the inside of a building, from the outside.

 

[Skyzard]

^they have satellites that constantly scan the area. They could monitor it. It's not magic. Keep trying to justify this though.


"Human shield" is the same bullshit excuse to bombing without care for civilians that Israel uses.

Here you have witnesses telling you they weren't hostages. I don't think we even have any confirmation there were snipers in that building. If you heard gunfire inside the building you'd go somewhere else. Doesn't seem like anyone did.

Just fucking senseless. Absolute criminals.

 

[Wenger'sBakedBaguettes]

the OP said that the US striked a building that they received intel of from Iraqi Security forces

people will say bad intel and what not but these are the Iraqi Security forces
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1378275

Yes, an individual unit or two is the whole ISF, and meanwhile by the same logic we can call American and French soldiers a bunch of rapists, and Sunni muslims, who commit most of the terrorism in the world by far, a bunch of suicide bombers who love to kill people, most recently little girls. Sound's great, doesn't it? While your sectarian mind is at it, why don't you also create a thread on the abuse, oppression, execution and killing done by Saudi soldiers and security forces against their own Shia minority, or those of Bahrain, or how about the civilians in Yemen were they've created the world's worst famine which is now having a cholera outbreak? Would your GCC paycheck stop coming if you did that?

 

[grap3fruitman]

For fuck sake America. Stop killing innocent people!

But it's the only thing we're good at.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Only reason this thread is so long is because there's a half decent excuse. Other threads where civilians are killed in large numbers die very quick.

 

[Amory]

It's terrible, but ISIS killed those people. Blaming the US really makes no sense, unless you're of the opinion that we should just leave ISIS alone because of the risk of collateral damage. This is a battle where one side actively wants their civilians to be killed in attacks targeting the militia. It's beyond fucked up.

If you're evil enough to trap 105 innocent people in an explosion rigged building that's a bombing target, you're evil enough to come up with 15 other ways to use innocents' deaths to your advantage whether you're being attacked by bombs or ground troops. This will get worse before it gets better.

 

[watership]

"How to make more terrorists" - Trump Administration.

 

[Dopus]

"How to make more terrorists" - Trump Administration.

"How to make more terrorists" - American Foreign Policy