• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UN war crime investigators: US air strikes in Raqqa causing "staggering loss of life"

S

SilentRob

Member
Just breaking, more details are likely going to be added to the article in the next hours:

UN war crimes investigators say US-led coalition air strikes on Islamic State militants in the Syrian city of Raqqa are causing "staggering loss of life".
Coalition warplanes are supporting an offensive on the IS stronghold that was launched last week by an alliance of Kurdish and Arab fighters.
Since then, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have taken territory to the west, east and north of the city.
The battle has already led to 160,000 civilians fleeing their homes.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40271450

EDIT:

Article has been updated:

"We note in particular that the intensification of air strikes, which have paved the ground for an SDF advance in Raqqa, has resulted not only in staggering loss of civilian life, but has also led to 160,000 civilians fleeing their homes and becoming internally displaced."
Click to expand...

The UK-based monitoring group Airwars estimates that more than 600 civilians were killed in more than 150 coalition or SDF attacks between March and May.
Air and artillery strikes killed dozens more in the first eight days of June, it says.
The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs warned on Thursday that the assault was intensifying an "already desperate" situation in Raqqa.
Air strikes, shelling and clashes on the ground were killing and injuring civilians, and damaging key infrastructure, it said. There were also reports of increased shortages of essential commodities such as food, medicine and fuel, it added.
Click to expand...

Separately, Human Rights Watch warned that the coalition's use of artillery-delivered white phosphorus in Raqqa and in the last remaining IS-held parts of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was endangering civilians.
White phosphorus can be used for several purposes on the battlefield - as a smoke screen, for signalling and marking, and as an incendiary weapon.
However, international law prohibits its use in civilian areas because of its indiscriminate effects. On contact, it can burn people, thermally and chemically, down to the bone.
"No matter how white phosphorus is used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm," warned Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch.
Click to expand...
 
B

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
The war hawks have been let loose. Mistakes are mistakes but this administration has already shown a predisposition to taking these risks with civilians.
 
S

skullmuffins

Banned
Ugh. Wasn't there some Trump order that OK'd actions with greater risk to civilians, or something along those lines? On mobile, can't research now. Are these results from the traditional policy or a new change? Either way, it's awful.
 
cromofo

cromofo

Member
Steel said:
Eh?
Click to expand...

An insufficient dose of domestic karma for decades of imperialism.

It's probably a given that now he's in charge things like these will continue, but my point still stands. Even with Hillary at the helm, I'd be very doubtful of any change.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
skullmuffins said:
Ugh. Wasn't there some Trump order that OK'd actions with greater risk to civilians, or something along those lines? On mobile, can't research now. Are these results from the traditional policy or a new change? Either way, it's awful.
Click to expand...

He removed a lot of barriers that Obama implemented for the Drone Program, I know that much. Basically he gave the DoD free reign to drone strike whatever they wanted--the system in place under Bush--which was a change from Obama post-2012 or 2013.
 
B

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
cromofo said:
An insufficient dose of domestic karma for decades of imperialism.

It's probably a given that now he's in charge things like these will continue, but my point still stands. Even with Hillary at the helm, I'd be very doubtful of any change.
Click to expand...

Things wont just continue, they'll worsen
 
J

Jonnax

Member
It's was such a common thing where people attacked Obama about Drone Strikes and his apparent hypocrisy.

So now America has a President that doesn't give a damn.
 
MisterFalcon

MisterFalcon

Member
US Centcom is open to any suggestions on how to take Raqqa without any civilian casualties. Please specify how you will deal with the several thousand fighters, anti tank missiles and 1+ ton armored suicide trucks.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
Jonnax said:
It's was such a common thing where people attacked Obama about Drone Strikes and his apparent hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Trump has greatly increased the usage of drones. Last I heard about 3 months in he had already passed Obama's count for the previous year. Yet it wasn't uncommon for Trump supporters to describe him as some kind of isolationist--who regularly listed off countries he wanted to bomb the crap out of, including but not limited to; Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Iran, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.
 
S

shnurgleton

Member
neurosisxeno said:
Trump has greatly increased the usage of drones. Last I heard about 3 months in he had already passed Obama's count for the previous year. Yet it wasn't uncommon for Trump supporters to describe him as some kind of isolationist--who regularly listed off countries he wanted to bomb the crap out of, including but not limited to; Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Iran, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.
Click to expand...

And yet he campaigned on his willingness to kill not only ISIS fighters but entire civilian families
 
cromofo

cromofo

Member
Magic Mushroom said:
There's a sentence you don't read every day.
Click to expand...

AFAIK this is a very US dominant and centered forum so it's not very often you'll see sentences like these.

It's very hard to have any sympathy towards the "struggle" of Americans under Trump while things like these happen because of the US influence. It's not even comparable.

It's like that 1st world problems meme. It puts things in perspective.
 
E

Ensirius

Member
This whole thing will never end.
We are just creating more and more terrorism and hate around the globe with these actions.
 
F

FlutterPuffs

Member
cromofo said:
An insufficient dose of domestic karma for decades of imperialism.

It's probably a given that now he's in charge things like these will continue, but my point still stands. Even with Hillary at the helm, I'd be very doubtful of any change.
Click to expand...

karma.

christ.
 
A

airmangataosenai

Member
shnurgleton said:
Sickening.

To think that our actions in Syria are barely even acknowledged let alone their magnitude.
Click to expand...
Stuff like this really puts on display the almost childlike perception of military conflict I see on this site constantly. First the article says nothing about casualty estimates, just that they are hugh in some nebulous way and express worries over displacement and how many are being held in the city by ISIS, who I remind you we are at war with and this is their capital. Second, the alternative to air strikes would be a ground invasion which I seriously doubt you or anyone here would support despite it being the only alternative to minimise casualties. This is the capital of their pseudo-nation. Their is no avoiding this whether it was Trump or Clinton who won.
 
P

ponpo

( ≖‿≖)
What is a staggering loss of life? The article has a lot of numbers, none of which are deaths.
 
M

Mivey

Member
ponpo said:
What is a staggering loss of life? The article has a lot of numbers, none of which are deaths.
Click to expand...
Based on observations from survivors who have fled the city. It's not like you will have actual numbers until after everything settles down and you start counting human remains.
 
H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
cromofo said:
An insufficient dose of domestic karma for decades of imperialism.

It's probably a given that now he's in charge things like these will continue, but my point still stands. Even with Hillary at the helm, I'd be very doubtful of any change.
Click to expand...

If Trump sticks around he could be far worse for the Middle East than anyone prior and the rest of the world on top of that. This seems like a very foolish and short sighted comment that doesn't consider anything but that "Gotcha America" part.
 
T

trembli0s

Member
Jazzy Geoff said:
Who is dropping these bombs? Are the UK involved?
Click to expand...

I remember reading an article not too long ago stating casualties were not being properly attributed to the respective nation for political reasons.

As an example, US command will not divulge which nation's planes were responsible for particular civilian casualties. When a reporter asked the French point blank if they were responsible for some, they danced around the question and refused to answer.
 
T

TheWasTheJoke

Member
Don't pretend like this is just Trump, Obama did just the same with Drones. American Foreign Policy institutions are fucked and need a remake.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
Mivey said:
Based on observations from survivors who have fled the city. It's not like you will have actual numbers until after everything settles down and you start counting human remains.
Click to expand...

It's like a videogame man where you can just pause and look up the kill count.
 
T

TarNaru33

Banned
It is important to note that this article is mainly talking about the toll on civilians as a whole, not just loss of life. ISIS must be dealt with, that is obvious, but no one is for a U.S direct intervention which would of ended the outright fight long ago.

Instead, we have to rely on militias and an incompetent Iraq army (who finally is shaping up a bit), which is why this is dragging on. They can't do it without U.S coalition strikes and aide, so there is no U.S pullout option unless you want to risk a resurgence of ISIS.

Unless you guys vote on some really left-wing candidates in U.S, there is no way U.S is going to expand on troop accountability than it already has. There is NO candidate that is for that though since its a great way to say "don't vote me".
 
Charles Brandon

Charles Brandon

Member
trembli0s said:
I remember reading an article not too long ago stating casualties were not being properly attributed to the respective nation for political reasons.

As an example, US command will not divulge which nation's planes were responsible for particular civilian casualties. When a reporter asked the French point blank if they were responsible for some, they danced around the question and refused to answer.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that explains a few things.

Do we know which nations are currently active in providing air support in Syria then?
 
MisterFalcon

MisterFalcon

Member
Drones have very little to do with Raqqa, this is artillery and air support in support of an attack into a heavily defended city. The US could have let Iraq handle it entirely on their own to trade 'civilians killed by US bombs' for 'Raqqa Battle goes into its sixth month' which probably would have resulted in more deaths for all parties involved.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
airmangataosenai said:
Stuff like this really puts on display the almost childlike perception of military conflict I see on this site constantly. First the article says nothing about casualty estimates, just that they are hugh in some nebulous way and express worries over displacement and how many are being held in the city by ISIS, who I remind you we are at war with and this is their capital. Second, the alternative to air strikes would be a ground invasion which I seriously doubt you or anyone here would support despite it being the only alternative to minimise casualties. This is the capital of their pseudo-nation. Their is no avoiding this whether it was Trump or Clinton who won.
Click to expand...

nope, congress ducked out of flat-out declaring war against it, unless i missed that bit.

Also complaining that people have a childlike perception of the conflict, then having the gall to pretend that those are the only two available choices... ahm... is a bit ironic.
 
Charles Brandon

Charles Brandon

Member
It was not required that the west get involved in Syria either on the ground or in the air. My position has always been that we should not intervene in these conflicts, as heartless as that may seem, because it is not within the gift of western powers to intervene without making things worse.
 
C

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Jazzy Geoff said:
It was not required that the west get involved in Syria either on the ground or in the air. My position has always been that we should not intervene in these conflicts, as heartless as that may seem, because it is not within the gift of western powers to intervene without making things worse.
Click to expand...
I don't know about Syria specifically, but Obama's intervention at Kobane saved the Kurds and allowed them to start pushing back against ISIS. That definitely helped.

I liked his strategy in general. Limited involvement where he felt he could tip the balance, but ultimately relying on other factions to do most of the fighting.
 
Charles Brandon

Charles Brandon

Member
Chairman Yang said:
I don't know about Syria specifically, but Obama's intervention at Kobane saved the Kurds and allowed them to start pushing back against ISIS. That definitely helped.

I liked his strategy in general. Limited involvement where he felt he could tip the balance, but ultimately relying on other factions to do most of the fighting.
Click to expand...

A decent response. I suppose I would say that 'mission creep' tends to make it very difficult to limit involvement in that way, as we have seen here, albeit with a change of President.
 
Trojita

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
trembli0s said:
I remember reading an article not too long ago stating casualties were not being properly attributed to the respective nation for political reasons.

As an example, US command will not divulge which nation's planes were responsible for particular civilian casualties. When a reporter asked the French point blank if they were responsible for some, they danced around the question and refused to answer.
Click to expand...

They'll always say US-Led.

The source in the OP can't even say which number of casualties were the result of the airstrikes or SDF movements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Amnesty: Expert analysis shows US use of White phosphorus may amount to war crime
22
3K
bsp replied
US.-led forces appear to be using white phosphorus in populated areas in Iraq & Syria
2 3
114
21K
MisterFalcon replied
  • Locked
At least 30 dead after air strike hits Syrian school
2 3
101
13K
Perfect Cha0s replied
  • Locked
Independent:Civilian deaths from US-led airstrikes hit record high under Donald Trump
2
70
9K
DontBeThatGuy replied
US-led strikes kill 35 civilians in east Syria: monitor
42
4K
UtterlyPerplexed replied
Top Bottom