-
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"
- Thread starter SilentRob
- Start date
FreedomFighter
Member
Chemical weapons are ok to use...
if and only if US uses them.
Lonewulfeus
Member
And 90% of those people couldn't even tell you where Bengazi is located if asked.
Yes, because the peaceful resolution is always successful. It's not like there were years of pointless 'peace' negotiations in the attempt of ending the Syrian Civil War. I'm sure if we all just lay down our arms and talk to ISIS they'll stop beheading people and waging Jihad. You can't negotiate with a death cult that is hell bent on establishing an Islamic Caliphate no matter the cost. The international community has the option of either turning their back and ignoring what happens or waging war, which in the modern world will have collateral damage.
There's 'Staggering loss of life" in Libya at the moment, which is currently in a state worse than it was under Gadaffi, yet the UN and the international media is relatively silent. I guess it's just not appealing to report on/condemn when you can't mention evil American imperialism.
The peaceful resolution wasn't given adequate thought or consideration in 2012 by the United States.
And Libya is a mess in part due to Western meddling once again. I've already mentioned Saif Gaddafi's proposal that was outright rejected. They're is plenty to criticise here, but Syria right now has more coverage because it is effectively the battleground for a multitude of wars or proxy wars. Then you have ISIS thrown into the mix on top of it all.
And I'm glad you mentioned "evil American Imperialism", even if it was out of sarcasm. The fact remains that "evil" is very much an apt word to use. US foreign policy has shown time and time again to disregard anyone but their own interests, and it's always at the expense of other people. It's a gross empire.
It's almost as if there are other parties and civilians than "ISIS" who are affected when you drop bombs on them.
This isn't a video game where you "don't negotiate with terrorists" and that your bombs only hit the baby-eating monsters, there are so much misery and pain and death that is caused by the US and EU dropping bombs on the country.
You probably cry out whenever a terrorist bombs civilians, right? So imagine the same shit happening by foreign countries dropping bombs on your town and city and this time around, it's for years and decades and the casaulties are in the thousands (like Sinatar pointed out).
War isn't as simple as the "good guys" bomb "the bad guys". Civilians, infrastructure, institutions, etc. get killed and destroyed. When you choose to bomb countries because of "the bad guys", you are going to kill a lot of innocent people.
Even when you talk with (humane) military experts they argue that weapons and arms aren't what's needed to defeat "the bad guys", but that you need humanitarian support, educational structures, food, water, etc. to re-stabilize a country after you've smashed it to pieces and blood. So yeah, by choosing to bomb a country, the EU and the US are being 'the baddies', just like the other countries wanting to have a piece of the geopolitical cake with their weapon smuggling and funding of destabilizing groups.
No one said civilians don't get killed, they do and its fucking terrible. But there is literally no other choice when dealing with ISIS its kill them or they kill everyone else. If you think you can negotiate with ISIS you are ignorant.
There's a huge difference in intent when a terrorist intentionally targets civilians and when a country is fighting a war and civilians are killed trying to equate the two is just amazing disingenuous.
Yeah dropping bombs will kill innocent people, allowing ISIS to stick around will also kill innocent people, a lot more innocent people. There isn't any perfect solution.
You cannot do humanitarian aid as long as ISIS is in control, that's just a non-starter. And this article and thread is about Raqqa and places where ISIS is in control. Not other countries or other groups.
He could care less about civilian deaths. Not worth engaging with.
Well, according to some members here all you have to do is try to rebuild their education and infrastructure! Maybe try to negotiate peace with them!
That's just slightly above a Donald Trump-ian grasp of reality. The bottom line is no one ever has an alternative method because there likely isn't one. When you're dealing with religious fanaticism, there is very little to negotiate towards.
Now, if you want to argue that American interventionism got us to this point? I'm there 100%. But, it's not as if the US is the only global actor... There were many countries that got involved in the ME in the 70's and 80's that got us to where we're at today. Whether people like it or not, the US is going to be involved in global conflicts like this.
It's ISIS. It's a doomsday cult. The oppourtunity to stop them without major conflict came and went a long time ago. You can't negotiate with them.
By not creating chaotic voids for ISIS to fill in the first place -- NOT invading and dismantling Iraq, overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya, supporting a bloody anti-democratic coup in Egypt, and encouraging rebellion in Syria.
Failing that, by actually putting value on foreign civilian lives instead of treating them as acceptable collateral damage (e.g., the indiscriminate bombing of a building allied central command knew and publicly acknowledged was a civilian shelter to take out two low-value snipers). Yes, that may mean putting a small number of your own troops at some risk.
CornBurrito
Member
So many ignorant people here. The USA basically created ISIS and now the only way to deal with their monster is to destroy the entire region. Don't act so innocent. Peace isn't a viable option because you made sure it wasn't.
Read my post again, you didn't grasp the complexity of dropping bombs on a country. It's not as simple as what Fox News and others would tell you that EVERYONE in this region is an inhuman monster that cannot be communicated with.
There are other people who are killed by US and EU military. Our countries have killed so many innocent people and destabilized so many societies. And now people, even so-called liberals, are saying that the solution to everything is more bombs and more military.
The world isn't as simple as "don't negotiate with the monsters, we only need to bomb them"
The hypocrisy of people in the EU and the US crying over a terrorist bomb killing innocents when at the same time we're more than willing to accept our politicians and military killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians with our bombs.
Angelus Errare
Banned
This only creates more ISIS supporters. Not hard to get someone who just had their wife and kids killed to pick up a gun and join the cause.
But hey, keep killing civvies and stuff. I'm sure it'll all work out.
But hey, keep killing civvies and stuff. I'm sure it'll all work out.
So how do you deal with ISIS right now without a lot of civilians dying?
I know it's complex, it's why deaths in Syria balloned after Trump took over and changed the rules of engagement. I'm just saying your idea of complexity is simple minded nonsense
In Raqqa? Spycraft and special forces.
In other, less entrenched regions? Boots on the ground and lots of financial and resource aid for the government, along with close cooperation with Iran and Russia.
Followed by massive reconstruction everywhere.
We already have a ton of special forces with the SDF who is attacking Raqqa... And you don't think we are already using all the 'spycraft' we can?
The SDF is effectively our boots on the ground but boots on the ground use artillery and airstrikes and they kill civilians too with their small arms so that doesn't solve the problem.
astroturfing
Member
the American President said he wanted to kill innocents (the families of islamic terrorists).
Even if someone agrees with this line of thinking, how does it answer what should be done now?
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Special forces? What, you think we can solid snake the entire city's army?
benjipwns
Banned
I think we tried this in a neighboring country.
Yes, and the surge worked. The problem was that we weren't willing to commit to it. It's when we prematurely left that ISIS rose up to fill the void.
benjipwns
Banned
We left when our agreement with the Iraqi government asked us to. (We actually stayed longer, but mostly left per the agreement.)
Thread about mass killings of civilian by US?
- "Human Shields" : check
- "ISIS is a monster, you can't negotiate with them" - Check
- "What else should we do?" - Check
- "Hey guys don't know much about politics but I hope we kill all them ISIS fuckers" - Check
- "But we aren't as bad as Russia" Check
- "That's all on Trump" - Check
The most hilarious thing I ever read here was first people arguing that Trump was insane, then, after Hillary supported his decision, argued that she would have done the same but different, because only Trump would do bad, hawkish, shoot-first foreign policy.
- "Human Shields" : check
- "ISIS is a monster, you can't negotiate with them" - Check
- "What else should we do?" - Check
- "Hey guys don't know much about politics but I hope we kill all them ISIS fuckers" - Check
- "But we aren't as bad as Russia" Check
- "That's all on Trump" - Check
The most hilarious thing I ever read here was first people arguing that Trump was insane, then, after Hillary supported his decision, argued that she would have done the same but different, because only Trump would do bad, hawkish, shoot-first foreign policy.
Beardz
Member
So what are you proposing? That US ignores the requests of Iraq Army, SDF and other allies for air support and just sits on their asses? That we send tons more troops to fight on the ground?
As far as I'm aware, US isn't dropping bombs just for funsies, they are coordinating with ISF and SDF on where to strike and when to strike.
Dropping bombs isn't great, but air support is probably one of the biggest advantages that our allies have against ISIS. I hope that USA would get involved in less conflicts in the future, but I also kind of feel like USA should've reacted more quickly against ISIS. It's ridicolous how fast ISIS captured like half of Iraq and Syria around 2014.
This is exactly my stance and the problem. It's the same reason Hamas keep being able to indoctrinate more young palestinian males in Palestine to fight for their cause. You cannot defeat terrorism with violence. Violence leads to more terrorism.
ISIS exist at the scale they do now for instance because of the illegal war in Iraq and events like the bombing in Syria is only going to make it easier for them to recruit people.
benjipwns
Banned
But what are you proposing? Other than a never ending intervention?
Because any adjustment in deployment of U.S. force will automatically alter the power distribution in any location. Which creates a ratchet of an argument that only goes one way.
And that has a tremendous cost.
If all we're doing is propping up failed states because the alternative is their failure becoming more obvious then what are we accomplishing for that cost? What allies and enemies are we making and on what terms?
What if we shifted entirely to one-time punitive destruction that was our power unleashed utterly on a selected and specific foe? A one time coupon with a clear expiration. "But no, then they'll know to just wait it out/that will leave a vacuum in the wake." Right?
So never ending intervention it is because we're still stuck in a domino theory mentality.
Because any adjustment in deployment of U.S. force will automatically alter the power distribution in any location. Which creates a ratchet of an argument that only goes one way.
And that has a tremendous cost.
If all we're doing is propping up failed states because the alternative is their failure becoming more obvious then what are we accomplishing for that cost? What allies and enemies are we making and on what terms?
What if we shifted entirely to one-time punitive destruction that was our power unleashed utterly on a selected and specific foe? A one time coupon with a clear expiration. "But no, then they'll know to just wait it out/that will leave a vacuum in the wake." Right?
So never ending intervention it is because we're still stuck in a domino theory mentality.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Sigh. I don't even know what else to say.
I think part of the reason this gets ignored is that people don't want to deal with the harsh reality of the situation there.
Don't get me wrong, obviously there's bias in the media in not reporting these things. Me personally, I sometimes want to avoid hearing all these tragedies, because ignorance is bliss. I know it's a really shitty mindset. It's just so depressing and hopeless when you hear about what's going on with these poor people.
I think part of the reason this gets ignored is that people don't want to deal with the harsh reality of the situation there.
Don't get me wrong, obviously there's bias in the media in not reporting these things. Me personally, I sometimes want to avoid hearing all these tragedies, because ignorance is bliss. I know it's a really shitty mindset. It's just so depressing and hopeless when you hear about what's going on with these poor people.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
People saying "There is no other ways" are creepy. Like, there is no other way to drop white phosphorous on highly populated area ? Really ?
I understand that civilians would always dies in those kind of conflict, but every armed force have accountabilities for those losses. This kind of "wait, do you prefer 6 months of siege?" remind me the discussion around Hiroshima. We are talking about war crimes, but it's ok if we can wrap it up more quickly. Let's cut the BS here, we all know it's because US army don't want to risk any men in this conflict.
I understand that civilians would always dies in those kind of conflict, but every armed force have accountabilities for those losses. This kind of "wait, do you prefer 6 months of siege?" remind me the discussion around Hiroshima. We are talking about war crimes, but it's ok if we can wrap it up more quickly. Let's cut the BS here, we all know it's because US army don't want to risk any men in this conflict.
MisterFalcon
Member
What about all the families of the Kurds and Shia that have been murdered by ISIS in their war of extermination, they will simply have to accept that they can never defeat ISIS as this will just create more Sunni extremists ? That's a hard argument to make, especially as so many of ISIS' victims did not die during fighting but were blown up in mosques and markets or gruesomely killed in mass executions put on Youtube to get more recruits.
AcademicSaucer
Member
The media has brainwashed the population , from series and movies to news and magazines.
I'd counter that it isn't even the US. Go back to the British and French who carved this shit up with a pen decades prior.
They are only using them for smokescreens, they aren't using it at people.
/s
Agent Orange in Vietnam only gave evil communists birth defects and lifelong health problems, so it was ok.
Depleted Uranium is completely safe to breathe.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Nobody is saying that military action against ISIS is wrong.
The issue is the method. In the same way, i think that armed resistance against US occupation is legitimate but not by any means.
A noble goal don't mean that any means are acceptables.
MisterFalcon
Member
I've asked several times how the attack on Raqqa is supposed to be done given the military capabilities of ISIS. Apart from 'special forces' like this is Bin Laden's compound but a little bigger nothing has come up, mostly just repeating lists of the evils of the West.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
And several time it was replied "by not throwing white phosphorous" or others terribles and prohibited weapons. I don't understand what so difficult. If the US army by mistake hundreds of civilians, it's their mistake. They should be blamed for it. If not, it's just a free pass to do whatever.
It's just a bad situation and there is no good solution. Iraqi and kurdish militias are sectarian/racists and were accused of numerous abuses (ethnic cleansing, rape, extra-judicial killing of non-combatant..) by HR organisations like Amnesty International. The West is bombing ISIS out, helping those militias to get in, with often terrible consequences for the local population. Something is really wrong and it will blow up our faces in the next years. They should have used sunni arab militia for a sunni arab zone like Raqqa.
Similar threads
- Locked