-
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.
US confirms their air strike on ISIS killed 105 civilians, the target was 2 snipers
- Thread starter AcademicSaucer
- Start date
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Every time a terrorist attack happens and kills tens of people, we hear people saying things like:
"These people don't care about their actions, their only concern is to win the war they are waging and killing innocents is justified to them if it means victory"
But, how is this any different?
The Manchester bomber killed women and children, but....
Trump's FIRST green lit (super master top secret sneak attack) military operation ended up with dead women and children.
A little while after that allied forces did two bombing runs in a week in Syria, that killed hundreds of innocents each time......and this was JUST before the chemical weapons attack..
Now this?
We're not even half way through the year yet.
Is difference in intent all it takes for the world to dismiss thousands of dead civilians in the middle east at allied hands?
"These people don't care about their actions, their only concern is to win the war they are waging and killing innocents is justified to them if it means victory"
Sounds familiar.....
Maybe we don't LIKE killing innocents, but we definitely do like pretending that it matters to anything except our ability to sleep at night.
"These people don't care about their actions, their only concern is to win the war they are waging and killing innocents is justified to them if it means victory"
But, how is this any different?
The Manchester bomber killed women and children, but....
Trump's FIRST green lit (super master top secret sneak attack) military operation ended up with dead women and children.
A little while after that allied forces did two bombing runs in a week in Syria, that killed hundreds of innocents each time......and this was JUST before the chemical weapons attack..
Now this?
We're not even half way through the year yet.
Is difference in intent all it takes for the world to dismiss thousands of dead civilians in the middle east at allied hands?
"These people don't care about their actions, their only concern is to win the war they are waging and killing innocents is justified to them if it means victory"
Sounds familiar.....
Maybe we don't LIKE killing innocents, but we definitely do like pretending that it matters to anything except our ability to sleep at night.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
2996 is over 28 times the number of people that died in that building. Let that sink in.
It's harmful, pointless, and entirely incorrect to call the United States the "terrorists" here. That's exactly what ISIS wants to legitimize themselves. You only serve to help ISIS when you ignore the nuance and make stupid statements.
And_Gignac
Member
War is just so difficult!
There's no easy answer when it comes to killing non European descendant civilians!
We are totally not perceiving the lives of civilian Iraqis as less valuable!
There is no easy answer because the fire is raging and out of control. It's going to keep burning but there are ways to minimise the effects. Make no mistake though, it's a catastrophe already. The best way would be to arrange talks between the coalition, Assad, Russia, and Iran. Firstly to arrange a ceasefire between the rebel groups and government, secondly to discuss a peace deal and a transitional state after Assad leaves. There was one proposed in 2012 that was rejected by the West. We don't know if this could have got anywhere, but it was never even explored. There was an opportunity that was dismissed.
Talks with Turkey also need to happen due to the Kurdish problems they face south of their border. It's not in Turkey's interests to have a Kurdish state.
The problem with the conflict in Syria is that it's effectively the battleground for a number of wars and proxy wars. There are a lot of interests there all competing and fighting for dominance. And then when ISIS is thrown into the mix is truly complicates it even further. ISIS are on the retreat, that's one thing to make clear. Logistical support and intelligence should be provided along with arms to specific groups like the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces. That's already happening. There will be many more civilian deaths to come as ISIS are boxed in further and further.
Try and let the effects of US foreign policy in the region the last few decades sink in.
JigglesBunny
Banned
Fuck me, this churns my stomach. If we need to take military action, we need boots on the ground. Enough with the fucking bombs. There's no precision, far too much collateral damage and innocents are losing their lives over a war they have no business in.
ErasureAcer
Banned
This. This whole kill the terrorist thing will never end.
Your excused.. Too many of you are talking like you know the best way to eradicate a sniper nest and I find it really annoying. In war the obvious goal is to wipe out your enemy and if you can, with the least amount of casualties. Gone are the days where sane people are going banzai charge a sniper nest and it is an impossibility to know when civilians are in an area at all times.
The fault is more on the soldiers letting or putting civilians in a building with hundreds of pounds of explosive ordnance and 2 snipers using it as a nest.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
This topic and the half-hearted reaction is a great illustration of how people really don't care about terrorism or civilians getting killed when they are not "like us".
We are speaking about almost the same amount of people getting killed in the Bataclan. And not from a bloodthirsty band of bandit like ISIS, but from a regular army pretending to be the guardians of the world. The standard shouldn't not be the same.
Taking off snipers with air strike in highly populated area sound like a responsible thing to do ? We all know why they do that: they don't want to risk americans lives.
We are speaking about almost the same amount of people getting killed in the Bataclan. And not from a bloodthirsty band of bandit like ISIS, but from a regular army pretending to be the guardians of the world. The standard shouldn't not be the same.
Taking off snipers with air strike in highly populated area sound like a responsible thing to do ? We all know why they do that: they don't want to risk americans lives.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
Civilians will die with boots on the ground too. It's either pacifism or civilian deaths. At some point you need to let go of the morals and assess what's better long term; eradicate ISIS or allow them to prosper.
I don't like it but I'd take the first option, but then again I'm a freedom loving atheist.
Both sides are not the same, but irresponsible decisions also take lives by the hundreds.
Yup. This will just motivate more disgusting extremists to bomb crowds of innocent people.
TheRealTalker
Banned
were the other civilian deaths in Raqqa bad luck too?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40037169
or the others
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...ians-fleeing-syria-raqqa-170425043623186.html
or others
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/22/dozens-dead-in-us-led-syria-airstrike-al-mansoura
The only one that does more carnage in Syria is Assad and then Deash/ISIS
SamuelSupreme
Banned
Wow...evil is really all about perspective. Because I would be pissed if this kept happening to my home and people. When do we stop being the heroes and realize to a good majority of the world America is the villain?
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
So much #winning
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Not in the same amount, at all.
Civilians casualties cannot be avoided in modern conflict, but you can make them in the hundreds or in the hundreds of thousands. What killed most civilians in the Syrian civil war ? Airstrike. What killed most civilians in the second iraq war? Air strike.
EatinOlives
Member
Who said this is the only factor at play here?
Vermillion
Banned
Yeah. It seems like this wasn't incompetence - they just didn't predict that their smaller weapon would set off larger explosives.
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
I'd rather the U.S. drastically cut the military budget and declare a War on Cancer. Give that money to science.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Unfortunately things like this are bound to happen, and I know this isn't the first administration where something like this has occurred, but why do I get a strange feeling that we are being a lot more careless now with Trump as President? I mean, you can pretty much see how the propaganda writes itself, with the death toll being far greater than what took place in the Manchester bombing.
SuperBanana
Banned
Yep, I'm sure that won't create any resentment towards America and lure people into radicalism. Noooo sir.
TheRealTalker
Banned
Looks at this thread
looks at other non US or Nato civilian casualty threads
you guys can condemn both you know, stop trying to defend this BS
looks at other non US or Nato civilian casualty threads
you guys can condemn both you know, stop trying to defend this BS
Mohonky
Member
So why do they keep using airstikes? You know why. Its the most effective means of offence that minimises casualties on your side.
War is numbers. Always has been since we could pick up a spear.
What is the objective? How many people are we prepared to lose to achieve it? How many civilians are we prepared to kill to achieve it?
You contrast that with how many lives you potentially could save by ending the conflict as quickly as possible vs how many will be lost by inaction.
Its cold and clinical; but thats how it plays out and ISIS are using that to their benefit. No qualms with creating 'martyrs'. They lose 2 fighters but draw sympathy and test the reaolve of their opponent to even try taking them on by making them consider the costs.
This wasnt a mistake by ISIS, this is how they fight.
Dreams-Visions
Member
So we just don't give a damn anymore.
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.
Yup, cause everyone here expects the other side to go:
"Oh, you didn't know? Okay then. I lost my spouse, and kids but there's no way you could have known there were explosives in there right? And you did get those two snipers. Thank you so much!"
It doesn't matter if the US knew or not about the explosives, they bombed the place. Actions have consequences, foreseeable and unforeseeable. It's up to those who made the decision to own up to them.
The US bombed and they watched people die.
"Oh, you didn't know? Okay then. I lost my spouse, and kids but there's no way you could have known there were explosives in there right? And you did get those two snipers. Thank you so much!"
It doesn't matter if the US knew or not about the explosives, they bombed the place. Actions have consequences, foreseeable and unforeseeable. It's up to those who made the decision to own up to them.
The US bombed and they watched people die.
Vermillion
Banned
Things most people responding to this thread with anger missed:
- Requested by the Iraq Security Services
- The U.S. picked a weapon to MINIMIZE collateral damage
- The U.S. was unaware that there were any civilians in the building
- The weapon the U.S. fired did not kill the civilians; it was the explosives ISIS had in the building, set off by the U.S. weapon.
Can mods change the title or something? Pls
- Requested by the Iraq Security Services
- The U.S. picked a weapon to MINIMIZE collateral damage
- The U.S. was unaware that there were any civilians in the building
- The weapon the U.S. fired did not kill the civilians; it was the explosives ISIS had in the building, set off by the U.S. weapon.
Can mods change the title or something? Pls
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
Thank god some of you have no say in military matters, nothing would ever get accomplished against ISIS if you did.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
added one
I don't have a solution nor am I in the position to come up with one. Repeating the same tactic isn't working though no matter how much they try to say otherwise.
You and me both since it would be a billion times more productive use of that budget. And can easily save more actual lives in the long run. But fuck all that right? We're a war nation. We thrive and profit off of this shit like no other nation on Earth.
Ordinaryundone
Member
Ok buddy, go ahead and grab your rifle. I'll be right behind you while you charge that highly defensible position manned by snipers. We might lose 4, 5, maybe even 10 guys but hey, we'll get those snipers!
Sounds stupid right? Because it is. You don't risk your own soldiers lives when you have the means to destroy the enemy with the only cost being munitions. Real-life isn't Call of Duty, they aren't doing 360 no scopes over there. Besides, it was the Iraqi army that called for the air strike, not U.S. troops.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
It is working. Slowly, but it's having a huge impact on their ability to seize/hold territory in the region.
D1renegade
Member
Yikes
This story will be forgotten in a week. You won't see skyscrapers/tall structures lit up with the colors of the Mosul flag, in a statement of solidarity. You won't see #MosulStrong trending
This story will be forgotten in a week. You won't see skyscrapers/tall structures lit up with the colors of the Mosul flag, in a statement of solidarity. You won't see #MosulStrong trending
I really don't know why the US (and my UK) bothers even trying to fight them. Let them blow themselves up and NEVER give them prime recruitment material like this insane amount of civilian deaths, which to these civilians and their families must feel like it's own form of terrorism. Pretty sure they don't consider it collateral damage in a military operation, it's pure terrorism to them. No wonder folk get radicalised and do insanely evil things when they see this happening to their own people.
No one is in the right here.
No one is in the right here.
What did he mean by this?
Member
Trump continuing Obama's legacy
Randolph Freelander
Member
Conduct a poll to see what most of us "missed."
Lack of good intel isn't absolution for killing 100 innocents. If it was 100 Americans in that building and the airstrike was someone else's, no doubt we would be less forgiving.
Our lives are not more valuable than theirs. We should be angry when they die.
Mohonky
Member
No, its firepower.
If this was a conventional war, or noone was at all concerned about casualties, they would have lasted no more than days if casualties werent a consideration. ISIS would have been carpet bombed into oblivion.
But casualties are a factor, thats why this is so drawn out.
Heartbreaking.
I've always wondered what we do in the aftermath of these horrible situations.
Does the US government issue a formal apology to the families? Are there attempts to pay for the funeral arrangements or give some kind of wrongful death compensation?
Or is it all just chalked up to the fog of war and ignored.
I've always wondered what we do in the aftermath of these horrible situations.
Does the US government issue a formal apology to the families? Are there attempts to pay for the funeral arrangements or give some kind of wrongful death compensation?
Or is it all just chalked up to the fog of war and ignored.
AcademicSaucer
Member
So you are saying the Iraqis forced the US to do it? the US has no control over its own airforce?
Prototype Viktor
Member
Couple hundred, so even trade from a military contractor point of view
By all means, kill away. But then don't pretend to be a saint afterwards and that the opposition is the devil.
Randolph Freelander
Member
The Military Industrial Complex calls this "job security."
Similar threads
- Locked