Support NeoGAF

[Miles Quaritch]

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

So it wasn't a trap set by IS.

I don't know if we'll ever get the full story, but I do know it's easier to assuage our collective concious and say that IS were the ones who set this up and caused their deaths.

As for those claiming this is war, that's not really a sensible counter-argument. Suicide bombers, when they used to leave video messages, used to use that excuse too...

 

[MKIL65]

For fuck sake America. Stop killing innocent people!

''Why would they live there? It's their fault. We're just trying to stop ISIS!''

''We have made so much progress... Except we haven't.''

 

[MrGerbils]

"How to make more terrorists" - Trump Administration.

and Obama and Bush and Clinton and....

 

[Dai101]

"How to make more terrorists" - Trump Administration.

Hhmmm....

"How to make more terrorists" - American Foreign Policy

Now that's the right one.

 

[Tezzeractor]

For people who are saying that the US should not have bombed the building without knowing exactly what was inside: how exactly are they supposed to do that?

Has NeoGAF invented a Star Trek Life Signs Detector? Because the US military do not have Science Fiction Bullshit universal scanners that can penetrate layers of concrete from hundreds of meters away.

I don't think such extreme tech is necessary. Couldn't we just send quadracopter-type drones with night vision cameras? Or would that be too loud? I don't know. I just feel like something could have, and should have been done to avoid this.

 

[Fularu]

I hope we're getting the same amount of scepticism and criticism towards the US for this strike as we were getting when the Syrians and the Russians were claiming the building they hit had chemicals inside it.

Because that's prety much the exact same excuse beeing used here

 

[Hoo-doo]

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.

Thing is, most would instantly disagree with the bolded.

 

[_Nemo]

I hope we're getting the same amount of scepticism and criticism towards the US for this strike as we were getting when the Syrians and the Russians were claiming the building they hit had chemicals inside it.

Because that's prety much the exact same excuse beeing used here

Nah, we're the US, we're always the good guys.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Thing is, most would instantly disagree with the bolded.

If that's truly the case, then our society is worthy of collapse.

Knee jerk reaction? I'll admit I'd expect it. But with adequate time for reflection, I would hope not.

 

[Kin5290]

I don't think such extreme tech is necessary. Couldn't we just send quadracopter-type drones with night vision cameras? Or would that be too loud? I don't know. I just wish something could've been done to avoid this, and I feel like something could have been done as well.

Those things are loud, and the enemy has guns. It's not like quadcopter drones are impervious to bullet fire. And that doesn't change the fact that its hard to look into a building to see what's inside, assuming that the windows aren't covered, or that important things might be in rooms that don't have windows.

Up until the US security state develops some kind of panopticon that can see every corner of a city at every minute indefinitely, I don't see how the Army could have achieved the level of perfect intelligence over the battlefield that would tell you that 1) the enemy moved large amounts of explosives into the building days or weeks before any friendly eyes laid eyes onto the building, or 2) civilians were holed up in the building as well

 

[Wenger'sBakedBaguettes]

I hope we're getting the same amount of scepticism and criticism towards the US for this strike as we were getting when the Syrians and the Russians were claiming the building they hit had chemicals inside it.

Because that's prety much the exact same excuse beeing used here

more or less. To be fair ISIS does use human shields regularly, and they rig up the homes with explosives to inflict as much destruction and casualties as possible. It's slowed down the operations and fights against ISIS plenty of times which both Iraq/US has admitted. It's not really any different from how the west's moderate jihadist beheaders in Syria use human shields against Syrians and Russians. In the end you get a mixture of both...times when you care and times when you don't give a shit to get a few targets. We've seen it here, and we've seen it being done by US, Syria and Russia in Syria as well. Lots of reactions here are disgusting tho, people are easily susceptible to geopolitics without realizing it.

 

[Arkage]

If that's truly the case, then our society is worthy of collapse.

Knee jerk reaction? I'll admit I'd expect it. But with adequate time for reflection, I would hope not.

Countries prioritize and value the lives of their own citizens higher than non-citizens constantly, in a myriad of ways beyond just war. But specific to that, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings killed massive numbers of civilians on purpose, and is typically viewed as more ethical than using American soldiers to fight a long, drawn out war with Japanese troops that would cause massive casualties. "All lives are equally valuable" doesn't really have any legs to stand on when in the context of war.

Also not sure why so many in here are criticizing the US when the people on the ground calling the strike in were Iraqis. I mean, unless you want the US to get more involved in Iraq conflict, which I'm not sure you do, placing the blame at their feet seems misguided.

 

[Brakke]

I don't think such extreme tech is necessary. Couldn't we just send quadracopter-type drones with night vision cameras?

"just"

 

[Moff]

I hope we're getting the same amount of scepticism and criticism towards the US for this strike as we were getting when the Syrians and the Russians were claiming the building they hit had chemicals inside it.

Because that's prety much the exact same excuse beeing used here

propaganda has primed most people to think "russia doesn't give a fuck about civilians" and "the US do all they can to prevent collateral damage, it's the terrorists fault"
if the outcome is the same, does it matter? do we even always have enough facts to judge the situation?

in the end, I think it doesn't matter. if you believe in good and evil you are already a victim of propaganda. we have superpowers fighting for resources as efficiently as they can, and that means plenty of brown people dying for a long time.

 

[thehypocrite]

So armed fighters had bombs and ammo that detonated? I'm blown away by this revelation.

 

[Tezzeractor]

Those things are loud, and the enemy has guns. It's not like quadcopter drones are impervious to bullet fire.

Yeah, that's what thought. Still think that some form of scouting robot is a potential solution though.

"just"

I don't mean to imply there's a simple solution, even if that's exactly what I implied... But I think there's more we could be doing.

 

[RenditMan]

At this point I have no idea how Gaddafi and Hussain managed to keep control of their countries with the relatively low death counts they had.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

At this point I have no idea how Gaddafi and Hussain managed to keep control of their countries with the relatively low death counts they had.

Fear, retribution, and swift totalitarian attacks.

 

[Lenz44]

At this point I have no idea how Gaddafi and Hussain managed to keep control of their countries with the relatively low death counts they had.

Hussain committed genocide on the Kurds among other things. What's your definition of "low"?

 

[RenditMan]

Fear, retribution, and swift totalitarian attacks.

Whoever takes over will have to behave the same way. The whole place is a perpetual boiling pot.

 

[RenditMan]

Hussain committed genocide on the Kurds among other things. What's your definition of "low"?

Relative to today.

 

[Kin5290]

Relative to today.

Yea, verily, no civilians were killed during the Iran-Iraq war that was happening at that time.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Relative to today.

I doubt that. He killed roughly half a million to a million people.

 

[Jumeira]

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.

US knowingly pulled the trigger though, we're supposed to hold the moral high ground, the point is we've been fighting like this for decades and it's got worse, ISIS was formed from our wars, they were born on the battlefield we created, we're not changing things for the better, how many lives have we discarded with a single flick of a button? You think that doesn't have an impact on the people there? It's a forum post for you, expendable for the greater good, but it's loved ones for them, entire family's gone. That sentiment takes hold and echos all over the world and is enough to trigger someone much closer to us. If we do get ISIS, another will form, it's really down to regional forces to do thier thing and we need to empower them but not involve ourselves. Might be slow but at least there a possible end to this.

 

[Fried Food]

So how long till the next terrorist attack?

 

[rokkerkory]

So upsetting and sad RIP

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Good lord, these airstrikes need to end, i'm starting to lean towards boots on the ground

 

[wilsonda]

Not sure how the us ends up the bad guys on this... no idea that civilians were there or that there were other explosives. if anything this type of action should not create fighters against the west but should really create fighters against isis. Remember that the bombing was in support of a request made by the local forces...

Imagine the scenario reversed. You family is trapped by radical religious soldiers in some building in sometown,usa. There are local US forces fighting but they call in support from allied forces, say we have Canadian bombers make the strike.

Would you be more upset at the canadians bombers or the radical soldiers that held up purposely in that building to ensure collateral damage?

Tragic loss of life

 

[Amory]

in the end, I think it doesn't matter. if you believe in good and evil you are already a victim of propaganda. we have superpowers fighting for resources as efficiently as they can, and that means plenty of brown people dying for a long time.

ISIS are the ones intentionally trying to get civilians killed to further their cause. A strong argument can be made that the US isn't doing enough to prevent collateral damage, and no, the US isn't categorically "good". But to say we just don't care about innocent people dying because they're "brown people" in the way of "resources" is idiotic.

We're not the ones pushing innocents into harms way. We're not the ones holding them hostage in war zones. It's ISIS doing that, and they're doing it because they're fucking evil. They do evil things. Their stated goal is to literally take over the world. That's not propaganda, it's a fact.

 

[Imperfected]

I don't think such extreme tech is necessary. Couldn't we just send quadracopter-type drones with night vision cameras? Or would that be too loud? I don't know. I just feel like something could have, and should have been done to avoid this.

If someone's calling in an airstrike on a sniping position it's because there are people up there actively sniping, ie, murdering people right this moment. It's not really a situation where you get to putz around with gee-whiz spy tech for a week or two trying to gather intel.

The basic question to be answered in this situation is whether or not the Iraqi forces are disciplined and qualified enough to have the responsibility of calling in coalition airstrikes. That's a hard choice that has to be made on the ground, using the limited data available in the situation and often a healthy dose of raw instinct, which is why outside of extreme emergencies it usually clears through several levels of the chain of command when US soldiers need to do it.

Unfortunately, the reality is that there's no way for the coalition forces to advance without losses beyond what they're reasonably able to sustain without some degree of air support. Two snipers in a hardened fighting position can kill hundreds or even thousands of soldiers and stop an entire advance cold for days or even weeks; there are actually many famous instances of this throughout WW2 and other conflicts.

 

[Kin5290]

Good lord, these airstrikes need to end, i'm starting to lean towards boots on the ground

Ignoring that the local allies who are fighting to liberate their city don't want American boots on the ground in large numbers.

Also, there were already boots on the ground. They're the ones who called in the airstrike, because infantry have tons of difficulty in assaulting urban objectives without fire support.

 

[Xando]

Another 35

#BREAKING US-led strikes kill 35 civilians in east Syria: monitor

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/867852748540092416

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Another 35


https://twitter.com/AFP/status/867852748540092416

It never ends

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

It never ends

You got that right, and it's being done while we ban their refugees, which is just abhorrent.

 

[Swig_]

I couldn't even imagine living in a place where things like this happen. The whole situation is just depressing.

 

[PixlNinja]

Tragic and will go unnoticed by most just like the rest. Just pull every resource we have out of the Middle East and forget it exists. That part of the world has no chance, and the USA's presence only makes it worse.

 

[ahoyhoy]

You got that right, and it's being done while we ban their refugees, which is just abhorrent.

It's incredibly hypocritical of our government to forbid refugees while bombing their homes while they're practically held Hostage.

It's such a fucked up situation.

 

[Dopus]

Tragic and will go unnoticed by most just like the rest. Just pull every resource we have out of the Middle East and forget it exists. That part of the world has no chance, and the USA's presence only makes it worse.

It's a mess in part by US interventionism. It hasn't been left alone by meddling powers to the point that the entire region has been slowly but surely torn apart.

 

[Imperfected]

The refugees in this situation almost certainly were not there because of the US ban, as even if they were unable to go to the US they would have almost certainly been on the "anywhere but here" ticket if it were any sort of option for them. The odds are anyone left in Mosul at this point couldn't or wouldn't leave under any circumstances.

Though, just in terms of how spiteful and wrong-headed it is, I agree that calling for war to liberate a people and not accepting refugees from among those people is gob-smacking.

 

[Warm Machine]

Tragic and will go unnoticed by most just like the rest. Just pull every resource we have out of the Middle East and forget it exists. That part of the world has no chance, and the USA's presence only makes it worse.

I agree. No point in pissing around propagating this kind of war. Let them sort it out and only supply relief aid, not military.

 

[Demoskinos]

Yeah,totally out there saving lives by battling ISIS. Real easy to just murder civilians when you don't have to stare a bunch of dead children in the eyes.

Like seriously, now how many more vengeful people who lost family members in those attacks just turned into ISIS fighters willingly after those attacks?

Its no wonder so many people hate America.

 

[dakun]

at this point can we say that the US government does not mind creating new terrorists? or even go as far to say that it's their goal to create an endless war?

I mean we've known now for many years that many of these air strikes kill more civilians than terrorists. At this point we can't assume incompetence.

 

[LQX]

Terrible. But no doubt ISIS uses civilians as distractions. No way you're going to tell me civilians, on their free-will, are taking cover in buildings with explosives and snipers stationed in it. These people are far to use to war to be doing that.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Terrible. But no doubt ISIS uses civilians as distractions. No way you're going to tell me civilians, on their free-will, are taking cover in buildings with explosives and snipers stationed in it. These people are far to use to war to be doing that.

More than 250 civilians were killed by US-led coalition airstrikes the past month BEFORE this accident.
The truth is that the current conflict is taking place in a highly density area. If you're going to drop bombs on a building, you will kill 5,10,50,100 innocents people with it.
The "they use civilians as human shield" is just BS to keep the moral high ground. Maybe it's true in this particular incident, we will never know. But it's always used to justify US acts of mass-killing. Of course, what would they said ?

I don't say we should just do nothing against ISIS, i am saying that is not the solution. It's a complicated situation with no good solution. But i believe that the worst one is to send those bombs. I rather have a longer conflict which imply more soldiers dying than all those civilians getting killed on a daily basis.

 

[poodaddy]

America is doing wonders for ISIS recruitment I imagine. Fuck, this shit is shameful and embarrassing, and I say that as a vet.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm no military expert, but is using air strikes in urban warfare really necessary with the amount of civilian casualties it brings? It's war zone, ISIS uses civilians as a shield, but damn, throwing bombs at buildings doesn't seem to be the way to go here.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

at this point can we say that the US government does not mind creating new terrorists? or even go as far to say that it's their goal to create an endless war?

I mean we've known now for many years that many of these air strikes kill more civilians than terrorists. At this point we can't assume incompetence.

The people making the decisions will never suffer from terrorism, it's the common person taking the bus or the subway that it's going to die from terrorists attacks.

 

[Extra Sauce]

This is why the war on islamic terrorism will never end. And the military industrial complex likes it just that way.

 

[ZarKryn7]

Yup. Just imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. If someone other country bombed a supermarket or public place and killed your family, what would you do?

Eren Yeager

 

[Jzero]

That's why everyone hates America