Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Jul 20, 2016.
Great strategy. We're creating more sympathy for ISIS than all of their own propaganda.
(CNN)A U.S- led coalition in Syria has killed more than 100 civilians since June and wounded dozens more in airstrikes in and around the ISIS-controlled city of Manbij, according to several human rights groups.
The Manbij area is the last large tract of land along Syria's northern border with Turkey under ISIS control, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Considered a strategic supply point between Raqqa and Turkey, it has become the site of intense fighting since a U.S.-backed alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias entered the city in June.
Though accounts vary, several human rights group said airstrikes this week killed dozens of people, pushing the death toll past 100.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, based in the United Kingdom, said that on Tuesday, airstrikes killed 56 people, including 11 children, in the countryside north of Manbij.
Citing accounts from local activists and documentary evidence, Amnesty International said airstrikes on nearby al-Tukhar village Monday and Tuesday killed at least 60 men, women and children in their homes.
The National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces said strikes in Manbij and al-Tukhar killed 95 people, and a number of civilians remained trapped under building rubble.
The groups condemned the attacks and called on coalition forces to step up efforts to prevent civilian deaths.
"The bombing of al-Tukhar may have resulted in the largest loss of civilian life by coalition operations in Syria. There must be a prompt, independent and transparent investigation to determine what happened, who was responsible, and how to avoid further needless loss of civilian life," said Magdalena Mughrabi, interim deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Amnesty International.
"Anyone responsible for violations of international humanitarian law must be brought to justice and victims and their families should receive full reparation."
Col. Chris Garver, a spokesman for the U.S. military program charged with fighting ISIS, confirmed that airstrikes were conducted Monday near Manbij. He said the coalition was aware of the allegations and reviewing information.
The U.S.-backed alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias known as the Syrian Democratic Forces launched the offensive in June. The operation aims to keep ISIS fighters from crossing into Turkey and ensure that foreign fighters cannot enter Syria.cnn
This isn't winning the hearts and minds.
IT'S OK, at least Obama stopped Assad from killing them, how dare Assad kill civilians when that is Obama's job?
I do appreciate that our casualties are finally getting some coverage, the question becomes why now? What changed that the media actually feels they should be covering these deaths? Was it the horrifically skewed (low) official casualty rates that were released a few weeks ago?
I submit that the media has been covering casualties in Syria for years, but you haven't been paying attention.
I believe the member refers to U.S.-caused civilian casualties.
Right, but the media doesn't just cover one aspect of a war like this.
But, we could also read about civilian casualties here here and here.
still better than the number of civilian casualties caused by ISIS. We could always pay more taxes to develop a smarter bomb, or people could sign away their life like I did and be a little bit more surgical about it. I'm pretty sure the 12 year old girls getting gang raped by ISIS didn't care we dropped a bomb on them. They probably prayed and begged for it. It is sad that we killed innocent civilians and I wish there was a better way to go in and limit our own casualties while still protecting the civilians of the ISIS infested areas.
Some insight, if the entire city decided they wanted to overthrow ISIS they could. Instead they let the cards fall where they may and look at the US like "why aren't you doing anything."
Obama freed them from Assad.
There are two important questions: first, can the U.S. do better to discriminate between targets? Are civilian casualties the result of sloppiness or happenstance? Second, is the U.S. government understating the number of civilian casualties to make a political argument?
I suspect that we'll head toward a different argument based on the OP, which is, why is the U.S. involved in Syria in the first place? And, I think you answer that question.
Honestly I do not understand how you could criticise current policy for causing civilian casualties but think nukes are a good idea.
I didn't say it was a good idea. I said it makes military sense. So does Putin's brand of hybrid warfare in Ukraine and Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
He gets his military information from the Russia Times, Russia Today, and affiliated propaganda websites. Hence he always approves of Putin's military strategies, but disparages those of the US.
OK - apologies for my misunderstanding.
no memes here yet?? slackers
Well, although the outcome is the same their is the matter of intent. Unless you are suggesting that the US intentionally bombs civilians or callously disregards their safety?
not sure the dead care about it.
Russia owns Crimea, Russia controls most of Eastern Ukraine, and Russia's client Assad remains firmly in power. Clearly Putin's military strategies are working.
Have the US met a single strategic military goal? I can't think of one.
To give you my best opinion on can the US do a better job discerning targets:
A couple of things to note:
1) Targets are not always available
2) Civs are everywhere
3) The longer targets are alive, the potentially greater loss in civs around them.
Lets say over a course of 1 year, 1 target kills 50 people, it's been a constant for the past 3 years, 1 target has kill 150 people total. So how many civilians should get killed trying to kill this 1 target, I'd say that < 15 civs could be killed trying to kill this target.
Lets go on a more grandeur scale. How many civilians is acceptable to kill in order to kill 25 terrorists? If you go on my math above 25 terrorist * 15 civs = 375 civs. Big numbers look evil. However, if the military has the opportunity to kill 25 terrorist before they can each kill 15 civs, we saved lives further down the road. In other words if all 25 terrorist combined have killed an average of 10 civs each while only killing 50 civilians, you have saved the lives of 75 other people. (25 * 10 = 250 + 50 = 300. 375 - 300 = 75 surviving civs who would have died otherwise.)
When you look at this stuff it is very relatable to the ethical trolley problem. For those who don't know it here you go:
A trolley has lost it's breaks and is going down hill, there are 5 construction workers at the bottom of the hill. You can switch the track to go down a different street, but in doing so you will kill a person who's foot is trapped in the trolley rails.
Flip the switch and be the one who sealed the fate of the trapped person
Do nothing as to not feel the guilt of the trapped person's death
There are other versions past this involving little boy or girl, or a loved family member, but that doesn't apply here.
This is the side effect of the "drone war." Without troops on the ground gathering and processing intelligence, innocents die.
Whether the air strikes are controlled from a trailer in Virginia, or a pilot in the cockpit, if that's the extent of your involvement, civilian casualties are to be expected.
"Any one who runs is a VC. Any one that stands still is a well disciplined VC."
We have no business being there.
And you know this as a truth because every time we have troops on the ground no civilians are killed? Man are you ever confused. Ever since WWII more civilians have died than combat soldiers. Hell, today you can't tell civilians from soldiers. Why you think we came up with terms like enemy combatants.
Clearly the ISIS strategy should be to surround themselves with children.
Evenly spaced thermonuclear warheads will eliminate indigenous ISIS infestation and provide a level glass like surface for the returning refugees to rebuild their homes, when Europe has it's fill and sends them back.