Documenting western airstikes that kill civilians

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Actually everywhere you invade "ISIS" kinda type organizations will emerge. Whether you invade Afghanistan or Tunisia or Algeria or Indonesia. Its just a pathetic cyclical argument to say "yes we created ISIS with our policies but now we are forced to stay there and killing them permanently till they love us for our Hollywood movies"

So now that IS exists the US should just leave and allow IS to conquer these countries and commit mass genocide. Great solution Papay!

[Papay]

So now that IS exists the US should just leave and allow IS to conquer these countries and commit mass genocide. Great solution Papay!

US crimes are worst of ISIS crimes.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

US crimes are worst of ISIS crimes.

Tell that to the Yazidi's. Tell that to the Assyrians. Tell that to the Shiites. Tell that to the Alawites. Tell that to the LGBT who they threw off of roofs and executed.
Infact, allow me to ask: What you think would happen if IS was to capture a predominantly Shiite city?

[swabian]

@Papay: The US isn't responsible for ISIS or Al-Qaida. The former allies against Germany and Austria also weren't responsible for the cruelties of later national socialism. Your willingness to regard Muslim enemies of the West as a product of the latter that is lacking any significant capacity for respoponsibility is patronizing racism in my opinion.

[Vanoi]

Actually everywhere you invade "ISIS" kinda type organizations will emerge. Whether you invade Afghanistan or Tunisia or Algeria or Indonesia. Its just a pathetic cyclical argument to say "yes we created ISIS with our policies but now we are forced to stay there and killing them permanently till they love us for our Hollywood movies"

The IS was formed in 1999 in Iraq. No US policies involved. You again still offer no solution to them. But i am not surprised. You honestly tried to claim the US is worse than the IS.

Its pretty obvious at this point you simply oppose US intervention no matter who they are fighting or the consequences of leaving. You act like you care about the civilians in Syria and Iraq but you are more than ready to leave them to their fates if need be. Its pathetic.

[Papay]

Tell that to the Yazidi's. Tell that to the Assyrians. Tell that to the Shiites. Tell that to the Alawites. Tell that to the LGBT who they threw off of roofs and executed.
Infact, allow me to ask: What you think would happen if IS was to capture a predominantly Shiite city?

What happened when non-ISIS forces captured Mosul and leveled it murdering 40.000 civilians? I dont know. It is just a guess. Do you have any proof what will happen?

The IS was formed in 1999 in Iraq. No US policies involved. You again still offer no solution to them. But i am not surprised. You honestly tried to claim the US is worse than the IS.

Its pretty obvious at this point you simply oppose US intervention no matter who they are fighting or the consequences of leaving. You act like you care about the civilians in Syria and Iraq but you are more than ready to leave them to their fates if need be. Its pathetic.

Oh please spare me of that liberation complex. West uses the same argument 500 years now to justify any act of genocide and murder in the other side of the world.Whether its muslims or indians or Aborigines or whatever the west does always the same thing

1)Send forces to overthrow the local government and put their own corrupt puppets
2)Denounce any resistance(logical consequence of the invasion)as terrorists because "they target our peaceful troops"
3)Use propaganda to justify the slaughter on the basis that the locals are always barbarians. This tactic works because you control the propaganda and you brainwash your people to believe that the people you fight there are primitive bloodthirsty barbarians. It also satisfies the chauvinism of white people who will never accept that perhaps a black or brown civilization might have some positive elements you dont have.

[Chukada1]

Oh please spare me of that liberation complex. West uses the same argument 500 years now to justify any act of genocide and murder in the other side of the world.Whether its muslims or indians or Aborigines or whatever the west does always the same thing

1)Send forces to overthrow the local government and put their own corrupt puppets
2)Denounce any resistance(logical consequence of the invasion)as terrorists because "they target our peaceful troops"
3)Use propaganda to justify the slaughter on the basis that the locals are always barbarians. This tactic works because you control the propaganda and you brainwash your people to believe that the people you fight there are primitive bloodthirsty barbarians. It also satisfies the chauvinism of white people who will never accept that perhaps a black or brown civilization might have some positive elements you dont have.

Don't worry, interventionism in the middle east will stop soon. Just got to destroy Lebanon and Iran and they're done.

List of victories:

Afghanistan
Iraq
Syria
Sudan
Yemen
Palestine
Libya

[Vanoi]

Oh please spare me of that liberation complex. West uses the same argument 500 years now to justify any act of genocide and murder in the other side of the world.Whether its muslims or indians or Aborigines or whatever the west does always the same thing

Most Indians died of disease. Like over 90% of them in fact, not by genocide. You simply continue to talk out of your ass with zero knowledge of history. You do not care about the civilians dying. You only care to bash the intervention by the US.

Why never mention Russia or Syrian forces and there killing of civilians?

1)Send forces to overthrow the local government and put their own corrupt puppets

Afghanistan was technically in a civil war. Taliban never controlled the country.

2)Denounce any resistance(logical consequence of the invasion)as terrorists because "they target our peaceful troops"

Yes, lets forget the suicide and car bombings targeting civilian markets. Or attacks on girls going to school. I'm sure its all one big misunderstanding.

3)Use propaganda to justify the slaughter on the basis that the locals are always barbarians. This tactic works because you control the propaganda and you brainwash your people to believe that the people you fight there are primitive bloodthirsty barbarians. It also satisfies the chauvinism of white people who will never accept that perhaps a black or brown civilization might have some positive elements you dont have.

The Taliban are barbaric. Ask the Hazara people of Afghanistan what they think of them.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

What happened when non-ISIS forces captured Mosul and leveled it murdering 40.000 civilians? I dont know. It is just a guess. Do you have any proof what will happen?

What happened to the thousand+ year old Christian minority of Mosul after IS took over? there were about 100,000 of them there.
Every time IS had taken a city with Shiites living in it they separated the Sunni's from the Shiites and took the Shiites away for execution.
It doesn't take a genius to see a pattern. Yazidi's were genocided and it is well documented. IS kills anyone who is not Sunni.
You keep throwing around the number 40,000 killed in Mosul. But you know full well that that was not caused solely by the US. The Iraqi air force, other coalition countries (including Arab ones like Jordan) and Iraqi ground forces all caused these casualties. I doubt you can tell me the exact number caused by the US.

[Admiral Piett]

People keep feeding this thread which warrants no serious discussion or really any attention whatsoever. Any question you pose will be replied with another "Whataboutism" and goal post moved another 300 yards back to the place of origin. There's no reasoning to be found.

[Papay]

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/09/20/r...qqa-in-august/

US airstrikes have killed 433 civilians in Raqqah during August.

[NorseThing]

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/09/20/r...qqa-in-august/

US airstrikes have killed 433 civilians in Raqqah during August.

Is there even a point you are trying to make? Your linked article describes the problem as one of invasion into Raqqa. Isis was the invader, and now people are fighting back. Many civilians are being killed because Issis is simply using the civilians as human shields to save their own rear ends in what can only be described as a cowards defense.

A better link can be found with Amnesty International: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/24/middle...vilian-deaths/

[Papay]

Is there even a point you are trying to make? Your linked article describes the problem as one of invasion into Raqqa. Isis was the invader, and now people are fighting back. Many civilians are being killed because Issis is simply using the civilians as human shields to save their own rear ends in what can only be described as a cowards defense.

A better link can be found with Amnesty International: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/24/middle...vilian-deaths/

ISIS captured Raqqah almost without battle while US "liberators" have killed thousands civilians in and around Raqqah in the last months. I dont see how ISIS is worst than US and its allies. Bty the American war crimes wont make YPG more popular in the area. I am quite sure that even some YPG members have seen their relatives being blown up by US bombs

[NorseThing]

ISIS captured Raqqah almost without battle while US "liberators" have killed thousands civilians in and around Raqqah in the last months. I dont see how ISIS is worst than US and its allies. Bty the American war crimes wont make YPG more popular in the area. I am quite sure that even some YPG members have seen their relatives being blown up by US bombs

I still do not see the point you are trying to make. Are you claiming a false equivalence between the USA and ISIS for the acts that have taken place? I do not get it. Obviously any family dislikes or even hates the people who kill their own family members. This is true but not really a good debating point regarding ISIS or the USA actions. It is a war zone and that means many people are killed. Some by good intentions and some killed by those without any concern. It does not make it right, but I would rather the USA be concerned about civilian deaths than follow the ISIS pattern of killing all who are simply in the way of a greater glory to their vision of a perfect kingdom.

ISIS has lost the propaganda war. Are you fighting a lost war?

[Papay]

I still do not see the point you are trying to make. Are you claiming a false equivalence between the USA and ISIS for the acts that have taken place? I do not get it. Obviously any family dislikes or even hates the people who kill their own family members. This is true but not really a good debating point regarding ISIS or the USA actions. It is a war zone and that means many people are killed. Some by good intentions and some killed by those without any concern. It does not make it right, but I would rather the USA be concerned about civilian deaths than follow the ISIS pattern of killing all who are simply in the way of a greater glory to their vision of a perfect kingdom.

ISIS has lost the propaganda war. Are you fighting a lost war?

https://airwars.org/coalitioncivcas2017aug/

The monthly report of civilians killed by US bombs in Iraq and Syria. This is a loooooong read. A similar pattern exists in Afghanistan and Somalia were bombs are killing civilians on record numbers but western media are completely silent on this. I am curious when this eternal bombing will end? But i am afraid that US is becoming addicted on these types of wars(killing everyone from a distance. Good for industries that make more bombs, good for officers that justify their pensions on the argument that they are veterans, good for the morale of the American nation of killing massive amounts of human beings without Muricans suffering casualties)

[RubiconDecision]

Don't forget that FDR officially denounced aerial bombardment of civilians then began a policy orchestrated by Curtis Lemay which incinerated between 800,000-1.2 million Japanese citizens in WW2.

From that point on, aerial bombardment was perfectly acceptable in Korea, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9oXpN2Owg

None of which includes atomic weapons, bombies ie aerial dropping of land mines, or flechettes, nor germ warfare experiments via aerial bombardment in Korea. The flechettes were delivered by infantry, artillery, via tank,and by airplane and most often contained botulism toxin as well.Nor does it include civilian deaths by destroying dams and water supplies which killed as many indirectly. For example that was a major contributor of civilian deaths in the Gulf Wars admitted publically by Madeline Albright.

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/c...ivilians/iraqihttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cEtdw7Z04QQ

[NorseThing]

https://airwars.org/coalitioncivcas2017aug/

The monthly report of civilians killed by US bombs in Iraq and Syria. This is a loooooong read. A similar pattern exists in Afghanistan and Somalia were bombs are killing civilians on record numbers but western media are completely silent on this. I am curious when this eternal bombing will end? But i am afraid that US is becoming addicted on these types of wars(killing everyone from a distance. Good for industries that make more bombs, good for officers that justify their pensions on the argument that they are veterans, good for the morale of the American nation of killing massive amounts of human beings without Muricans suffering casualties)

On this we are at least in partial agreement. I dislike using any bombing (esp. the drones) as a complete substitute for actual combat troops. This is an easy out to show as a CIC that you care to fight, but ... This was why the Pres. Obama's get out rhetoric rang false with me since getting out and upping drone strikes is not really getting out. You can see with the current PBS Vietnam series that Johnson did not want the bombing and resisted the air force recommendations but in the end the bombing advocates won out. Just as the fixation on body counts was wrong, the bombing was not effective on it's own. We knew this after WWII was finished. Maybe it comes down to the Air Force just being a hammer looking and always finding nails. I do not know. However that does not mean most veterans supported the bombing.

I still do not get your purpose on focusing on only the American caused casualties though. The body counts are no more useful than when General Westmoreland used them decades ago to say 'we' were winning or at least the other side is losing more. To keep pointing out that the military is breaking things is only confirming what we expect to happen when the military is deployed. Killing civilians is regrettable, but not why the military is deployed no matter which side you support (assuming you support a side).

I will get off my old man rant now. Thanks for reading.

[RubiconDecision]

Actually wrong. Beginning with Franco bombing at Guernica, it was not military doctrine to bomb civilians. Then FDR officially denounced it and made assurances the USA would not do it. Then given events by the IJA and the Nazis bombing civilians then chose to act in kind but massively in Japan.

See

Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939
The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.
If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html

[NorseThing]

Actually wrong. Beginning with Franco bombing at Guernica, it was not military doctrine to bomb civilians. Then FDR officially denounced it and made assurances the USA would not do it. Then given events by the IJA and the Nazis bombing civilians then chose to act in kind but massively in Japan.

See


http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html

Thanks an a +rep. I learned something by your post and a bit further reading. What I knew about Franco is sketchy at best. I did know the value of the bombing raid on that Basque town was over rated though. More famous for the painting and propaganda values than the actual raid.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Yeah i know. I always feel sad for US when they do that. It must be quite sad to throw bombs from a distance and murder random people. I bet Americans cant sleep at night

I have no problem sleeping at night, unless the dog jumps in bed.

If the terrorist cowards of the world wouldn't hid among civilians, maybe this wouldn't happen as often. Personally I don't care how many civilians are hit in the crossfire. If they had a set of balls they would remove these people themselves. Sadly, they don't. Sadly many of them are sympathetic to the terrorists.

Consider the crowds at soccer games in Mexico chanting "Osama! Osama!" during the World Cup games. That is just one example that I picked because it was very public. You expect me to feel sorry for people like that who get hit? How do you know that these so-called "civilians" in any report you have posted aren't actually supporters of terrorists? You don't know that. And until the populations the terrorists hide in do more to rid themselves of their own pests, then I don't care how many get killed.

The thing is, if the Western powers really were interested in killing random Arab civilians we wouldn't be talking about some dozend guys killed accidentally here and there, but about hundred of thousands on a weekly base.

Exactly right. The terrorists of the world don't truly want a knock down drag out fight because they KNOW that in the case of unrestricted warfare (Total War if you will...) that they do not have a prayer. So they hide among civilians because they know there will be some casualties and they can then use those to promote their cause. People like Papay actually help terrorism by jumping on this bandwagon.