Makes sense. If you wanna make an omelet you gotta break a few eggs. Can't go kill terrorists in foreign nations without fucking up civilians. After all, if people knew better, they wouldn't live in countries which harbor terrorists. Isn't that the point? Terrorists use schools, hospitals, and humanitarian camps for cover too. Gotta bomb them all just to be sure. As long as no Americans die in the process, it's all for the best. Defending the way of life at home at the small cost of lives no one even thinks about while eating their Big Mac and sipping their Starbucks coffee. Go American Exceptionalism!
-
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.
At least 30 dead after air strike hits Syrian school
- Thread starter Skyzard
- Start date
- Status
MisterFalcon
Member
So may people here who would have defeated ISIS years ago with zero civilian casualties if only they would be in charge.
littleworm
Member
Alright, we can assume that we have manage to place an asset on the ground near the target with a line of communications to our forces, without being detected by ISIS forces. They would still only be able to see the people moving in and around the exterior of the building, so if ISIS is holding hostages inside a HQ or similar place for any period of time we wouldn't know. That person would still have to make judgement calls on what they are seeing, is this person in normal dress a ISIS soldier or someone else involved in their war effort or just a civilian? Is that unmarked crate full of weapons, cash, or explosive material or is it food and medicine. Groups like ISIS intentionally try and blend there people and supplies among civilian populations for just this reason.
Could that of prevented this incident? Possibly.
Would it stop all instances of mistaken identity and collateral damage? No.
Is it always a feasible option when identifying targets? No.
If we were discussing a situation involving a few hostages that have been taken in, it'd be completely different discussion. This place was a shelter. And they bombed it.
Clearly their intel, whatever it was, wasn't enough.
The west are attacking civilians, destroying hospitals, houses and schools, supporting dictators, banning Muslims, establishing prisons that has nothing to do with humans, then cries out loud when some extreme lunatics establishing a terrorist organization like ISIS and recruiting people with their propaganda which the west is fueling with their actions, you made the environment, and for the west it maybe ISIS hurt you in Europe and USA but it's nothing compared to what ISIS did in the Muslim world, you only saw a glimpse of it's terror, in the Muslim world they rule cities, execute people, bomb markets, mosques full of people, they even bombed the second holiest place in Islam in Medina last April, so it's really harsh thing when you as Muslim are the biggest victim of ISIS, and the biggest victim of western military coalitions, and a victim of those dictators, while in the same time you face the hate and bans in the west and they put you always as suspected terrorist in the media, in some Muslim countries you are trapped... you can't live and you can't leave, you either take side in the fight or live in terror during the war and live like a slave under the victor rule after the fight is over.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
I'm sad because this mindset is true and you captured it perfectlyI think you're misfiring. But it'll be interesting to see if this administration is more tolerant of high civilian casualty numbers than the last.
littleworm
Member
And to that point you would have no disagreement from me.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Raqqa is controlled by ISIS. As in, ISIS troops are literally everywhere and control the city, while we have very little presence. You can't just have dudes walking around with binoculars and radios while drones fly about in buildings to verify intelligence.
Nostremitus
Member
To add to this, we'd all be living under Nazi-German rule if our grandparents/great-grandparents shared the same mindset. Just let them do what they want as long as we don't accidentally hurt civilians while trying to stop them.
And yes, ISIS is every bit as bad as Nazis were. The only difference is that they are brown skinned and hurting other brown skinned people. If that makes it different to any of you, you should reconsider your priorities.
Subpar Scrub
Banned
Highly doubtful a source on the ground is feasible in most of these situations. If a drone were used, which would be discovered within seconds, what is it looking for exactly?
littleworm
Member
Sadly it does seem that will be the case.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/12/us/politics/trump-loosen-counterterrorism-rules.html
Hoho for breakfast
Member
just remember we're the good guys. When all these children's families and neighbors and towns and cities and countries hate us, it's obviously because they're radical terrorists. So be sure to keep paying those taxes to keep the war machine going.
For freedom!
For freedom!
I mean, these are basic tactics of a conventional war, you bomb the opposing forces strategic resources and strongholds. I can understand if you have issues with that. But this isn't the same as using drones to bomb countries and terrorize civilian populations just because you're looking for insurgents.
Not talk about it? Out of sight, out of mind. It has worked since 1776.
So what was the intel from?
"That's a big building"
We have satellites too, that go down to 1m.
TheRedSnifit
Member
This is a pretty silly question. You don't see a difference between "Our spies say that Al Queda leaders are meeting in X building," and having a guy on the street staring at buildings through binoculars?
Satellites don't see inside buildings.
spazchicken
Member
So what wires got crossed and who is responsible? How do you not have the correct intel to hit the right building?
Is this supposed to be before and after pictures? That was actually a functioning school in the left picture?
Is this supposed to be before and after pictures? That was actually a functioning school in the left picture?
Nostremitus
Member
So what wires got crossed and who is responsible? How do you not have the correct intel to hit the right building?
Is this supposed to be before and after pictures? That was actually a functioning school in the left picture?
There are very few functional schools in ISIS controlled areas. The only ones I'm aware of are child-soldier training camps.
littleworm
Member
So what wires got crossed and who is responsible? How do you not have the correct intel to hit the right building?
Is this supposed to be before and after pictures? That was actually a functioning school in the left picture?
I don't think anyone knows what went wrong yet. If the reports are true and it was in fact full of civilians it seems the Coalition is ultimately responsible. As far as imperfect intel, I try to explain that in some of my earlier posts. Lastly I don't think its been on operational school since the civil war started or soon after. It was just a building that was a school that families were using as shelter.
Subpar Scrub
Banned
I don't know. Anyway, going to answer my question?
I mean it's the capital of the Islamic State. Hating us is their thing.
It's a good question. One ought never to be afraid of being curious. Radio 4 had a daily diary about daily life in Raqqa. The Guardian also had something like it.
Here you go:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...life-under-isis-rule-samer-mike-thomson-syria
Your question is what is a drone or satellite looking for? Off the top of my head:
Militia/armed men going into the building and staying there
Vehicles transporting militia to the building
Families going in and out - if they were truly trying their best to minimise civilian casualties
?
Palette Swap
Member
Equating "don't bomb civilians and wonder why everyone there hates you" to not wanting to fight nazis is a really fucking stupid thing to read in the morning.
We probably wouldn't have an ISIS in the first place if America hadn't collectively decided it was a really good idea to invade Iraq in the first place. Your line of thinking was literally one of the arguments for the invasion.
Wait, is this about ISIS or the US?
Twilight Gap
Member
Yup. There are two types of people in positions of power: Those who can live with making these decisions, and those who it weighs down on. But rest assured that both of them would make the call provided credible intelligence. The reality is that the death of the leaders of these organizations outweigh collateral damage. And if not them, it would be homegrown soldiers out there.
War is ugly and there are no good guys.
How does the death of these leaders outweigh the death of one child?
The death of a terrorist leader on national news makes some Americans feel safer. The death of one non-American child means nothing to the average American.
Always-honest
Banned
That's disgusting. All this technology and all these innocent deaths.... Come on.
Find other ways then to just bomb fucking everything to get to one guy.
Find other ways then to just bomb fucking everything to get to one guy.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Anyone thinking that civilian casualties can be completely avoidable is delusional.
The choice is this: intervene against ISIS, knowing that civilians will die, including kids. Or stay out completely, and deal with the consequences of that, including dead civilians, maybe many more.
I'm fine with people arguing for either of those choices. I'm fine with people venting about civilian deaths or complaining about US foreign policy. But feeling outraged and claiming that someone should've just waved a magic wand, defied reality, and made no innocents die is useless bleating. Just saying the US could make those casualties go away if they really cared--that sounds idiotic to me and flies in the face of all other major warfare ever. I haven't seen any concrete suggestions from those people to change technology or military doctrine to make a real difference. Except for Skyzard saying they should've just had a guy with binoculars checking, I guess!
Have any of you seen Eye In The Sky? It's a great movie. I'm curious about the perfect solutions to the situation in that movie that some of you have apparently formulated.
The choice is this: intervene against ISIS, knowing that civilians will die, including kids. Or stay out completely, and deal with the consequences of that, including dead civilians, maybe many more.
I'm fine with people arguing for either of those choices. I'm fine with people venting about civilian deaths or complaining about US foreign policy. But feeling outraged and claiming that someone should've just waved a magic wand, defied reality, and made no innocents die is useless bleating. Just saying the US could make those casualties go away if they really cared--that sounds idiotic to me and flies in the face of all other major warfare ever. I haven't seen any concrete suggestions from those people to change technology or military doctrine to make a real difference. Except for Skyzard saying they should've just had a guy with binoculars checking, I guess!
Have any of you seen Eye In The Sky? It's a great movie. I'm curious about the perfect solutions to the situation in that movie that some of you have apparently formulated.
Kralamoonard
Member
As always, it's sad and hypocritical to see the reactions to when some random brown civilians are killed somewhere else in the world compared to some more important white westerner. The hypocrisy and lack of empathy that runs in our society is astounding. It's why these things keep happening again and again because people just keep using the same excuses of it just being a natural part of war, or not being able to 'relate' the fellow human beings across the other side of the world.
Same type of silence and hypocrisy you see from politicians and the media in regards to Saudi's atrocities simply because they're a US ally and that's in our best interest. But then let's turn a blind eye to they and focus on another country who we have no use for to preach about 'radical Islamic terrorism' whilst we suppport countries that are just as bad.
It begs the question how would the same people react if the reverse situation happened in the US? I very much doubt they'd be as forgiving. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to. But that's the hypocrisy.
I wish I could quote this 10000x times. Effing nailed it.
Same type of silence and hypocrisy you see from politicians and the media in regards to Saudi's atrocities simply because they're a US ally and that's in our best interest. But then let's turn a blind eye to they and focus on another country who we have no use for to preach about 'radical Islamic terrorism' whilst we suppport countries that are just as bad.
It begs the question how would the same people react if the reverse situation happened in the US? I very much doubt they'd be as forgiving. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to. But that's the hypocrisy.
I wish I could quote this 10000x times. Effing nailed it.
Charles Brandon
Member
Civilians are fleeing towards Raqqa?
TBH I am not a fan of western involvement in Syria at all, the situation is still utterly confused and multi-faceted and it's way too easy to end up fighting with or against the wrong people and adding to then chaos instead of bringing order to it. This is just another example of that.
However, Raqqa is IS HQ and has been for years now. I cannot understand why civilians would be fleeing there when it's absolutely fucking clear that that place is going to be marmalized. That's like Germans fleeing into Berlin as they see the Red Army approach.
It's a confused situation though, can someone explain?
No one will call it terrorism because it quite clearly does fit any reasonable definition of that word. It is a fuck up and an indictment of policy and tactics but it isn't terrorism.
TBH I am not a fan of western involvement in Syria at all, the situation is still utterly confused and multi-faceted and it's way too easy to end up fighting with or against the wrong people and adding to then chaos instead of bringing order to it. This is just another example of that.
However, Raqqa is IS HQ and has been for years now. I cannot understand why civilians would be fleeing there when it's absolutely fucking clear that that place is going to be marmalized. That's like Germans fleeing into Berlin as they see the Red Army approach.
It's a confused situation though, can someone explain?
No one will call it terrorism because it quite clearly does fit any reasonable definition of that word. It is a fuck up and an indictment of policy and tactics but it isn't terrorism.
Kralamoonard
Member
Of course it won't. And people will always bring up the same excuses of it not being relatable or just a normal part of war and that there's no other choice, then always get surprised how this cycle ends up breeding more hatred in the end.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Destroy their shelters, homes, hospitals, schools, shops, everything.
Then deny them asylum.
Treat innocents like collateral damage while also demonising them.
Continue year after year.
What's the worst that could happen?
Then deny them asylum.
Treat innocents like collateral damage while also demonising them.
Continue year after year.
What's the worst that could happen?
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Well that's horseshit because it was Obama who stepped up the frequency of drone strikes and changed the definition of militants to any male "of fighting age" so they didn't have to count those deaths as civilian casualties.
Nobody cared then either, these people are brown, foreign and Muslim. That's the perfect hat-trick, people who are worth absolutely nothing so they can be bombed with impunity.
This. There's no white and black, just black.
Nostremitus
Member
Nazis probably wouldn't have existed had America​ not interfered with WWI either.
I suggest you study history, WWII war tactics, and read up on how ISIS treats those who do not follow their beliefs. In some ways they are worse, in others on even footing with Nazis.
Hell at least Nazis tortured people under the facade of scientific research, ISIS just does it for the joy of causing horrible pain before death.
Fox Mulder
Member
We're at war. This is their home city, and quite possibly used civilians as a shield or to use bodies as PR.
This stuff has always happened.
civilian? 0. They've killed a lot of military-age males though.
drones and airstrikes are so sophisticated they only hit future terrorists.
This. I don't understand how the drone program is still running. It's the most patently cowardly, illegal, and un-American mode of warfare that I can imagine and I can't believe there isn't more outrage about it.
There was a "terrorist" attack in London yesderday that killed 5 people. It was labelled a terrorist attack by the government before we knew anything about the attackers.
The spin that we've put on the term terrorism since 9/11 has really benefitted ensuring that as western countries forever see the middle eastern countries as evil terrorists, we will never label events such as these as terrorist attacks. Even though we're bombing schools full of innocent families.
And there are Americans trying to sue for the damages that individuals from these countries have caused. I feel that they have far exceeded paying the price for strangers actions in the past.
The spin that we've put on the term terrorism since 9/11 has really benefitted ensuring that as western countries forever see the middle eastern countries as evil terrorists, we will never label events such as these as terrorist attacks. Even though we're bombing schools full of innocent families.
And there are Americans trying to sue for the damages that individuals from these countries have caused. I feel that they have far exceeded paying the price for strangers actions in the past.
family_guy
Member
The families of those killed aren't going to be placated with reparations. They potentially end up being new enemies that we'll have to fight in the future. Feels like an endless cycle.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked