• 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

The thread title and the content of the OP are different enough that it's interesting to see who didn't bother to even read the info.
Yep, shitty horrible situation regardless, it at least sounds like we weren't just dropping bombs in civilian areas willy nilly. Well, this time at least
 

Dopus

Banned
"It's not the USA's fault, they are just happy using tactics which give you no way of knowing if you will accidentally kill 100+ civilians" isn't really a good defence either guys..

Especially considering the fact that US foreign policy has played a primary role in the mess these countries are in along with the rise of extremism. But let's ignore that.
 

Hoje0308

Banned
And this created more than the two snipers killed.



I don't know shit about weapons, but it seems using snipers to take them out or some other type of weapon would have been better? I'm also interested what the damage would have been estimated at without the explosives.

Getting a sniper close enough to the targets involves boots on the ground and we don't know how feasible that action would be. On paper, this probably looked like a good plan. And it would have been, if we weren't dealing scum of this level.
 

Ray Wonder

Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
"It's not the USA's fault, they are just happy using tactics which give you no way of knowing if you will accidentally kill 100+ civilians" isn't really a good defence either guys..

The strike was requested by Iraq Security Services, if that helps the argument at all.
 

Xe4

Banned
They are gonna use human shields. Send in ground troops or back the fuck out.

Ground troops often cause more civilian casualties than airstrikes, believe it or not. There's no way we can fight against ISIS without civilian lives being lost. The question we must then ask ourselves is whether the fight against ISIS is worth it knowing how many civilians are going to be dead because of it. Will it be a net positive?
 

Salamando

Member
Holy crap. ISIS effectively strapped a bomb to 100 people and made the US the triggerman. I couldn't even think where you'd begin to combat techniques like that.
 

kirblar

Member
Holy crap. ISIS effectively strapped a bomb to 100 people and made the US the triggerman. I couldn't even think where you'd begin to combat techniques like that.
Yup. There's no "good" answer here, just a bunch of mediocre to awful ones which all have mass negative side effects.
 

bionic77

Member
I wonder who has killed more people in the war on terror, the US or the terrorists?
That's no contest.

But terrorism is not about body counts. It's a tool used to achieve a political goal.

You can't beat terrorism with an army but we seem too stupid to understand that coming on 20 years into this.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Taking shelter from snipers only to have the building collapse atop everyone is so horrifying it's difficult to even comprehend. What a nightmare, and what a colossal fuckup.
 
If people want rid of ISIS, civilians are going to have to die. How quickly you want rid of them determines how many civilians will end up dying in total. It's not nice, it's not pretty and it's not right. It's just how it is.
 

Xe4

Banned
Terrorism.

Seriously, what else can you call killing this much inocent people to get to two guys?

Terrorism.

The reason so many people died was because of terrorism (ISIS rigging the building with explosives). America didn't mean to kill these people. That's not an excuse, and it's an inexcusable action, but what the US did is not terrorism.
 

SilentRob

Member
Holy crap. ISIS effectively strapped a bomb to 100 people and made the US the triggerman. I couldn't even think where you'd begin to combat techniques like that.

No. That is not what the report says. The civilians weren't held as hostages, the building wasn't rigged with explosives as a trap.

The civilians hid in the building to be protected from the fire and ISIS stored explosives in the back of that same building.

The report finds there is no proof civilians were herded or forced into the building, but the belief is they were likely there based on what was happening in the neighborhood.

It is because such a strong building collapsed that the US in part came to the conclusion ISIS had hidden explosives inside, which investigators believe were stored in the rear of the building.
CNN

This wasn't some elaborate trap the US fell for. I'm not even sure why that would matter because either way: They bombed a building without having any idea who or what was inside.
 

Dai101

Banned
That's what we refer to as "a pretty good fucking reason not to drop a bomb on a place." "Sir, we don't know what's inside the building, it could lead to a catastrophic loss of civilian life." "Yeah, but TWO snipers. We may never get this opportunity again!"

"Also, they brown. Who gives a fuck, bombs away!!"
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Let's see how they try to spin this in the next White House Press briefing.
 
If people want rid of ISIS, civilians are going to have to die. How quickly you want rid of them determines how many civilians will end up dying in total. It's not nice, it's not pretty and it's not right. It's just how it is.

Okay, so you got rid of ISIS, but now there's some group(s) formed from people who were scorned by witnessing innocent people get killed in the crossfire.
 
I'm just completely embarrassed and shamed by my country right now.

The President, military leaders... congress...

I have never felt so much shame and anger than I do right now.

If it takes 105 civilian deaths to kill 2 enemy snipers, it's NOT WORTH IT.
 
This isn't meant to sound cheesy or B level quotable but sometimes I wonder if we are the terrorists. From their point of view I can see why they hate western civilization so much. Just imagine what would happen if they shot a mistsle at a Costco in FL to kill two enlisted Marines and everyone died in Costco. The nation would be in an uproar and you bet your ass we'd be retaliating.
 

Real Hero

Member
If people want rid of ISIS, civilians are going to have to die. How quickly you want rid of them determines how many civilians will end up dying in total. It's not nice, it's not pretty and it's not right. It's just how it is.

That doesn't mean every decision which results in civilian deaths is justified or wise though.
 

SteveO409

Did you know Halo invented the FPS?
The fact that they can keep this under the rug for a few months...can't imagine what other similar tragedies are still hidden
 
This is what pisses me off the most:

"could not have predicted the presence of civilians in the structure prior to the engagement,"

- so they said FUCK IT, we'll bomb it anyway without even CHECKING IT OUT.
 

PSqueak

Banned
The reason so many people died was because of terrorism (ISIS rigging the building with explosives). We didn't mean to kill these people. That's not an excuse, and it's an inexcusable action, but it's not terrorism.

The building was not rigged with explosives, there was a depot in the building that intel didn't know.

The facts are:

-American Intel knew there were civilians in there that could be at risk no matter how much they tried to "minimize risk"
-The civilians were not forced there by terrorist but seeking refugee, american intel knew this
-The strike was to target 2 people and they knew there was (although allegedly minimal) a chance that civilian casualties would happen and they would vastly outnumber the target if hit

America thought that the chance of hitting over 100 civilians was worth the shot to kill 2 terrorists, turns out there was a bomb deposit their intel didn't know, you can't go "oopsie!" from this, those civilian casualties were something they were totally okay to waste.
 
I always feel for the innocents who get killed by these terrorists and these so called "heroes" who think they're killing terrorists.
 

Dopus

Banned
This isn't meant to sound cheesy or B level quotable but sometimes I wonder if we are the terrorists. From their point of view I can see why they hate western civilization so much. Just imagine what would happen if they shot a mistsle at a Costco in FL to kill two enlisted Marines and everyone died in Costco. The nation would be in an uproar and you bet your ass we'd be retaliating.

US foreign policy in the region speaks for itself. It's been disastrous.
 

Hoo-doo

Banned
If they can't hit their targets without massive collateral damage, why not just send in troops instead?

Because then you'd have to risk the lives of US soldiers. And those lives apparently matter a lot more than a bunch of Syrian civilians.

Hmm... I wonder why people in the Middle-East hates america and the west in general.

Exactly. Put yourself in their shoes for a second. It's freaking carnage.
 

Ray Wonder

Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
I'm just completely embarrassed and shamed by my country right now.

The President, military leaders... congress...

I have never felt so much shame and anger than I do right now.

If it takes 105 civilian deaths to kill 2 enemy snipers, it's NOT WORTH IT.

If it helps your shame and anger, the Iraq Security Services are the ones who requested the strike on that building.
 

Griss

Member
"The coalition takes every feasible measure to protect civilians from harm."

Those organising the strike "could not have predicted the presence of civilians in the structure prior to the engagement,"

What a load of fucking bullshit.

Not using missiles to potentially destroy an entire building all to kill two snipers is a feasible measure, but you didn't try that, did you?

And if you didn't KNOW for certain that there were no civilians in the building, it's not hard to predict that there might have been, is it? 'Could not have predicted the presence of civilians'... in a fucking building. Jesus christ, piss off. Fucking murderers.
 
That doesn't mean any decision which results in civilian deaths is justified or wise though.

They intentionally station themselves surrounded by civilians in order to suppress return fire and bombardment action. Because they are cowards and self-aware enough to know they cannot win a head to head battle.

Hamas and Hezbollah do the same thing, only it doesn't work because Israel actually does bomb indiscriminately.

If they can't hit their targets without massive collateral damage, why not just send in troops instead?

Barack Obama won in 2008 largely on the back of the promise to remove us from such massive ground offensives. We can't have it both ways.
 
Top Bottom