Current Events > Civilian deaths tripled in campaign against ISIS in 2017

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/civilian-deaths-tripled-in-us-led-campaign-during-2017 -watchdog-alleges/2018/01/18/ccfae298-fc6d-11e7-a46b-a3614530bd87_story.html

U.S. and allied strikes against the Islamic State may have killed as many as 6,000 civilians in 2017, as international forces pushed militants out of strongholds in Iraq and Syria, a watchdog group said Thursday.

In 2017 the war against ISIS moved into the most densely-populated urban centers controlled by the group, with dire results for civilians, Airwars said in a report summarizing its investigations for the year, which it called the deadliest yet for Iraqis and Syrians.

ISIS is an acronym for the Islamic State, the extremist group that drew Western nations into a new Middle Eastern conflict after it captured large swaths of Iraq and Syria in 2014.

Airwars, which investigates allegations of civilian casualties by using social media and other information sources, said that between 3,923 and 6,102 noncombatants were likely killed in air and artillery strikes by the United States and its partners in 2017.

The estimate for Iraq and Syria was more than triple that of the year before, Airwars said.

While the Airwars data includes strikes by the United States and partner nations including Britain and France, most of the military activity has been conducted by American forces.

The groups estimate is vastly higher than the figure put forward by U.S. Central Command, which conducts its own investigations of selected U.S. strikes.

According to its most recent public report, Centcom has determined that at least 817 civilians have been killed since the air campaign began in 2014. The command continues to investigate other reported incidents.

The alleged increase in civilian deaths took place as the United States and partner forces conducted major operations to recapture the city of Mosul, the militants most important stronghold in Iraq, and Raqqa, their onetime capital in Syria.

Islamic State militants frequently positioned themselves among civilians and prevented residents from moving freely in areas they controlled.

While U.S. military officials say they take precautions to prevent civilian casualties, they acknowledge the challenge of avoiding unintended deaths in large-scale operations conducted in densely populated urban areas.

The coalition does everything within its power to limit harm to noncombatants and civilian infrastructure, Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon said.

We regularly issue strike reports and civilian casualty reports, including results of credible and noncredible allegations, as well as those still pending assessment, on our public-facing website for the world to see, he said.

The Pentagon has pushed back against a perception in early 2017, when observer groups reported an apparent surge in civilian casualties, that it had altered rules guiding the U.S. air campaign.

---

Yep, and we actually got the job done.

Fair, next.
---

Antifar posted...

6,000 civilians in 2017

dam
---

KazumaKiryu posted...

Yep, and we actually got the job done.

Fair, next.

Civilians casualties are inexcusable
---

I'm actually surprised we only killed 2000 last year

it's war, people are gonna die when terrorists hide among the normal population
---

American-led intervention[edit]
According to SOHR, U.S.-led Coalition airstrikes have killed 10,678 people across Syria, of which: 7,268 dead were ISIL fighters, 309 Al-Nusra Front militants and other rebels, 140 government soldiers and 2,961 civilians. The air strikes occurred in the period between 22 September 2014 and 22 November 2017.[187]

Russian intervention[edit]
According to SOHR, Russian airstrikes in Syria killed 15,158 people, of whom 4,732 were ISIL fighters, 4,098 militants from the Al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front and other rebel forces and 6,328 civilians. The air strikes occurred in the period between 30 September 2015 and 30 November 2017.[188]

According to the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, since the start of Russia's aerial campaign in Syria and by 22 December 2016, the Russian Air Force killed 35,000 rebels and ISIL fighters.[189] Another 32,000 were claimed killed by Russia between May and August 2017.[190]
---

Paper_Okami posted...

KazumaKiryu posted...

Yep, and we actually got the job done.

Fair, next.

Civilians casualties are inexcusable

No, they're necessary. We took out ISIS. We won.
---

Lets blame the US for this, not the disgusting terrorists that hides in schools and hospitals
---

Paper_Okami posted...

KazumaKiryu posted...

Yep, and we actually got the job done.

Fair, next.

Civilians casualties are inexcusable

Please don't respond to him
---

KazumaKiryu posted...

Yep, and we actually got the job done.

Fair, next.

The relatives of these casualties are the terrorists of the next decade.

We didn't get the job done. We just kicked the can down the road.
---

It sure didn't take long for people to forget the lesson we learned from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab Spring that prolonged stalemate wars still get people killed
---

How do you engage in warfare against ISIS without civilian casualties?
---

I'm excited for the next time someone brings up "But Obama bombed all them civilians" when the follow up act tripled the number.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

It sure didn't take long for people to forget the lesson we learned from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab Spring that prolonged stalemate wars still get people killed

Syria is rather different than Iraq or Afghanistan. And what other country of the Arab Spring experienced a "stalemate war" to the same extent that Syria has? :\
---

Monstrous. I still remember the first official mission under the current administration that got a seal and civilians including children killed

KazumaKiryu posted...

Yep, and we actually got the job done.

Fair, next.

Probably the bravest post of the month.
---

Now civilian casualties are a necessary evil? Obama got lampooned around here when it happened under his watch.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

How do you engage in warfare against ISIS without civilian casualties?

Still doesn't mean we should just throw bombs at them without care. Tripling the amount of civilian causalities is not good.
---

I'd still like to know how accurate the information in the article is since it's significantly higher than other watchdog groups. Also why does it literally only specific coalition attacks.
---

That's what happens when cowardly terrorists live amongst the population. There is no avoiding collateral damage.
---

KazumaKiryu posted...

Yep, and we actually got the job done.

Fair, next.

advocating murder. only trumpeter things

There's no low that "that crowd" on CE isn't capable of sinking to.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

How do you engage in warfare against ISIS without civilian casualties?

Still doesn't mean we should just throw bombs at them without care. Tripling the amount of civilian causalities is not good.

How many casualties would there be if we took out ISIS while it was forming during the Arab Spring
---

ItsYourFault posted...

KazumaKiryu posted...

Yep, and we actually got the job done.

Fair, next.

advocating murder. only trumpeter things

Sorry, the Obama way didn't work. He let that shit stagnate for years
---

Eh, they would have died under ISIS oppression anyways.
I'm sure tons of innocent Berliners died on WW2, tough shit.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Still doesn't mean we should just throw bombs at them without care. Tripling the amount of civilian causalities is not good.

You realize we don't just lob bombs willy nilly at places, right?

Everything is a tactical, calculated attack with all phases of the attack planned and accounted for before the drone even goes airborne.

That includes necessary civilian casualties.

The idea is that you take out bad actors that will cause even more civilian deaths than the amount you'd cause by taking him out.

ISIS killed far more innocent civilians than America and Russia did in 2017.
---

wackyteen posted...

That includes necessary civilian casualties.

Of which there aren't any.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

wackyteen posted...

That includes necessary civilian casualties.

Of which there aren't any.

What a magical world you live in.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Of which there aren't any.

So you'd rather let a high level ISIS official go on living and killing thousands of innocent civilians vs killing him and a hundred innocent civilians?
---

can someone explain why it's ok to kill their civilians but we go to war when they kill ours

wackyteen posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Still doesn't mean we should just throw bombs at them without care. Tripling the amount of civilian causalities is not good.

You realize we don't just lob bombs willy nilly at places, right?

Everything is a tactical, calculated attack with all phases of the attack planned and accounted for before the drone even goes airborne.

That includes necessary civilian casualties.

The idea is that you take out bad actors that will cause even more civilian deaths than the amount you'd cause by taking him out.

ISIS killed far more innocent civilians than America and Russia did in 2017.

Trump's admin has dropped far more bombs than the previous admin and has increased civilian causalities. Even if they are calculated, it's not a good look.
---

Spooking posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

That's what happens when cowardly terrorists live amongst the population. There is no avoiding collateral damage.

This as well. Democrats never had a full understanding on military strategy - as you can see this with North Korea. Democrats say we shouldn't strike as it will kill innocent civilians, but what they don't realize is that there are civilians being born everyday who are tortured, beat, raped, killed, ect... Would it be better for the US to nip it in the bud, or continue having generation after generation after generation get born into this hellish world?

And you have a full understanding of military strategy?
---

Spooking posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

That's what happens when cowardly terrorists live amongst the population. There is no avoiding collateral damage.

This as well. Democrats never had a full understanding on military strategy - as you can see this with North Korea. Democrats say we shouldn't strike as it will kill innocent civilians, but what they don't realize is that there are civilians being born everyday who are tortured, beat, raped, killed, ect... Would it be better for the US to nip it in the bud, or continue having generation after generation after generation get born into this hellish world?

That's psychotic. I think this gimmicks going a little to far
---

Spooking posted...

Democrats say we shouldn't strike as it will kill innocent civilians

Yes, it could kill our civillians. China would likely retaliate with nuclear weapons. If DPRK civilian were the only concern we'd have done regime change decades ago.
---

Spooking posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Spooking posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

That's what happens when cowardly terrorists live amongst the population. There is no avoiding collateral damage.

This as well. Democrats never had a full understanding on military strategy - as you can see this with North Korea. Democrats say we shouldn't strike as it will kill innocent civilians, but what they don't realize is that there are civilians being born everyday who are tortured, beat, raped, killed, ect... Would it be better for the US to nip it in the bud, or continue having generation after generation after generation get born into this hellish world?

And you have a full understanding of military strategy?

Republicans always had full military and economic understanding.

Oh, you're trolling.
nvm
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Yes, it could kill our civillians. China would likely retaliate with nuclear weapons. If DPRK civilian were the only concern we'd have done regime change decades ago.

China would never because too much of their economy is dependent on the US economy.

It'd be ruinous to both China and the US and send devastating shockwaves throughout the rest of the global economy
---

Spooking posted...

Republicans always had full military and economic understanding.

especially bush

"It's mission accomplished this time, you guys!"
---

wackyteen posted...

So you'd rather let a high level ISIS official go on living and killing thousands of innocent civilians vs killing him and a hundred innocent civilians?

What if your family was one of those hundred innocents ?
---

cjsdowg posted...

wackyteen posted...

So you'd rather let a high level ISIS official go on living and killing thousands of innocent civilians vs killing him and a hundred innocent civilians?

What if your family was one of those hundred innocents ?

I'd be right angry.

But there's no perfect clean way to win a war. This isn't Disney. You either get it done quickly and get your hands dirty, or you let it run its course and let people kill each other with the delusion that those deaths aren't your fault.

This armchair quarterback bullshit is why the UN doesn't have to stop genocide. "Ethnic cleansing" is apparently not genocide if you're a massive hypocrite
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

I'd be right angry.

But there's no perfect clean way to win a war. This isn't Disney. You either get it done quickly and get your hands dirty, or you let it run its course and let people kill each other with the delusion that those deaths aren't your fault.

This armchair quarterback bulls*** is why the UN doesn't have to stop genocide. "Ethnic cleansing" is apparently not genocide if you're a massive hypocrite

It is easy to write off the blood in innocents when it is not happening in your nation. And Arm Chair nothing liberals at the time said DON'T go into Iraq. Going into Iraq help to make this group.
---

KazumaKiryu posted...

Yep, and we actually got the job done.

Fair, next.

I cant believe youve doubled down on this pathetic piece of shit gimmick so much that youre advocating for innocent life dying. You sound like ISIS members cheering over 9/11 or something.

Fucking lunatic.
---

marthsheretoo posted...

The relatives of these casualties are the terrorists of the next decade.

They were also probably relatives of the terrorists we killed as well.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

cjsdowg posted...

wackyteen posted...

So you'd rather let a high level ISIS official go on living and killing thousands of innocent civilians vs killing him and a hundred innocent civilians?

What if your family was one of those hundred innocents ?

I'd be right angry.

But there's no perfect clean way to win a war. This isn't Disney. You either get it done quickly and get your hands dirty, or you let it run its course and let people kill each other with the delusion that those deaths aren't your fault.

This armchair quarterback bullshit is why the UN doesn't have to stop genocide. "Ethnic cleansing" is apparently not genocide if you're a massive hypocrite

Its easy. Do nothing, civilian deaths aren't your fault.
Stop the bad guys, they are.

It's the only morally acceptable way they see to not sully their hands. It's purely about them not feeling at fault. They don't care about the future cost of lives as long as the battle never reaches their shores.
---

When did this belief start that Wars are clean and it's possible to avoid civilian casualties? Especially against an enemy that actively USES civilians as shields... it's really fucking sad and stupid (war in general is) but it's not avoidable completely.
---

6,000 civilians? Now compare that to the number ISIS killed, and the number killed by disease, hunger, poor sanitary conditions, etc. because of ISIS. It's probably way higher.
---