Pentagon confirms airstrike that killed more than 100 civilians

[Cybran]

http://nypost.com/2017/03/25/pentago...100-civilians/

BAGHDAD — An initial review of airstrikes over the past days indicates that the U.S.-led coalition has struck fighters and equipment of the Islamic State group west of the northern city of Mosul at the request of Iraqi security forces, where there were allegations of civilian casualties, the Pentagon said Saturday.

The coalition said in a statement that the airstrike was conducted on March 17. Reports have indicated that the airstrikes have allegedly killed more than 100 civilians in western Mosul where U.S.-backed government troops are fighting IS.

The coalition said it takes all allegations of civilian casualties seriously and a formal Civilian Casualty Credibility Assessment has been opened to determine the facts surrounding this strike and the validity of the allegation of civilian casualties.

“The Coalition respects human life, which is why we are assisting our Iraqi partner forces in their effort to liberate their lands from ISIS brutality,” the statement using another term to refer to IS. “Our goal has always been for zero civilian casualties, but the Coalition will not abandon our commitment to our Iraqi partners because of ISIS’s inhuman tactics terrorizing civilians, using human shields, and fighting from protected sites such as schools, hospitals, religious sites and civilian neighborhoods.”

Altaf Musani, representative of the World Health Organization in Iraq, told the Associated Press in the Jordanian capital of Amman that “it is our understanding that there was an incident and we have worked with the local health actors and they have confirmed more than 100 are dead.”

Musani said that since the operations in Mosul began in October, there have been at least 5,300 reffered to hospitals in and around the city. He added that since the attack on western Mosul began last month, “we have managed to capture more than 1,300” cases.

“When you take a better look at what those numbers mean, what is worrying for the WHO and aid actors is that roughly 30 percent of the total numbers are women,” he said. “Roughly 30 percent of that large number are children under 15, and that is deeply concerning because of the capacities needed to treat those wounded coming out of the front lines.”

Earlier Saturday, Senior Sunni Muslim politicians expressed concern over reports of airstrikes that have allegedly killed the civilians. Residents reported two airstrikes hitting a residential area on March 13 and 17. The Iraqi Defense Ministry has provided no immediate comment.

In tweets published on his official account, parliament speaker Salim al-Jabouri said “we realize the huge responsibility the liberating forces shoulder” and call on them to “spare no effort to save the civilians.”

In a statement issued on his website, Vice President Osama al-Nujaifi, himself from Mosul, described the incident as a “humanitarian catastrophe,” blaming the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes and excessive use of force by militarized Federal Police forces. Al-Nujaifi put the number of civilians killed at “hundreds.”

He called for an emergency parliament session and an immediate investigation into the incident.

Residents of the neighborhood known as Mosul Jidideh told The Associated Press on Friday that scores of residents were believed to have been killed by two airstrikes that hit a cluster of homes in the area. Resident Ahmed Ahmed said there were over a hundred people within the cluster taking refuge from the missiles.

AP reporters saw on Friday at least 50 bodies being recovered from the wreckage of the buildings.

The Mosul offensive was supposed to be quick and to drive ISIS out of Iraq into Syria to topple Assad. Instead the deaths keep growing and there is virtually no progress.

[rogueMatthias]

So any protests and street marches against this? Nope???

I guess this is just Trump finally doing something presidential.

[Venant]

The Mosul offensive was supposed to be quick and to drive ISIS out of Iraq into Syria to topple Assad. Instead the deaths keep growing and there is virtually no progress.

Didn't they surround Mosul so that ISIS wouldn't escape? And why would we want to topple Assad, it would just turn Syria into another Libya. At this point, can't we admit that the whole topple Assad agenda is being pushed because the Gulf states have bought off so many US politicians?

[Activi-T]

Didn't they surround Mosul so that ISIS wouldn't escape? And why would we want to topple Assad, it would just turn Syria into another Libya. At this point, can't we admit that the whole topple Assad agenda is being pushed because the Gulf states have bought off so many US politicians?

Yes, let's totally forget the fact that chemical weapons were used against the people of Syria by their own government. It's definitely the conspiratorial stuff you said.

[rogueMatthias]

And why would we want to topple Assad, it would just turn Syria into another Libya.

Well, I don't think anyone can still give a good reason for why we helped fuck over Libya so who knows what the plan is.

[The Emperor]

Yes, let's totally forget the fact that chemical weapons were used against the people of Syria by their own government. It's definitely the conspiratorial stuff you said.

Oh you should check Saudi Arabia pal, they stone people to death there and it's legal. Also that Lumumbu tribe in Africa, they are known cannibals.
Your sjw outlook is very flawed. How much deaths prevented by killing Gadaffi ? Not much compared to what happens in lybia today. BUT we still get brain dead people cheering for intervention in affairs of other (usually much less powerful and posing no threat) state

[Elim Garak]

Yes, let's totally forget the fact that chemical weapons were used against the people of Syria by their own government. It's definitely the conspiratorial stuff you said.

That's a lie. Syrian government didn't use chemical weapons.

[Activi-T]

Well, I don't think anyone can still give a good reason for why we helped fuck over Libya so who knows what the plan is.

The Arab Spring is the reason we decided to 'help fuck up Libya', we saw a chance at democracy and rolled the dice.
Let's not forget Gadaffi was a madman that only retained power because he was a useful tool to the West, when he stopped being useful, became more deranged and threatened to go door to door to end the 'insurgency' in Benghazi that's when the West could no longer stand idly by.

[Mormolyce]

That's a lie. Syrian government didn't use chemical weapons.

Liar.

A U.N. fact-finding mission and a UNHRC Commission of Inquiry have simultaneously investigated the attacks. The U.N. mission found likely use of the nerve agent sarin in the case of Khan Al-Asal (19 March 2013), Saraqib (29 April 2013), Ghouta (21 August 2013), Jobar (24 August 2013) and Ashrafiyat Sahnaya (25 August 2013). The UNHRC commission later confirmed the use of sarin in the Khan al-Asal, Saraqib and Ghouta attacks, but did not mention the Jobar and the Ashrafiyat Sahnaya attacks.

The UNHRC commission also found that the sarin used in the Khan al-Asal attack bore "the same unique hallmarks" as the sarin used in the Ghouta attack and indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to chemicals from the Syrian Army's stockpile.

In August 2016, a confidential United Nations report explicitly blamed the Syrian military of Bashar al-Assad for dropping chemical weapons on the towns of Talmenes in April 2014 and Sarmin in March 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of...rian_civil_war

[Activi-T]

That's a lie. Syrian government didn't use chemical weapons.

http://time.com/4492670/syria-chemic...-assad-regime/

Try again, apologist.

[Venant]

Yes, let's totally forget the fact that chemical weapons were used against the people of Syria by their own government. It's definitely the conspiratorial stuff you said.

The whole 'chemical weapon red line' narrative is what we call an 'excuse' to start another pointless war. People get so caught up in the narrative that they just believe anything, and don't even stop to consider whether the basic premise if faulty.

Why would the use of a specific weapon automatically justify a war? By this logic, the world should have declared war on the United States after it spread radioactive waste all over Iraq due to the use of depleted uranium munitions.

[Deleted]

Russians doing this for several month and nobody cares. They killed much more civilians then terrorists.

Oh w8. They dont fight ISIS but rebels against Assad

- - - Updated - - -

That's a lie. Syrian government didn't use chemical weapons.

yes they did.

[Activi-T]

The whole 'chemical weapon red line' narrative is what we call an 'excuse' to start another pointless war. People get so caught up in the narrative that they just believe anything, and don't even stop to consider whether the basic premise if faulty.

Why would the use of a specific weapon automatically justify a war? By this logic, the world should have declared war on the United States after it spread radioactive waste all over Iraq due to the use of depleted uranium munitions.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcglance How about that for a reason?

[May90]

There could be progress, if Pentagon didn't care about civilian casualties and "bombed the hell out of ISIS" (as one White House genius proposed). Only then journalists would be writing not about 100, but 100,000 civilian casualties.

[Venant]

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcglance How about that for a reason?

So I guess the Arms Control Association is going to go enforce their agreement with their own army? I still don't see a rational argument for starting a war over the use of a particular weapon. Perhaps the problem is that this is a completely emotional argument that has no rational basis?

[rogueMatthias]

So I guess the Arms Control Association is going to go enforce their agreement with their own army? I still don't see a rational argument for starting a war over the use of a particular weapon. Perhaps the problem is that this is a completely emotional argument that has no rational basis?

I do know what you mean to a certain extent. You could flay your enemies and their children alive and leave them hanging over the battle field and everyone's fine - but use the slightest chemical based weapon and everyone's like "WOAH That's too far mister".

[Activi-T]

So I guess the Arms Control Association is going to go enforce their agreement with their own army? I still don't see a rational argument for starting a war over the use of a particular weapon. Perhaps the problem is that this is a completely emotional argument that has no rational basis?

Whether you see it or not the use of chemical weapons is strictly prohibited. To prevent a chemical and biological weapons arms race the use of these weapons can not become normalised. Do you know what sarin does to a person or what VX does or chlorine gas?

[Venant]

I do know what you mean to a certain extent. You could flay your enemies and their children alive and leave them hanging over the battle field and everyone's fine - but use the slightest chemical based weapon and everyone's like "WOAH That's too far mister".

Certain concepts are instilled into the public consciousness in order to justify government action, just look at how they sold the Iraq war by constantly hammering 'weapons of mass destruction'. Why didn't more people stop to think that the idea of Iraq having modern nuclear weapons at the time was absurd? Why didn't people consider that the delivery mechanism for chemical weapons is extremely limited, and you aren't going to see a city like New York wiped out by chemical weapons unless you have an enemy that has a massive airforce dropping thousands of bombs.

[bowchikabow]

Islamic extremists kill or hurt THOUSANDS of civilians... and we are told to be tolerant.

U.S. forces commit to bombing which has a side effect of killing 100 civilians, and countries want our heads on a platter.

No, no, no.. that is TOTALLY fair. Totally.

[Deleted]

Islamic extremists kill or hurt THOUSANDS of civilians... and we are told to be tolerant.

U.S. forces commit to bombing which has a side effect of killing 100 civilians, and countries want our heads on a platter.

No, no, no.. that is TOTALLY fair. Totally.

Like the GOP & Trump criticizing Obama for civilian deaths by employing drone strikes.

Funny how quickly political bullshit can bite you in the ass.