Confirmed - Over 1,600 Civilians Killed In Raqqa By US, UK, Fr. Bombing Raid

Well it's confirmed by Amnesty International after a long investigation, that the uninvited American coalition killed over 1,600 civilians in their bombing raid on Raqqa.

Why such brutality in Raqqa when the MSM screamed to high heaven about Syria and Russia not caring about civilian deaths - which was nothing more than a cover up for fears the Syrian army might capture and kill their embedded agents? Well, it was to grab and occupy the oil rich area before Assad could free the city from ISIS.

Okay so a few deaths, they're only Arabs anyway. Then we wonder why they hate us.
Saudi Arabia of course is the exception, I mean they're rich. After over 30 (mostly Shia and some teenagers) were beheaded, Goldman Sachs and the rest played homage to the Prince; and praised him for what he did for the Kingdom as they wheeled and dealed.

But then again, didn't we do it to Germany and Japan? It's called democracy building.


The investigation, conducted by Amnesty and Airwars, "gives a brutally vivid account of more than 1,600 civilian lives lost as a direct result of thousands of US, UK and French air strikes and tens of thousands of US artillery strikes in the Coalition’s military campaign in Raqqa from June to October 2017," the release said.

The rights group called on the US-led coalition to end its two years of denial and acknowledge the devastation caused by its campaign against the Daesh terrorist group in Syria.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201904251074453338-us-led-coalition-raqqa/

 

The Allied bombing of Japan and Germany was a good thing that saved millions of lives and shortened the war by years, maybe decades.

If you read the article it specifically said that IS snipers had turned the city into a death trap. Now IS is destroyed and not killing people anymore. Though the loss of civilian life is tragic i have to wonder, how many lives did the bombing Campaign save by getting rid of terrorists?

 

And yet recall how the MSM screamed about the civilian lives when the Syrian army and Russians were ready to take E. Aleppo and Ghouta. Russia not only opened passageways for the civilians to escape, but allowed the escape of the American and British agents embedded with the terrorists.

So what took Russia and Syria a long time so as not to harm civilians, and where as Russia even sent in its own troops to pacify fears that the Syrians would kill them for what they had done, the American coalition managed to do in a few weeks by simply bombing the hell out of the civilians.

Bit of hypocrisy don't you think?

 

I don't know because i don't know what was known at the time and i don't know anything about the decision making process for any of the operation. Also the numbers are in dispute, not that the actual numbers matter. Collateral damage is never a good thing.

It's just too easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. It certainly seems like better decisions could have been made but i don't know , i wasn't there.

 

Carpet coming German civilian targets (cities) did not save any lives. The thinking was that it would weaken their morale, but it did pretty much the opposite.

 

Jeanette, I don't know if I believe Amnesty Int'l, but I can tell you this ... Civilians always die in wars. The longer a war goes, the more civilians die in it. The faster it is ended, the fewer die in it. If these airstrikes hastened the end of the battle for Raqqa, they actually saved civilian lives in the city.

 

So, they were the enemy. The time to have sympathy for their plight is after they surrender. During wartime, ehh not so much.
Umm actually German morale definitely suffered as a result of the day and night bombing. Yes that shortened the war and thus yes it saved lives.
In war your soldiers lives are vastly more important than your enemies civilians.
If you aren't prepared to wage a vicious war then keep your soldiers home.

 

No, targeting German civilians only strengthened their morale. It did not get Germany any closer to surrendering. As a matter of fact they fought until the streets of Berlin was crawling with Russian troops. Germans targeting civilians in UK did not have the desired effect either.

In case of Japan, it can be argued the atomic bombs saved lives, because they actually led to Japan to surrender as opposed to fighting to the end, like Germans did.

 

Umm the Germans had to fight the Soviets because they didn't want to be taken capture the them. As many who could fled west in attempts to surrender to American and British forces. The bombing of their cities did not embolden them.
Also among the last fighting troops were French Nazi traitors. Who simply had nowhere left to die.
Biggest blunder of the war? Not pushing the Soviets back home..

 

Whether or not Allied bombing damaged morale, it most certainly did bring Germany closer to surrender. Direct damage to German industrial capacity & transport infrastructure brought Germany closer to surrender. The diversion of resources from battlefronts to fight the bombing and its impacts - men, guns & especially aircraft, brought Germany closer to surrender. The disruption and death caused by the bombing diminished Germany's ability to make war. Dead people can't work in factories or other jobs supporting the war. People whose houses are destroyed are less effective workers.

It is possible to argue about whether or not bombing civilians was the the most effective use of air power, but to claim it did not bring Germany closer to surrender is simply untrue.

The German bombing campaign in Britain is a poor comparison as it was not part of a wider strategy that could be sustained long enough to change the outcome of the war.

If the Allies had nuked German cities Gemany would have surrendered too. As with Germany, Allied bombing in Japan reduced its capacity to make war, which is the point.

 

I was trying to remember what this picture reminded me of. Sure, there is Aleppo & a bunch of smaller Syrian cities devastated by Assad & the Russians, but that wasn't it. Not enough slaughtered civilians to be a city hit by Assad. Then it struck me - Grozny! Of course, I was wrong there too, there was MUCH less standing in Grozny after Putin drove his army through it & killed tens of thousands of civilians.

Maybe it will come to me in time.

You have to love the sight of someone who has consistently backed Assad - the guy who has murdered hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians - trying to take the moral high ground over 1500 dead Syrians. And of course what would a Jeanette post be without regurgitating Russian propaganda - this time about the 'foreign agents' in Aleppo. You keep pushing this without a single shred of evidence to support it. I guess you figure that pushing the lie often enough will convince the feeble minded.

 

If targeting civilians had the desired effect, they would have surrendered long before Soviets got anywhere close to Berlin. Killing the civilians only gave them extra motivation, and gave fuel to the Nazi propaganda machine.

 

Yes, targeting industries and infrastructure was crucial, while carper bombing civilian population centers did not have the desired effect.

No, they never considered leaving the cities defenseless, so those resources were not pulled from elsewhere. They might have been crazy, but they were not stupid.

It did not have the desired effect. There is a reason why US has abandoned the practice since then.

It had the opposite effect of what they had hoped for. The allies should have learned from their mistake.

 

It is rare to read a post where every single line is wrong, either in fact or interpretation. Congratulations. If I feel like wasting the time I might get around to explaining why.

 

Sure. Same to you. Maybe I'll explain why if I feel like wasting the time.

 

No the Sauds were just liked because of the oil, their willingness to deal with the US and their willingness to make the dollar the currency used for oil. Added to that now of course, they are Israel's best friend and will help her and the US destroy Iran and/or stare to death all Iranians.

That being said, you do realise none of these people were killed by the British. This has been reaffirmed to us time and time again. The British killed no absolutely no innocents in Syria.

Given the destruction of the space I am surprised so few were killed.

 

Trump said he would kill them, and their families, so he kept his promise.

 

I heard a Brit saying that with disdain to a woman who complained about the unlawful killing by Americans in Iraq, giving their superiors lies in order to allow them the fun of killing unarmed civilians. Wars should not be fought unless they are defensive and there is no alternative. The US decided to destroy the ME after 9/11 rather than using courts. This has resulted in the death of millions of civilians and making homeless tens of millions. They haven't even stopped. They are after Iran next. Countries who commit illegal war, as the US does, resulting in the mass killing of people due to their ethnicity like the Americans do, should be taken to the ICC and all their resources removed for the sake of the world. If not, they, not the rest of the world should have sanctions put on them until they have shown that they have regained their humanity and will stop the massacre of civilians they do then claiming, 'oh dear' well we declared war on them first. People always die in war. War is inhumane.

 

I do not like that but of course what you said was true.

 

The British people were so against the carpet bombing of German cities that Churchill pretended it had nothing to do with him. Unlike everyone else they received no medals for what they did though of course the airmen were just obeying orders like everyone else. Just a few years ago Britain decided to posthumously give them medals given that most of the people alive then are dead and will not complain and we now have Western Societies which condone the killing of the innocent and wars of aggression.

 

We should also remember that British Intelligence said prior to the Iraq Invasion that there were no Islamic extremist groups there but that the very thing which would get them there would be an invasion. They also warned that an Invasion of Iraq was very likely to bring Islamic terrorism to the streets of London. This apparently was something those who attacked did not have a problem with.

 

Please sir, we are now being told ISIS pulled off the Sri Lanka bombings.

The truth is that ISIS works for, is supported by, the US and Israel and other western powers. They have US weapons and $

 

And our track record of winning wars since then?

Ok here is a lesson for you.

If a cop wants to arrest you and you resist, you getting hurt or killed as a result of the cop subduing you, thats all your fault.

The Germans were the aggressors in WW2
Anything the allies did to subdue them was justified and if civilians got killed that is the fault of the Germans.

Too bad we didn't carpet bomb Hanoi in 1964. A lot fewer American names would be listed on the Momorial.

Lastly, you mention that German civilians were fighting at the end. Well sorry that makes them essentially reserve troops and guess bombing them was a good thing.

Therr were a few factories in America we should have bombed too. Seimmens at the time was making ball bearings and selling them to Germany to make fighter planes.
In the meantime the Wright Curtis company had to slow production of it's P-40 fighter because it couldn't get ball bearings fast enough.

Nope America and Britain have no guilt whatsoever for Dresden or any other cities we bombed during WW2.

The verdict is still out but i am guessing we might have some in Syria.

 

Feel free to provide evidence.

 

Tulsi Gabbard and many others have discussed those facts, for years. You might be asleep at the wheel, but I am not.

Our actions in Syria attempted to advance Israeli designs, Greater Israel.

The Russians ended that effort, for however long it might last.