U.S.-led fight on ISIS have killed 352 civilians - Pentagon

[webfact]

U.S.-led fight on ISIS have killed 352 civilians - Pentagon

REUTERS

 

Boys collect items from among debris at a school for the deaf and mute, destroyed in what activists said were overnight U.S.-led air strikes against the Islamic State, in Raqqa November 24, 2014. REUTERS/Nour Fourat/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least 352 civilians have been killed in U.S.-led strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria since the operation began in 2014, the U.S. military said in a statement on Sunday.

 

The Combined Joint Task Force, in its monthly assessment of civilian casualties from the U.S. coalition's operations against the militant group, said it was still assessing 42 reports of civilian deaths.

 

It added that 45 civilians were killed between November 2016 and March 2017. It reported 80 civilian deaths from August 2014 to the present that had not previously been announced. The report included 26 deaths from three separate strikes in March.

 

The military's official tally is far below those of other outside groups. Monitoring group Airwars said more than 3,000 civilians have been killed by coalition air strikes.

 

Included in Sunday's tally were 14 civilians killed by a strike in March that set off a secondary explosion, as well as 10 civilians who were killed in a strike on Islamic State headquarters the same month.

 

"We regret the unintentional loss of civilian lives ... and express our deepest sympathies to the families and others affected by these strikes," the Pentagon said in a statement.

 

(Reporting By Yasmeen Abutaleb; Editing by Andrew Hay)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-05-01

[Leicamera]

Aren't all ISIS and Taliban civilians?

[janclaes47]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

At least 352 civilians have been killed in U.S.-led strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria since the operation began in 2014, the U.S. military said in a statement on Sunday.

 

Now wait for the Trump haters to jump on this and blame hime for all the deaths.

[sawadeeken]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least 352 civilians have been killed in U.S.-led strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria since the operation began in 2014, the U.S. military said in a statement on Sunday.

 

In all wars there are casualties........... Let me ask this....... with 352 civilian casualties, how many ISIS were killed? then draw a conclusion as to how many those ISIS may have killed and raped civilians........

 I believe that all troops try to avoid civilians, But when ISIS hides behind civilians, sad results CAN occur..................

[Jingthing]

29 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

 

Now wait for the Trump haters to jump on this and blame hime for all the deaths.

That's a gross oversimplification and unfair. There is widespread consensus in the west that ISIS needs to be defeated. People can discuss the details about whether specific actions are worth the civilian casualties, but that's a matter of degree. trump may care less than a more moderate U.S.president, but any U.S. president would be doing similar things against ISIS. 

[chilli42]

I will give credit to the US for their transperancy.  Syria, Russia and all the other combatants who have certainly killed far more deny all.

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

"We regret the unintentional loss of civilian lives ... and express our deepest sympathies to the families and others affected by these strikes," the Pentagon said in a statement.

 

Rather rings hollow

[elgordo38]

Sometimes I think there is a battle going on for whose life is more valuable. 

[sanukjim]

4 hours ago, Leicamera said:

Aren't all ISIS and Taliban civilians?

As the ISIS are the ones we are going to kill then "Do Not Stand Close" as our bombs and rockets are aiming for him.

[Krataiboy]

Well, you can't make an omelet. . . 

[Andaman Al]

8 hours ago, Leicamera said:

Aren't all ISIS and Taliban civilians?

Yes, but all civilians are not ISIS or Taliban.

[tonbridgebrit]

Washington, Washington, what are you doing ?

When you kill Muslims who are not ISIS, well, you're causing a whole load of them Muslims (them 'rag heads') to try and kill the rest of us. Washington, do realise that the public relations image that you create is very important.

 

[tonbridgebrit]

46 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Well, you can't make an omelet. . . 

Look, the vast majority of Muslims don't actually want to kill us. So Washington wants to make an omelette, and cracks a few eggs. Those eggs that get cracked, the innocent eggs that get cracked, that's whats causing a bunch of Muslims in Europe to try and kill us.

 

[boomerangutang]

9 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

Now wait for the Trump haters to jump on this and blame hime for all the deaths.

It's more likely; it will be the other way around.  Notice, the numbers in the stats are since 2014.  Obama was in charge until a few months ago.   If anything, these stats will be an opp for immature man-child Trump to dump on Obama.

[iReason]

14 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

 

Now wait for the Trump haters to jump on this and blame hime for all the deaths.

Why not?

 

Caveat: Although there are many who dislike Trump and think he is a incompetent buffoon, it appears it is only the Trumpeteers who continually use the word "hate".  Says alot about them...

 

 

 

[simple1]

16 hours ago, sanukjim said:

As the ISIS are the ones we are going to kill then "Do Not Stand Close" as our bombs and rockets are aiming for him.

Do you really believe civilians / family have any choice whatsoever. Time and again it has been reported civilians are used for cover & to deter weapons strikes. Obviously someone has to decide if the likelihood of civilian deaths outweighs the 'value' of killing terror group members.  If one listens to and believes senior members of the Western coalition military it's an ongoing challenge and all highlight the 'War on Terror' can only ultimately be bought to conclusion by political, not military solutions.

[boomerangutang]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Do you really believe civilians / family have any choice whatsoever. Time and again it has been reported civilians are used for cover & to deter weapons strikes. Obviously someone has to decide if the likelihood of civilian deaths outweighs the 'value' of killing terror group members.  If one listens to and believes senior members of the Western coalition military it's an ongoing challenge and all highlight the 'War on Terror' can only ultimately be bought to conclusion by political, not military solutions.

                        That's a tough issue to deal with.  If you're a military person charged with finding targets, are you going to not bomb the bad guys because there are some civilians in his vicinity?  I'm not trying to be glib.

 

                     One thing should be crystal clear:  If a any civilians (wife, g.f, friend, whatever) know that so 'n so is deemed a terrorist by Uncle Sam, that acquaintance/wife/child, should stay far away.   I realize that, in M.East countries, wives are required to do everything their husbands tell them to do.   Yet, if it's a question of their and their children's living or dying, they should disobey their husbands and stay the hell away.   Go visit grandma or whatever.    

 

               (to quote clumsily from Hemingway):  Ask not whom the MOAB is coming for. For if you're within 5 sq. miles of its detonation, you'll be lucky to survive with just blood running out of your nostrils and eyes, and 3rd degree burns over most of your body.

[Credo]

The problem with these statistics is they only tell a part of the story.   As sad as it is that civilians die while getting these guys, one can only guess at how many civilians they would kill if they were allowed to live.   

[simple1]

12 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                        That's a tough issue to deal with.  If you're a military person charged with finding targets, are you going to not bomb the bad guys because there are some civilians in his vicinity?  I'm not trying to be glib.

 

                     One thing should be crystal clear:  If a any civilians (wife, g.f, friend, whatever) know that so 'n so is deemed a terrorist by Uncle Sam, that acquaintance/wife/child, should stay far away.   I realize that, in M.East countries, wives are required to do everything their husbands tell them to do.   Yet, if it's a question of their and their children's living or dying, they should disobey their husbands and stay the hell away.   Go visit grandma or whatever.    

 

               (to quote clumsily from Hemingway):  Ask not whom the MOAB is coming for. For if you're within 5 sq. miles of its detonation, you'll be lucky to survive with just blood running out of your nostrils and eyes, and 3rd degree burns over most of your body.

Been reported a number of times civilians attempting to flee are murdered by Daesh e.g. currently in Mosul. As you say very tough decision, try to flee and risk being murdered by Daesh snipers, coalition bombing or by Iraqi Shiite militias seeking revenge.

Edited May 2, 2017 by simple1

[dick dasterdly]

23 hours ago, chilli42 said:

I will give credit to the US for their transperancy.  Syria, Russia and all the other combatants who have certainly killed far more deny all.

From the OP:-

 

 "The military's official tally is far below those of other outside groups. Monitoring group Airwars said more than 3,000 civilians have been killed by coalition air strikes."

 

Hardly "transparency"!

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

Been reported a number of times civilians attempting to flee are murdered by Daesh e.g. currently in Mosul. As you say very tough decision, try to flee and risk being murdered by Daesh snipers, coalition bombing or by Iraqi Shiite militias seeking revenge.

Or just living in the area, unaware that there is a 'military target' nearby.

[Morch]

On 5/1/2017 at 7:31 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

Look, the vast majority of Muslims don't actually want to kill us. So Washington wants to make an omelette, and cracks a few eggs. Those eggs that get cracked, the innocent eggs that get cracked, that's whats causing a bunch of Muslims in Europe to try and kill us.

 

 

So a better course of action would be to not attack IS?

Terrorists, even Muslim ones, act for various reasons. Not all have to do with innocent Muslim civilians being killed in the fighting.

 

 

[Morch]

23 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

It's more likely; it will be the other way around.  Notice, the numbers in the stats are since 2014.  Obama was in charge until a few months ago.   If anything, these stats will be an opp for immature man-child Trump to dump on Obama.

 

I think the civilian casualties figures attributed to US forces are related to operations carried out. The attack on Mosul, for example, would mean a spike in civilian deaths as it is a densely populated urban area. This operation started near the end of Obama's term, and the fighting intensified later on - hence, possibly more casualties related to this operation under the Trump administration.

 

Not aware that relevant operational military procedures were changed when Trump took office.

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                        That's a tough issue to deal with.  If you're a military person charged with finding targets, are you going to not bomb the bad guys because there are some civilians in his vicinity?  I'm not trying to be glib.

 

                     One thing should be crystal clear:  If a any civilians (wife, g.f, friend, whatever) know that so 'n so is deemed a terrorist by Uncle Sam, that acquaintance/wife/child, should stay far away.   I realize that, in M.East countries, wives are required to do everything their husbands tell them to do.   Yet, if it's a question of their and their children's living or dying, they should disobey their husbands and stay the hell away.   Go visit grandma or whatever.    

 

               (to quote clumsily from Hemingway):  Ask not whom the MOAB is coming for. For if you're within 5 sq. miles of its detonation, you'll be lucky to survive with just blood running out of your nostrils and eyes, and 3rd degree burns over most of your body.

 

That's one fine understanding of both local culture and available choices in a war zone. Not.

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

From the OP:-

 

 "The military's official tally is far below those of other outside groups. Monitoring group Airwars said more than 3,000 civilians have been killed by coalition air strikes."

 

Hardly "transparency"!

 

Not "hardly", and way better compared to other forces involved.

Outside groups count is not necessarily more accurate.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Or just living in the area, unaware that there is a 'military target' nearby.

 

Unaware how?

 

If there's a militant HQ, base or installation in the neighborhood/village - locals will know.

If a family member is a militant, family and neighbors will know.