"US Airstrike kills 240 in Mosul / ISIS SVBIEDs" Topic

( link )

The US military confirmed on Saturday that a coalition airstrike had hit an Islamic State-held area of Iraq's Mosul where as many as 240 civilians may have been killed as result of the air raid.

What happened in the incident on March 17 in Mosul al-Jadida district is still unclear according to Reuters. Some residents say a coalition air strike hit an explosive-filled truck, detonating a blast that collapsed buildings packed with families. Mosul municipality chief, Abdul Sattar al-Habbo, who is supervising the rescue, said 240 bodies had been pulled from the rubble of collapsed buildings. Previous estimates from local officials had said around 130 people had died. While US officials say they are investigating, initial reports from residents and Iraqi officials in the past week said dozens of people had been killed after air strikes by U.S.-led coalition forces.

The Western media was constantly condemning Russia for airstrike casualties in Aleppo. Let's see what they have to say about US airstrikes in Mosul.

On a somewhat-related note (since the article claims an explosives-laden ISIS truck triggered the collateral damage)…I was watching a vid compilation of ISIS drone footage filming their SVBIED attacks….Iraqi army security posture is TERRIBLE. ISIS was constantly driving suicide bombs straight into the middle of parked Humvee convoys. As if the Iraqis have little or no perimeter security. I saw in another video that there are ~5 SVBIED attacks daily. The future is autonomous vehicle tech ( link ) + an abundance of small civilian cars + cheap explosives = an endless supply of cruise missile-equivalents for urban insurgencies. Practically every rifleman might need an M72 LAW / RPG-22 just in case.

Terrible or not, the Iraqis are winning.

The differences between the Russians and the Coalition are many.

The Coalition spends a lot of effort avoiding civilian casualties…in this case tragically something went wrong.

Butnits not like there's been systematic destruction of hospitals and medical infrastructure.

So no real parallels…

I'm not saying it isn't true, the Pentagon is investigating it. However the website that you direct to seems to be far from unbiased itself. "Alex Jones apologizes for covering Pizzagate", a story about nefarious dealings involving a US Presidential Candidate in the basement of a pizzeria that has no basement. And when one of their primary quotes on the story is to RT, Russia Today well, I'd rather go with the NY Times.

link

Truly tragic when a belligerent chooses to fight from within the confines of a civilian population. Whether those civilians are there as willing participants or captives trapped by fate, it is still tragic.

As students of history we know the current estimate of civilian casualties being approx. 250 (a quantitative not qualitative number) is not "heavy casualties" in an urban air raid. Thankfully it is not in the thousands or even tens of thousands as in previous conflicts. ISIS bears full responsibility for the lives and well being of each and every person under their control. For anyone to think or say otherwise is both foolish and deceitful.

The differences between the Russians and the Coalition are many.

The Coalition spends a lot of effort avoiding civilian casualties…in this case tragically something went wrong.

Butnits not like there's been systematic destruction of hospitals and medical infrastructure.

So no real parallels…

If jihadis systematically put their C2 nodes under hospitals, then hospitals will get systematically destroyed.

This site ( airwars.org/reports ) has a pretty well-sourced and reasonably-balanced account of air campaign casualties by all parties. In particular ( link ) attributes about 40% to the US Coalition and 60% to Russia. Curiously, the same site only has about 1,000 confirmed women/children out of 7,000+ "civilian" casualties. Whole lotta military-age males seem to congregate where bombs are dropped.

And when one of their primary quotes on the story is to RT, Russia Today well, I'd rather go with the NY Times.

Well, going from Putin's mouthpiece to Soros' mouthpiece will at least give broad-based coverage. I think when it comes to MidEast stuff I'd want my reporting from a relatively uninvolved party, like the South China Morning Post, or The Diplomat.

ISIS bears full responsibility for the lives and well being of each and every person under their control. For anyone to think or say otherwise is both foolish and deceitful.

I'll ask our SJA, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the Law of Land Warfare works. If I occupy territory, the population doesn't leave, and YOU shoot ordnance into that territory….you should be liable, not me. If the opposite were true we'd probably still be shooting "shake & bake" artillery missions. But we burnt up enough people during Fallujah we spotlighted that technique and had to stop.

Except there is exactly zero evidence that the jihadists were using hospitals and extremely copious evidence they weren't.

Leaving aside the fact that not every opposition group in Syria is even remotely jihadi.

But if you think the SCMP is independent, bes tof luck to you.

I prefer the Red Cross, Amnesty international, MSF etc…

Except there is exactly zero evidence that the jihadists were using hospitals and extremely copious evidence they weren't.

( link ) ( link ) ( link ) ( link )

…You were saying?

But if you think the SCMP is independent, bes tof luck to you.

I said "relatively uninvolved", not "independent". China doesn't have heavy interests in the Syria/Iraq situation, so their media outlets aren't spewing endless streams of propaganda the way RT/NYT/BBC/Al-Jazeera are, at least on this subject.

The SCMP has been largely independent of mainland Chinese influence until very recently. If anything the've been a thorn in the side of the CPC, rather than a mouthpiece for them.

Whether it will remain so under its new ownership now it's been bought by a Pro-Beijing mainlander remains to be seen, though a lot of folks in my neck of the woods are pretty pessimistic about it despite jack Ma's assurances to the contrary. The squeeze, if it is coming, has apparently not begun yet though.

For now it remains the best easily-accessable English-language source of general-interest Chinese news by far, and its international coverage is as good as most quality broadsheets. As Mr Noble says, China does not have a dog in this race. And any pressure from China will affect local stories long before it ruins the international coverage.