It’s being reported that in the battle to take Raqqa from ISIS civilians are being slaughtered in hundreds in the daily bombardment by the US and their allies and the Kurdish forces. UN war crimes investigators have said that the US-led coalition air strikes are causing “staggering loss of life”,
Additionally Human Rights Watch warned that, contrary to international law, the coalition is using artillery-delivered white phosphorus in Raqqa and Mosul. The use of this charming stuff is prohibited in civilian areas “because of its indiscriminate effects. On contact, it can burn people, thermally and chemically, down to the bone.”
WTF? We expect this kind of thing from the butcher Assad but how the hell can the West condemn Assad for using chemical weapons when they themselves are also using dangerous chemicals for whatever purpose? (What is phosphorus if it isn’t a chemical?)
What should or can the world do to prevent this? It’s one thing to collect evidence of war crimes, it’s another thing to successfully prosecute them. If the world is incapable of bringing the Syrian regime to book what chance does it stand of making the US answer for its crimes? None at all of course.
The only solution that I can see is public opinion in the West, which needs to be brought to bear against its rulers. People should demand an end to the use of massive bombing in civilian areas, an end to the use of dangerous chemicals in those areas. Problem is I can’t see that working either.
Does anybody have any ideas at all as to how to rein in the combatants or at the very least make them adhere to the rules of civilized behavior?
Because the US can do whatever we want and nobody can hold us accountable. Until that changes, then we can go on killing civilians and such as a bold move to FIGHT TERRORISM!
I’m skeptical that HRW or the UNHRC are impartial sources of information, but, if we assume the facts are as presented in the OP, I don’t see much of a path forward for, for example, deeply concerned western European nations to affect change.
So, in intense fighting with a group who is dug in, is willing and even eager to use civilians as a shield, has done some pretty horrific things to the trapped civilian population, the coalition has managed a death toll per air strike (over the period of 3 months) of an average of 4 civilians dead per strike. And you want to see about this being a war crime??
I mean, there isn’t a lot of detail here, and certainly this should be investigated, but just based on what you’ve provided in your OP I’m not seeing it. I mean, they are fighting in a city. Much of the population has been evacuated, but many more (estimated 50k-100k according to your cite) can’t or won’t leave…and ISIS is using them as a human shield. Short of basically just doing nothing and letting ISIS have the city and do what they want (possibly killing many more and enslaving others) I don’t see how you could reasonably expect less than 4 civilian deaths per air strike…not in the real world.
It’s only contrary to ‘international law’ depending on how it’s being used. Since we don’t have details it’s hard to say if it’s a violation or not, but I’d guess that if it was the US or other European forces they aren’t using it in a way that violates the ‘law’. If it’s Iraqi or Syrian rebel forces then who knows? Need more details before the knee should start jerking.
How are you jumping from the coalition doing these things (which is what your article says) to ‘making the US answer for its crimes’? Oh, never mind…you don’t have to answer that.
Why don’t you go to Iraq and Syria and sit down to some serious talks with ISIS to ask them, nicely, if they would please not use their captive human populations as a shield and instead come out into the open so we can kill them in a more civilized fashion? Then you could go talk to Syria and Russia and ask them if they could please not deliberately target civilians with things like barrel bombs. While you are at it, you could see how and who, exactly, are using white phosperous and whether it is a violation, and then talk earnestly to the various coalition air strike groups to see if they could lower the civilian death toll to perhaps 3 civilians deaths per air strike…or maybe 2…
Because then if we slaughter innocent civilians in job lots it would be ok? I don’t see where you are going with this. I seriously doubt that Russia and Syria have a per air strike death toll of 4 civilians…more like 40 or 400 with bonuses given per head of civilians killed. Also, you do know that a lot of air strikes by Syrian and Russian forces aren’t against ISIS but instead against their own rebellious civilians…right? Or are you saying they are the ‘genuine’ ‘islamic terrorists’ we should be fighting??
I suppose we can let it go on and just get into the ‘business’ that profits from the war?
Not into conspiracies but I’m pretty sure that the military industrial complex profits from the conflict in Syria, Iraq etc… We won’t be able to solve the issue there, so why not just make the best we can (financially speaking)?
Yeah, I think I’ve heard something about them. Were they in the news? But, you know, it’s so confusing. I mean the Syrians and Russians kill AQ, they kill IS, they kill their own civilians either by accident or on purpose (with or without the optional gas attack…no extra charge though), they kill Kurds, they kill rebels. If we allied with them then I guess it would be all good, huh?
