A series of airstrikes against the ISIS capital city of Raqqa today have killed at least 39 civilians, and according to some groups over 40. Dozens were also wounded in the attacks, which the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights attributed to either Russian or Syrian warplanes.
The US previously insisted yesterday that Russia hasn’t launched airstrikes in a week, though the Observatory has continued to report Russian airstrikes regularly throughout that period. Russia is confirmed to still be using artillery shelling and attack helicopters.
Attacks against Raqqa tend to cause considerable civilian casualties, whether launched by Syria’s allies or the US coalition, and rarely seem to hit anything of significant value to ISIS forces themselves. Despite this, it remains a popular target.
The reports out of Raqqa suggest that at least five children were among the slain civilians in the attacks, which hit multiple parts of the city. Neither Russia nor Syria has commented on the matter.
Consider the source: Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Enough said.
I’m not sure it IS “enough said.”
Opponents of SOHR say that it’s one guy in Coventry.
Supporters of SOHR says he has 200+ reliable sources on the ground in Syria.
I’d like to actually know which (if either) is the case instead of having to just guess.
Actually, it’s more then enough said, surely you need to start listening to media that is not funded by the West, such as CrossTalk, Scott Horton Show, RT News, Press TV.
RT News is biased toward Russia.
Raqqa has around 7,000 or so Islamic State fighters. Raqqa’s population is 700,000. The fighters are scattered all over the city; it’s impossible to attack fighters without causing civilian casualties; Russia admitted that it bombed Raqqa so civilian casualties are likely.
Supporters of Putin or Assad tend to deny any information that is negative against them.
Most of the antiwar commenters support Assad because they think a brutal dictatorship is required to prevent the so-called “terrorists” from gaining power.
The SOHR also reported that the majority of casualties were the Syrian army and pro-Assad militias. But most antiwar commenters accept this information as true. Anything that portrays Assad or Putin positively were accepted without skepticism, regardless of the source. Anything that portrays them negatively are denied.
Even if you convince them that it was true that the civilians were actually killed, they would still JUSTIFY it as “collateral damage”.
First they will DENY, and if they cannot deny anymore, then they will JUSTIFY. This is the pattern that people do to support their bias.
You see the same with global warming deniers. First they will DENY that global warming is happening, they will DENY that it’s humans who are contributing to it, then they will finally JUSTIFY global warning and claim that global warming is a “good thing”.
You see the same with anti-immigration activists. First they will DENY these migrants that they are actually Syrian and claim that they are from Africa. They will DENY that they are “refugees” and claim that they are economic migrants who want to receive welfare benefits. Even if they are convinced that they are actually refugees, then they will finally JUSTIFY their anti-immigration by claiming that they are violent or will impose Sharia.
You tell them there was a Rabba massacre in Egypt that killed thousands of Morsi supporters. First, they will DENY the information. After they are convinced that information is undeniably true, they will then JUSTIFY the massacre claiming that they are “terrorists” and deserved to get shot.
DENY, JUSTIFY is the procedure that people do to rationalize away contrary evidence to support their position. You’ll never be able to convince their actual positions with mere facts or news tidbits because they will rationalize it away. Only teaching them THEORY will convince them.
Raqqa has around 7,000 or so Islamic State fighters. Raqqa’s population is 700,000. The fighters are scattered all over the city; it’s impossible to attack fighters without causing civilian casualties; Russia admitted that it bombed Raqqa so civilian casualties are likely. According to journalists on Facebook and Twitter, hospitals, schools and bridges in Raqqa had been bombed after Russia started intervening there. When a bridge had been bombed there, people cross over using boats now.
My goodness, I can do better then that and I’m not even a branch of government. For starters there are the four branches of the U.S. Military, a half dozen Gulf oil-rich dictatorships, Turkey, Israel, most of the NATO nations…
The US military has five branches (Marine Corps, Navy, Coast Guard, Army and Air Force).
It’s bad when people die. But ISIS haven’t yet shown much in the way of skills at making peace. So the Syrian government and its allies will likely continue to drive them out of Syria by force.
Raqqa has around 7,000 or so Islamic State fighters. Raqqa’s population is 700,000. The fighters are scattered all over the city; it’s impossible to pinpoint the fighters without causing massive civilian casualties or making mistakes.
Can you tell me where the 700k figure is from? The last census says 220k. Presumably the number of fighters in the city will increase as ISIS losses territory and their fighters retreat to the capital.
Yes – if and when the Syrian army takes Raqqa with the support of Shia militias and Russian artillery and helicopter gunships, the city will be mostly destroyed. Just like American forces largely destroyed the Sunni Iraq cities that were taken over by Al-Qaeda groups that refused to surrender.
I’m not saying it’s morally okay. I’m just observing that is factually what happens these days when states refuse to negotiate their problems. ISIS is perhaps the absolute archetypal group that refuses to negotiate, and whose policies of terrorism, genocide and sexual slavery make them unlimited numbers of enemies.
There is a small chance of the people of Raqqa rebelling before their city is wrecked, but I’m not holding my breath.