A new report from human rights group Amnesty International today is harshly critical of the tactics used by Iraq forces and their allies (i.e. the US) in the invasion and occupation of the ISIS-held city of Mosul, saying they flagrantly violated international law and might amount to war crimes.
The report centered on the massive civilian death toll in attacks, particularly escalating as the battle moved into western Mosul, saying Iraqi forces regularly used unnecessary amounts of force and indiscriminate targeting which put civilians at undue risk.
Amnesty research director Lynn Maalouf was quick to note that ISIS had unlawfully used human shields, but that this “does not lessen the legal obligation of pro-government forces to protect civilians.” That position is true from a legal perspective, but appears to stand in contrast to the Pentagon’s statements, which have couched all of the biggest incidents of civilian deaths in their airstrikes as ISIS’ fault. Indeed, the US “Law of War Manual” has struggled with this issue in recent revisions.
Amnesty officials criticized the use of imprecise explosive weapons in the attacks on densely populated parts of Mosul that were known to be full of civilians unable to escape, saying it was inappropriate, and amounted to repeated violations of international law with respect to targeting civilians.
Amnesty also took issue with the drastic under reporting of civilian deaths in Mosul, saying 5.805 were likely killed in just a four month span. While the Pentagon hasn’t offered its own figures for that entire period yet, their figures for the four months are likely to be no more than a couple of hundred.
Pentagon officials were naturally dismissive of the reports, with Gen. Stephen Townsend insisting they were untrue, and that Amnesty is not in “a position of authority” and therefore has no right to make such statements about the war crimes in the first place.
Townsend went on to echo the usual claims of “extraordinary care” by the US, despite the massive body count, bragging he believes the war in Mosul was the most precise ever, in the history of the human race.
Depends on who’s propaganda you read, eh? The Iranians say the US had nothing to do with the “victory” in Mosul, while Amnesty says ALL sides did war crimes. Anitwar is all about taking down the empire, other’s empires be damned. Like I always say, not everything is an Anglo/Zionist plot, and nor should we think that way. Everyone has an agenda, it’s all shades of grey, no black and white on this planet.
The propaganda doesn’t come out until the pentagon gives their figures. And what other empires are there that also need to be taken down?
So only the Pentagon uses propaganda? Your response indicates you can see through a keyhole with both eyes at the same time. Did you dig a little deeper, or just have Antiwar provide you with info so you stay in your comfort zone?
My response was based on the pentagon’s history for their woefully low casualty count. Whether every country in the world uses propaganda is irrelevant to that.
Sure it is. Only the Pentagon propaganda is bad, eh. I can see you have difficulty with complex problem solving, so I won’t tax your brain with it anymore. Only to say always seek to see the other side, because there’s always more than one.
I’m talking ridiculously low. There is no competition. Even a gung ho ‘fox and friends’ kind of guy like you would have to admit that. The best propagandist couldn’t compete with pentagon numbers so yes, they really are irrelevant.
The USA and the western world has way out a by far the greatest propaganda machinery that has ever existed on this earth to date
Looks like Anitwar forgot about the part about ISIS emptying villages around E Mosul to use the civilians as human shields. Sounds to me like coalition forces made the best of a bad situation. In other words, cut the headchoppers a pass because it’s really all about bringing down the empire. Just like Mr. Assange, only the empire is worth denigrating because…. well just because.
Didn’t you read the third paragraph?
I did. Amnesty just barely makes mention of the fact that headchoppers are herding folks from around the countryside just so the coalition has to shoot through them to get to the choppers. Choppers don’t care about the Geneva conventions, so they must be killed. What else does one do with a headchopper? Negotiate? Methinks not. But Antiwar wants to twist into another anglo/zionist plot to destroy the world. It’s pretty clear to me the responsibility falls completely on the choppers, and it’s another case of Jason not finding the forest in the trees.
So you don’t have a problem with coalition troops shooting through human shields? Obviously we must know there are human shields because our propaganda free pentagon told us so.
Well, actually I do of course. But I also understand military doctrine and expediency. War is awful, but YOU have to make decisions on who lives and who dies sometimes. Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which couldn’t be worse, I also understand that it was the decision which saved the most total lives and created the best possible outcome. And regarding the “propaganda free pentagon”, obviously you miss the point… It’s ALL agenda-driven propaganda, it just depends on what you want to believe. In that respect, Antiwar is somewhat of a one-note tune.
It doesn’t matter who I believe. The pentagon’s propaganda is the only one I care about. Saying we only killed X amount of civilians while the other side says we killed a different amount doesn’t change the fact that we killed civilians. Our agenda, since we have bases all over the world, is obvious. Something you can’t, or won’t, grasp.
Some thing is wrong with the entire story of ISIS taking over and being defeated by the US and Iraqi forces . Several years ago after the United Stated backing the non existent moderate rebel to overthrow Assad . Seven hundred Islamic extremist terrorists from the USA and Europe started fighting against the IRAQI Army that we trained and equiped with tanks . . LO and behold the fast little Toyota pickups defeated the much larger Iraqi Army we trained and captured the tanks .. We could have easily bombed those pickup as they moved across Iraq from town to town . We did not do it . Last I heard 1 hundred Islamic terrorist were holding over a hundred thousand people captive as human shields .Now the United states and the Iraq army are in trouble for using to much force to defeat ISIS in Mosul .We killed thousands of civilian to force ISIS to run . It looks to me we are not trying to defeat Muslim extremists we are try to create more potential refugees to bring to the western countries . The more refugees we get the more power our government will get and the less freedom we will have .
Armchair generaling is easy, is it not?
And Assad’s the monster? Hows that work?….
What makes you think there’s only one monster?
Touche.
It’s easy to imagine why Assad and Syrian people are that much resolute in protecting their sovereignty.
They know what’s going on next once they surrender, when they see what Iraqis are about now.
They are errands of USA, so to do more dirty work as precise as told.