Terror attacks by Islamist groups

[Pies4shaw]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... e-atrocity

More State-sponsored terrorism.

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

I agree. It was, after all, only about the same number of deaths as the Paris attacks".

[Mugwump]

[David]

Given that dozens of innocent lives have just been lost because of the incompetence of the American forces, talking about "invoking the wrath of The Guardian" is pretty glib. This isn't some PC outrage or lefty beat-up, and I'm kind of shocked you would frame it that way.

[Mugwump]

Sorry if it shocked you, but the reason I framed it way is that it is very, very easy to journalise about things like this in moralizing terms. It is far more difficult when you have to make decisions on partial or incomplete information ina war situation, when the enemy is (apparently) hiding among civilians. If there was evidence that the US attack planners knew there were civilians there in numbers and decided to go ahead anyway without regard for the costs and consequences, I too would be outraged. But I did not read any such evidence in the report.

The article says that the air strikes were called in by Iraqi forces, who are presumably on the ground and in the best position to judge probabilities, consequences etc. The USAF did not use barrel bombs, but guided munitions. Within the framework of having to actually win the war to excise Isis, what do you think should have been done in that situation without the benefit of hindsight ? It is reasonable to argue that we should have nothing to do with any of it, but that, too, has a price in lives for every day that IS clings on.

It's that cosy moralizing detachment of the omniscient journalist who can tell you all the costs of an action but none of the costs of inaction, that prompted my "wrath of the .guardian" comment. Framing it in those terms does nothing to diminish my sadness that so many innocent people were killed. I wish we could forget the ME entirely and not have to soil our hands with the various homicidal forces that work through that part of the world. But we are where we are. Equating the air strike with the wilful, nihilistic murder of Bataclan seems to me far more cynical than what I said.

[stui magpie]

Given that dozens of innocent lives have just been lost because of the incompetence of the American forces, talking about "invoking the wrath of The Guardian" is pretty glib. This isn't some PC outrage or lefty beat-up, and I'm kind of shocked you would frame it that way.

The incompetence of the US fighters or the ISIS pr1cks basing themselves in civilian population areas. Who has the greater culpability?

[Pies4shaw]

Given that dozens of innocent lives have just been lost because of the incompetence of the American forces, talking about "invoking the wrath of The Guardian" is pretty glib. This isn't some PC outrage or lefty beat-up, and I'm kind of shocked you would frame it that way.

It's easy, David. Dead Europeans are a real thing that matters. 150 dead Iraqi civilians aren't a real thing and they don't matter. Otherwise, we'd accept that the two situations are equally appalling and unacceptable - and we apparently don't.

[Mugwump]

^ They are equally appalling. But they are not equally unacceptable. There is a great moral difference between killing innocent people unintentionally while trying to expunge genocidal criminals a war situation, and murdering innocent concertgoers in cold blood.

[Mugwump]

Given that dozens of innocent lives have just been lost because of the incompetence of the American forces, talking about "invoking the wrath of The Guardian" is pretty glib. This isn't some PC outrage or lefty beat-up, and I'm kind of shocked you would frame it that way.

The incompetence of the US fighters or the ISIS pr1cks basing themselves in civilian population areas. Who has the greater culpability?

Are you sure it was incompetence ? Quite possibly it was the result that would have occurred given the most competent person imaginable in the situation concerned. Sometimes, given the limits of knowledge in chaotic situations, what happens is a function of the situation, rather than human error. There is not enough in the article to say, but If the instruction for air attack came from the Iraqi troops on the ground, then the US probably behaved within the ordinary limits of care available in such a situation.

Warfare is an inherently - almost uniquely - stressful and chaotic environment. If you are not prepared to see things like this happen, then simply do not go to war and let the denizens of Mosul find a way to evict their overlords. That is a defensible position, I think, but do not pretend that it is the only credible moral position to take.

[David]

Given that dozens of innocent lives have just been lost because of the incompetence of the American forces, talking about "invoking the wrath of The Guardian" is pretty glib. This isn't some PC outrage or lefty beat-up, and I'm kind of shocked you would frame it that way.

The incompetence of the US fighters or the ISIS pr1cks basing themselves in civilian population areas. Who has the greater culpability?

As long as we don't have any, that's the key thing isn't it?

[David]

Sorry if it shocked you, but the reason I framed it way is that it is very, very easy to journalise about things like this in moralizing terms. It is far more difficult when you have to make decisions on partial or incomplete information ina war situation, when the enemy is (apparently) hiding among civilians. If there was evidence that the US attack planners knew there were civilians there in numbers and decided to go ahead anyway without regard for the costs and consequences, I too would be outraged. But I did not read any such evidence in the report.

Give me a break. Most people would be outraged if their local cafe accidentally served them a meal with a dead blowfly in it. Yet we're supposed to just shrug our shoulders at this catastrophic loss of life and say "fair play, they didn't mean it"?

I don't want to be captain hindsight, but my hot tip would be refrain from air strikes if there is any chance of loss of civilian life whatsoever. Unless of course you think a bit of collateral damage here and there is just the price to pay for an effective war, in which case play on.

I also seem to recall the Russian separatist downing of a civilian plane flight being described here in no uncertain terms as a 'terrorist act'. The fact that they thought it was a military target didn't seem to get them off the hook. If you could explain the fundamental difference between those incidents it would be appreciated.

[Mugwump]

^ i'll give you a break when you engage with the reality of the dilemma and the complexity of the situation. If you mean that air strikes are now out of the question because IS hide amid civilians (and you are now playing by their strategy and encouraging them further to do so) then that means that many more people will probably be killed in the ground war, if IS can actually be extirpated at all. That may not be a problem, in your eyes, if it avoids errors, but it is a problem nonetheless.

I've never fought in a war, thank God, but I have read hundreds of accounts by people who have. I therefore have some appreciation of how different and testing an experience it is compared to sitting at a keyboard.

[stui magpie]

Given that dozens of innocent lives have just been lost because of the incompetence of the American forces, talking about "invoking the wrath of The Guardian" is pretty glib. This isn't some PC outrage or lefty beat-up, and I'm kind of shocked you would frame it that way.

The incompetence of the US fighters or the ISIS pr1cks basing themselves in civilian population areas. Who has the greater culpability?

Are you sure it was incompetence ? Quite possibly it was the result that would have occurred given the most competent person imaginable in the situation concerned. Sometimes, given the limits of knowledge in chaotic situations, what happens is a function of the situation, rather than human error. There is not enough in the article to say, but If the instruction for air attack came from the Iraqi troops on the ground, then the US probably behaved within the ordinary limits of care available in such a situation.

Warfare is an inherently - almost uniquely - stressful and chaotic environment. If you are not prepared to see things like this happen, then simply do not go to war and let the denizens of Mosul find a way to evict their overlords. That is a defensible position, I think, but do not pretend that it is the only credible moral position to take.

I was using David's words (paraphrase)

It's easy to sook about civilian casualties when one side uses the civilians as human shields.

the thing forgotten is that those who hide amongst the civilians, not only have no empathy for them but they do it deliberately so that civilian deaths (which they don't care about) get media which, strangely, supports their cause. Just look at isreal and the palestinians for an example.

If those people were surrounded by ISIS fighters, they were already dead. That they couldn't be saved is tragic, that they were killed by those trying to save them, equally so.

In no way does it equate with those people deliberately taking civilian lives and anyone who thinks it does is a deluded fool.

[Mugwump]

^ I agree, Stui. i just thought you had conceded the incompetence point, when that is a very big assumption. There are many days when I think we should leave these strange exotic people with their mediaeval religion to just kill and enslave one another without us playing a role, but in truth, we are involved because of the stupid act of 2003 (and earlier), and we might as well be grown-ups and accept that this involves being covered in filth and blood whatever we do, until IS is defeated by the Iraqi government.

That these people died is the second tragedy. That they were there is the first tragedy that made the second happen.