>>
|
No. 118345
ID: 278cbe
File
152648233251.jpg
- (214.69KB
, 602x503
, cb54-002_1899_July10_B21725.jpg
)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/coalition-forces-killed-civilians-islamic-state-study-finds/
>A US-led coalition bombed key targets in what were described as “pinpoint airstrikes” by Michael Fallon, who was then the UK’s defence secretary, when the city was finally liberated last July.
>The RAF struck more than 750 targets during the campaign to liberate the city, second only to the US, according to the Ministry of Defence.
>“The high velocity, high explosive weapons have a huge range and using these weapons in tightly packed urban areas is a major risk. You might be targeting snipers or a group of [Isil] fighters but if they’re closely surrounded by large numbers of civilians you can expect substantial casualties,” he said.
As I mentioned once before, the concept of "precision strike" is largely misleading when applied to practical use - mainly because how MSM use it as a hallmark for "democratic" wars rather than "illegal" ones. It's not like other kinds of war are more safe or effective than this kind of force projection, but they are certainly less cynical.
It's not like ISIS makes a less of a threat if they killed less civilians and destroyed less of infrastructure than so-called "anti-ISIS" coalition, but it certainly changes priorities. It was stated many times before, that the terrorism is not the cause of current situation per se, it is a problem itself, and fighting a problem without realizing the cause of it puts you into positive feedback that escalates the trouble continuously.
And, of course, no one is going to help them repair their houses.
|