U.S. military aircraft bombed a school and a crowded marketplace in attacks that killed dozens of civilians in Syria this March, according to a new report from Human Rights Watch. The report, titled “All Feasible Precautions?: Civilian Casualties in Anti-ISIS Coalition Airstrikes in Syria,” investigated two airstrikes conducted in and around the northern Syrian city of Tabqa. Investigators who visited the sites and interviewed locals and survivors found that the strikes had caused huge numbers of civilian deaths. The documentation adds to a drumbeat of criticism about a U.S. air campaign in Syria that has already been accused of inflicting massive civilian casualties in support of ground operations against Islamic State by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces.
The attacks documented in the report include a March 20 airstrike that targeted a school housing displaced people in the suburban town of Mansourah, outside of Tabqa, as well as another strike that hit a packed marketplace in Tabqa City two days later. Investigators from Human Rights Watch visited the sites of both attacks this July and collected the names of at least 84 civilians who had died in the bombings, including 30 children. While witnesses who spoke to investigators acknowledged that ISIS members, along with their families, had been around the areas of the bombings, they also said many civilians were nearby who had no connection to the group.
In the case of the March 22 marketplace bombing, huge numbers of people who had been lining up to buy bread at a local bakery were killed by an airstrike in an attack that may have been targeting a few ISIS members sitting in a nearby internet cafe. While the U.S.-led coalition has acknowledged carrying out the March 20 attack against the school, which it claimed had targeted a suspected weapons storage facility, it has said that it is still assessing the circumstances surrounding the marketplace bombing.
Ole Solvang, a deputy emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, was one of the investigators who visited the bombing sites after the towns returned to the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces this summer. Solvang said the bombings against civilian targets raise serious questions about U.S. commitment to investigating incidents in which its troops allegedly killed innocent civilians. The military has yet to announce that it will launch a full investigation into either strike and has provided limited information to investigators. “We haven’t received a lot of detail from the military about these cases,” Solvang said, “but we think it is very important that they launch a full investigation into what happened as it appears that large numbers of civilians have been killed.”
Human Rights Watch interviewed survivors of the attacks and witnesses, as well as local people who helped bury the victims afterward. Speaking with locals, investigators said it was widely known that both sites frequently had large numbers of civilians present. According to the report:
All local residents Human Rights Watch interviewed said that it was well known that there were many civilians at both sites. According to local residents, the Mansourah school had long hosted displaced civilians fleeing other parts of Syria, and civilians had used the Tabqa market throughout the years-long war. Any person with local knowledge would likely have been able to identify the substantial risk that the two sites contained significant numbers of civilians.
Human Rights Watch’s estimate for the strikes’ death toll — based on named victims — is likely a conservative number, Solvang said, since many of those killed in the school strike were internally displaced refugees from surrounding areas whose identities were not necessarily known to locals. In response to questions from Human Rights Watch, the U.S. military stated that it had “determined prior to the Mansourah attack” — on the school — “that there was no civilian activity at the site,” but it was still assessing the Tabqa City incident.
A spate of deadly bombings in recent months by the U.S. against marketplaces, schools, and mosques in Syria and Iraq have raised alarms about the type of intelligence the U.S. is using to carry out airstrikes, as well as the criteria being used to determine whether civilians are present at the targeted sites. This March, the U.S. bombed a mosque in the northern Syrian town of al-Jinah, an attack that locals said killed dozens of civilians who had gathered for a religious service. Interviews conducted by The Intercept with survivors indicated that large numbers of innocent people were killed in that attack. The military has said that its investigation into the incident will not be reopened.
“There is a trend here in which the coalition is attacking places that are at least notionally civilians targets, like markets, schools, and mosques, where they presumably have information showing some presence” of militants, said Solvang. “In at least some of these cases, we’ve confirmed that militants were nearby, but even in those cases it doesn’t seem that the coalition knew that there were also many civilians in the area when they carried out their attacks. This makes us seriously question the intelligence they are using, as well as whether they are conducting pattern-of-life analysis to understand the nature of the targets that they are hitting.”
The case of the March 22 marketplace bombing was particularly mystifying to Human Rights Watch investigators. The bombing took place in broad daylight, at 5 p.m., in a crowded marketplace as large numbers of people were queuing to buy bread from a local bakery. The lines of people should have been clearly visible to coalition forces conducting aerial surveillance before the attack was carried out.
As deadly these incidents were, the ones in March represent just two of the thousands of airstrikes that have been carried out by the U.S.-led coalition since the war against ISIS got underway. They are also one of the few major incidents that independent investigators have been able to verify on the ground, having occurred in populated urban areas that are now under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces. According to the independent monitoring group AirWars, coalition strikes in Iraq and Syria have killed between 5,343 and 8,223 civilians since the bombs began falling in August 2014. This summer, United Nations officials said that there had been “staggering loss of civilian life” during the ongoing offensive to retake the ISIS capital of Raqqa, with civilians being killed by coalition airstrikes, as well as ground battles between the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Islamic State.
In a Time interview earlier this month, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, the top U.S. military officer during much of the coalition effort against ISIS, praised the Trump administration for having “freed us up a bit to prosecute the war in a more aggressive manner.” During his campaign, President Donald Trump had repeatedly promised to wage U.S.-led wars more brutally, including by deliberately targeting noncombatants and re-instituting a policy of torturing terrorism suspects. Many observers of the campaign against ISIS have criticized the military’s conduct, suggesting that the impact of widespread civilian casualties was transforming the coalition in the eyes of locals from liberator into aggressor.
Responding again to the growing outrage over the campaign in an article published in Foreign Policy last week, Townsend insisted that the war was being waged proportionately, adding that responsibility for any civilian deaths lay solely with ISIS. “The coalition will continue to take great care in our targeting to protect civilians from harm but we must maintain our course,” Townsend wrote. “We must maintain the initiative and we must liberate the people of Iraq and Syria from this real and mortal danger.”
Well, to the U.S. military it’s just collateral damage, so what’s the big deal?
Serving in the U.S. military is no longer an honorable occupation; they have become storm troopers for Wall Street.
The US will not be happy until it dominates everything. This country became many things it claims to despises. When The US GOV causes its own downfall, or the decline of the US American Empire, most members of the empire(The Establishment) will blame everyone else but themselves. They will blame US citizens, allies, other foreign nations, leftists, etc…
Any reaction from the Pentagon’s PR department to the news of their steady arms supply/pipeline into Syria?
Impossible: everybody knows that US bombs are good and smart and only kill bad terrorists. On the other hand all US enemies have bad and stupid bombs that only kill good babies.
The US liberates countries and saves our world from evil.
“We must liberate…”
You pompous asshole; that is not your mission.
Wait until this generation grows up and hates the US.
Corporations and the military are great partners in short-term gains.
They’re killing us.
Trump is obviously delivering on his promises.
No Top Gun! You don’t get a fucking replay when you bomb a school! Because dipshit… this isn’t a video game.
So for the people on the ground and who’ve lost family members and friends and countrymen it’s a reality that the US are the terrorists.
“We must maintain the initiative and we must liberate the people of Iraq and Syria from this real and mortal danger.”
Uh, General, I think the one creating the “mortal danger” is US! Why are we bombing territory that’s basically held by our allies? Would you want Britain to start bombing New York for our “benefit” if it turned out there were agents of ISIL creating a sleeper cell here?
How many civilians did ISIS kill?
How many civilians did Assad/Putin kill?
Not that those war crimes justify the US war crimes, but could you please at least stop pretending as if the US invented war atrocities?
Before Pol Pot atrocities became public knowledge, Noam Chomsky used to refer to him as the Cambodian Che Guevara. Would you please stop defiling your own causes by failing to account for context?
“Would you please stop defiling your own causes by failing to account for context?”
His causes are anti Americanism, not the protection of civilians. That’s why he is not going to account for context. He will not admit the US and the coalition have taken many steps to avoid civilian casualties. His articles are not about asking the coalition to improve those steps, which they should. He is just attempting to portray the US and the coalition as forces that are similar to ISIS with regards to civilians. Noam Chomsky does the same. He cannot admit that a US adversary could be worse than the US in terms of human rights. He was silent when the Taliban was committing genocide, but he claimed the US intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 was to commit genocide. That was not only factually incorrect, but weird considering the US stopped the Taliban from committing genocide. He was just saying what anti Americans want to hear.
You geniuses should periodically try and read some of the other articles about Syria and Iraq on this website.
He wants every single writer to write exhaustive articles, each time, to present the entire reality of every situation with all its facts and nuances, and, … as he sees it.
Perhaps TI should hire him.
You certainly write a lot about somebody you claim is obsessed with you. Isn’t it supposed to be the opposite?
You also seem to have a problem when people challenge others’ views. Maybe you should learn the purpose of comment sections.
Anyway, attack the argument not the commenter. Running away by claiming “he wants”, ” he sees” means you have no valid arguments.
I tease you to test you to see if you have enough self-control to avoid responding to me or mention me in other posts, and you always fail.
That is weird. Testing? Are you the only commenter who gets an answer from me? This is a comment section. You write comments and if they are interesting others including me will respond. It is really weird that you believe others should avoid responding to you.
Anyway, write an argument about the article, then I shall answer you. I click the ignore button on you now.
No, I once specifically asked you to not respond to me. And I did that a few times.
I also told you that you were stalking me and asked you not to do that.
Hence, the test.
Which you should’ve done in the first place.
Wow, what a bs answer. You apparantly whined to Mona that you were no longer going to post on TI because you were being stalked. Why should swisscheese not respond to you? He is not the one claiming he is being harrased.
I had requested SC to not respond to me.
I did not respond to him; rather, I indirectly mentioned him in a reply to someone else, to see if he’d reply to me.
He did.
And I pointed that out.
Moreover, he earlier attacked me and quoted me out of context in a post, which was in reply to someone else.
And he did that when he and I weren’t even engaged in any discussion with each other.
Why was it necessary for him to attack me and quote me out of context, especially since there was no discussion between he and I going on?
The answer is obvious: He saw me comment and decided to include me in a list of multiple commenters on another subject, lumping me with them as if they and I share the same views on the subject matter, and include me in his attack on them.
I took it as a symptom of his obsessiveness with me — it was totally unnecessary for him to include me in that list of commenters.
So I decided to test that by mentioning him indirectly to see if he’d reply.
He did.
Now, if you read my comments above with an open mind, you’d see that I have clarified the issue.
I think if you refer to another poster whether in direct reply to them, or to someone else, it is reasonable for them to respond back. It doesnt test anything.
In most cases, yes.
But here are the things:
1. I repeatedly requested him (and I did that quite politely) to not respond to me. I have never done this to another poster since I started online commenting back in 1994. So, this was a first for me.
2. He did indicate a few times he’d ignore me.
3. He is the one who mentioned me first after he saw that I was back. And he did that to malign me. His inclusion of me in that list of commenters was unnecessary and was an attempt to distort my views on that specific subject.
[I had previously given him my views on that specific subject, but my views actually went over his head because he is a fact-machine and cannot grasp subtlety and metaphors.]
4. I do, quite genuinely, feel that he’s obsessed with me AND I also believe in my heart (and you don’t have to agree with me) that he has in fact stalked me in the past. [Many men tend not to realize how women feel when the men make them feel uncomfortable.]
5. I was genuinely being mischievous when I decided to test to see if he’d respond to me when I mentioned him in a reply to someone else without mentioning his name. Also, he could’ve let it go by assuming that I was referring to the original commenter in that sub-thread and not him.
Look, I have nothing else against him. He’s a prolific writer and has accumulated a lot of facts over the years and can talk about many issues.
Weird indeed, the commenter goes from a section to another, write about me and then claim I am the one “obsessed” with her. Not a single of her comments here is about the article. They all about Swisscheese.
Look at the timeline.
You saw me commenting, then mentioned me in a comment of yours in which you quoted other commenters and included me in that list of yours to point out that we all shared the same view on the subject matter.
This, you did BEFORE I mischievously talked about you in response to another commenter WITHOUT mentioning your name, just to see if you’d react.
And you did.
It’s quite deliberate on my part, as you know.
Again, look at the timeline.
You included me in a list of commenters to give the readers the impression that we all shared the same views on that subject matter.
Why did you feel it necessary to include me, if it hadn’t been for the apparent fact that YOU are the one who is obsessed with me?!
Again, this comment of mine is another test/opportunity for you to completely ignore me and not give me a chance to be mischievous towards you, and to show that you are not obsessed with me.
You can believe whatever you want. You can believe I am obsessed with you, in love with you, hate you…that is your problem not mine. This is a comment section opened to the public. I will challenge your comments whenever and however I want as long as I follow the rules clearly presented by TI. Make sure you get this into your skull: nobody is under any obligation to ignore you.
Now, I recommend you read the article and write your opinion about it. Write TI and tell them you have a problem with Swisscheese and make sure you state the rules that Swisscheese violated. Nobody is really interested in your drama, which is not bringing anything to the discussion here. Yes, I just click the ignore button on you again for the day.
Obviously, YOU are interested; otherwise, you’d have enough self-control to ignore me.
Which you haven’t been able to successfully do.
Why is that?
ANSWER: You ARE OBSESSED with me!
No, you are just obsessed with me.
And you keep proving it.
You proved it by including me in that list of commenters and their views on that specific subject. It was totally unnecessary and you did that to malign me and distort my views on that subject matter, which I did share with you once, but you didn’t understand because you are a fact-machine and unable to understand subtlety and metaphors.
If you are not obsessed with me, then have the courage and self-control to do the following:
1. Do not respond to me from now on.
2. Do not mention me in ANY of your comments EVER.
Let’s see if you can do that.
Thanks for the compliment, but having common sense is not akin to being a genius. I shall return the compliment when you pinpoint the articles that explain the steps the US and the coalition have taken to prevent civilian deaths. Or have they? You are the journalist, aren’t you supposed to tell us?
Basically, you will deserve a better response when you attack the argument.
Such as?
Don’t hold your breath it will take awhile.
Alright! Break it up! Move on
Shouldn’t you be at a trump rally somewhere?
Wow, you created a nickname just to write this? About an opinion on the article?
Putin killed terrorists that are funded and supplied by the CIA all over the world…America is the country that is killing people all around the world not Russia…. American occupied Ukraine , Syria , Yemen , Somalia , Iraq , Afghanistan,. Time to see the truth ,,, The Crimea was a vote and not one person died. You sound like a man married 11 times and calls all your x-woman bit—chs
“You sound like a man married 11 times and calls all your x-woman bit—chs”
Why? Because I expressed a view different than yours?
Putin killed terrorists? Really? please review his first act as prime minister, after arranging the bombing of his own people, namely the flattening of Grozny, or the carpet bombing of ISIS strongholds, or the military conquest of Crimea the minute the riot started in Kiev, or the renewal of cold war era assassination of former Russian dissidents.
In short, your exhibited ignorance does not serve you well.
Neither ISIS nor Assad nor even Putin (perhaps to a lesser extent) engage in self-righteous finger-pointing, first of all. Beyond that, we can go down the list for “context”:
– ISIS is not a state actor. It’s a criminal organization.
– The Syrian government is fighting a civil war against rebels largely financed from abroad. What legitimate claim does the US have to be fighting a war in Syria?
– Russia was asked by Syria to participate in that war. I don’t believe in meddling even in such cases, but their claim is clearly more legitimate.
“Neither ISIS nor Assad nor even Putin (perhaps to a lesser extent) engage in self-righteous finger-pointing, first of all.”
Actually ISIS made it clear they are morally superior to everybody. Do you have access to their official magazine Dabiq from your universe?
“ISIS is not a state actor. It’s a criminal organization.”
And? What’s your point?
“What legitimate claim does the US have to be fighting a war in Syria?”
Collective self defense under international law. A party of that war ISIS, has attacked US citizens and attacked US allies on their soil. The US, UK, France and others do not need Syria’s permission to defend themselves.
“Russia was asked by Syria to participate in that war. I don’t believe in meddling even in such cases, but their claim is clearly more legitimate.”
The US was asked by Iraq and the Kurds to participate in that war, but of course you will not describe the US claim as “legitimate”. I wonder whether you consider US actions in Afghanistan, which asked the US to stay as more legitimate than Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which has strongly condemned Russia’s interference.
Dude, go straight to the point. You waste too much energy with that exercise that consists of ignorant statements, contradictions and distortions. Just tell everybody you believe all US actions are illegitimate. This is a key feature of your anti Americanism.
The issue I address is the attempt to hide or obscure the fact that all parties in the war in Syria, and NOT the US exclusively, kill civilians in droves, and the hypocrisy in singling out the US on that. How is your comment even remotely address that? How is the fact that Russia was invited by Syria make its killing of civilians less horrific? How is the nature of ISIS even remotely on topic in the context specified? Even if your false description of the massacre of Syrian protesters by the Syrian government as a civil war was accurate, how does that justify their killing of civilians?
Finally, why does the Intercept and similar alternative media outlets find it pertinent to enumerate US murder of civilians in Syria and Iraq, but not those of Syria, ISIS, or Russia?
“Finally, why does the Intercept and similar alternative media outlets find it pertinent to enumerate US murder of civilians in Syria and Iraq, but not those of Syria, ISIS, or Russia?”
They will refer you to Noam Chomsky’s explanation, which is
1) The duty of a journalist to hold its own government accountable
2) As citizens of the US they can do something about US government actions.
The explanation looks fine on the surface, but they always ignore their own government duty under international conventions to prevent genocides and help other nations fight terrorism. They also ignore the US government duties as a member of the United Nations unless the US fails its duties with regards to Israel. For instance, none of them will attack the US for failing in its duty as a UN member to prevent the genocide in Rwanda or Afghanistan.
You will also notice they consistently praise foreign journalists who expose Israel human rights violations while completely ignore their own government abuses. Have you ever noticed one of them attack Al Jazeera for ignoring Qatar human rights records?
Sad. Bombing will always result in killing innocents – especially when they are held as human shields by ISIS and Al Qaeda, but compared with the murder, rape and human trafficking, the damage is far less (but still not to be trivialized). On a related matter reported in ZeroHedge, while Trump has stopped the CIA from funding Al Qaeda, the US Pentagon is still supplying Al Qaeda with weapons they purchased ($1-2 billion) from former Soviet bloc countries (so that when these weapons are found in the hands of ISIS, they won’t be traced to the US). Time for the US Pentagon to stop funding terrorists and leave Syria to Russia and Assad.
Being careless while fighting terrorism creates terrorists. This is cyclical.
Ah yes, another preemptive strike on dangerous pre-refugees. Better to stop those children over there before they learn who killed their parents.
the US takes extraordinary effort to avoid casualties. Unlike the other side, who hide behind civilians when they’re not dumping them off a roof. See the difference?
lol “Guys we’re trying really really hard, but sometimes you blow up a school! Whoops! It’s fine because the other guys are bad too.”
Sad!
It’s hard to reason with a dead civilian.
“Hey, guys, we tried!” Yeah, sure, tell that to the parents of those dead schoolchildren.
Repetition of propaganda doesn’t make it true.
The Pentagon is at war with Russia.
thesaker.is/very-dangerous-escalation-in-syria/
Remember: the generals are now in charge of the White House.
It is necessary to destroy Syria in order to save it.
Sounds like something president Trump would say [sic] after watching a Ken Burn’s film about the Vietnam war.
*btw, in last nights segment, although it was necessary to destroy the lovely Vietnam city Hue to save it in Burns’ exhaustive accounting, the local PBS decided to air a more recent (2016) ‘travel/trek’ show to that very metropolis in Vietnam presumably to demonstrate that all has been forgiven . .. if not forgotten.
Who will protect the world from the unhinged criminals in Washington?