• UK airstrikes have killed nearly 1000 ISIS members with zero civilian casualties, according to MoD f
    24 replies, posted
[url]https://news.vice.com/article/exclusive-uk-airstrikes-in-iraq-and-syria-have-killed-almost-1000-enemy-combatants-but-no-civilians[/url] [quote]The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has reported killing almost 1,000 "enemy combatants" and injuring nearly 100 more during Royal Airforce (RAF) airstrikes in Iraq and Syria between September 2014 and March 2016, though it claims no civilians have been harmed during the bombardments. The figures were released on Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Request (FOI) made by VICE News last month to ascertain the death toll as a result of British airstrikes targeting Islamic State (IS), referred to by UK authorities as Daesh. "As you are probably aware, UK airstrikes are part of a wider Coalition operation to counter Daesh in Iraq and Syria by targeting their command and control sites, military equipment, and revenue streams including oil infrastructure," read the response. In total, 974 people listed as enemy combatants were killed and 94 injured during bombing raids in Iraq between September 2014 and March 2016, while in Syria 22 enemy combatants were reported killed and four injured between December 2015 and March 2016.[/quote] [url]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/520366/PJHQ_FOI2016_03806___Number_of_enemy_combatants_killed_in_RAF_airstrikes_in_Iraq_from_2014_to_2016.pdf[/url] [quote]Regarding questions 2 and 4, the UK takes all steps necessary to minimise civilian causalities. All weapons employed by the RAF aircraft are conducted in strict accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict and rigorous Rules of Engagement incorporating estimates to minimise the chance of civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. Furthermore, the MOD also conducts an assessment after every British strike of the damage caused which includes checks to see whether there are likely to have been civilian casualties. Our records show that there were no of civilian casualties for the period in question.[/quote]
Good on them. [QUOTE]The MoD said no civilians had died.[/QUOTE] And the USA had proof that Saddam was constructing new WMDs, too. I'm not as confident about this statement compared to the others.
No civilian can die when you consider everyone ISIS
I'm sorry but I really doubt that.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50231492]Good on them. And the USA had proof that Saddam was constructing new WMDs, too. I'm not as confident about this statement compared to the others.[/QUOTE] it could be true in iraq if they focused exclusively on convoys and troop movement, in syria they appear to have conducted almost no operations at all so not hitting any civilians could also be true due to not having hit much of anything there
Cool. Did this liberate the territory they were on too? oh
Have there been any reports of civilian deaths/mistargeted strikes in Iraq or Syria? I haven't really heard of any but I'd be interested to see [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] Civilian casualties [I]were[/I] very low in the Libya intervention, although they weren't literally zero
With what little air strikes any of the other coalition nations have done, I severly doubt this. Even the efforts the US goes to avoid civies getting killed doesn't mean that it's going to a flawless execution. More on the fact ISIS willingly and successfully utilizes civilians enmass to assure strikes won't hit certain areas. There is no feasible way the UK has done 100 strikes and not have collateral damage. [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;50231515]Have there been any reports of civilian deaths/mistargeted strikes in Iraq or Syria? I haven't really heard of any but I'd be interested to see [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] Civilian casualties [I]were[/I] very low in the Libya intervention, although they weren't literally zero[/QUOTE] US has confirmed on several occasions civilians have been killed in their airstrikes. It's not avoidable when you're dealing with disorganized and organize militants groups who hold ground in civilian area and notably ISIS forces civilians in areas to remain where their at when an approaching force comes to them, see Al-Shaddi,Ramadi,Hit,Fallujah,Mosul, and Raqqa.
Brimstone missiles are designed to cause very little to no collateral damage. I am not saying it was a clean sweep for us, but technological advances have made such a precision bombing campaign possible with a small toll on civilian life.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50231515] [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] Civilian casualties [I]were[/I] very low in the Libya intervention, although they weren't literally zero[/QUOTE] How comparable is that, since intervention in Libya altogether was low [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Thomo_UK;50231561]Brimstone missiles are designed to cause very little to no collateral damage. I am not saying it was a clean sweep for us, but technological advances have made such a precision bombing campaign possible with a small toll on civilian life.[/QUOTE] Collateral damage is done by the guy aiming the gun, not the bullet itself. If there were no civilian causalties, it was because of trained operators, not the missiles.
Considering ISIS' M.O I really doubt that you can truly tell them apart from the general populace. One of the reasons that organisations like that entrench themselves in Civilian Populations to begin with is to try and gain some cover from airstrikes. So maybe they only targeted people holding guns? That could work in theory (assuming you can accurately target those people) but it also means that anyone in ISIS that wants to avoid getting blown up just needs to make efforts to look unarmed. It could be that they only targeted ISIS members that are clearly ISIS - those that staff the training camps and whatnot. Again, that might work in theory but if that's what they're doing all that'll happen is that the others will go to ground in civilian areas. I'm not pretending to be an armchair general here but either the MoD is full of shit or they're being VERY picky about their targets.
[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;50231586]Considering ISIS' M.O I really doubt that you can truly tell them apart from the general populace. One of the reasons that organisations like that entrench themselves in Civilian Populations to begin with is to try and gain some cover from airstrikes. So maybe they only targeted people holding guns? That could work in theory (assuming you can accurately target those people) but it also means that anyone in ISIS that wants to avoid getting blown up just needs to make efforts to look unarmed. It could be that they only targeted ISIS members that are clearly ISIS - those that staff the training camps and whatnot. Again, that might work in theory but if that's what they're doing all that'll happen is that the others will go to ground in civilian areas. I'm not pretending to be an armchair general here but either the MoD is full of shit or they're being VERY picky about their targets.[/QUOTE] The Islamic State has been very big on using uniforms, probably another poke at attaining legitimacy. They openly don't "blend in" with civilians. [img]http://www.kingsacademy.com/mhodges/01_Social-Dynamics/20_Articles/2014-2015/Pictures/14-06-11%20Viewpoint%20-%20%20ISIS%20goals%20and%20possible%20future%20gains%20-%202%20-%20BBC%20News.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50231608]The Islamic State has been very big on using uniforms, probably another poke at attaining legitimacy. They openly don't "blend in" with civilians.[/QUOTE] I was aware of the black uniforms but I was under the impression those were mostly just for PR stuff and maybe what the suicide troops wear, rather than everyday/combat dress. I could be wrong though, I've not looked too hard into what they're wearing.
[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;50231614]I was aware of the black uniforms but I was under the impression those were mostly just for PR stuff and maybe what the suicide troops wear, rather than everyday/combat dress. I could be wrong though, I've not looked too hard into what they're wearing.[/QUOTE] There was an article back in 2014 that I can't find but it was about how with the lack of any actual uniforms, they'll actually get big pieces of paper with the ISIS flag logo on it and sew it to the front of their shirt and shoulders. [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] Because they're fighting as a conventional army, they need uniforms to distinguish themselves from the enemy so troops know who's an ally and who's a civilian or enemy.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50231645]There was an article back in 2014 that I can't find but it was about how with the lack of any actual uniforms, they'll actually get big pieces of paper with the ISIS flag logo on it and sew it to the front of their shirt and shoulders. [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] Because they're fighting as a conventional army, they need uniforms to distinguish themselves from the enemy so troops know who's an ally and who's a civilian or enemy.[/QUOTE] ISIS doesn't have a uniform, they wear what they got. They do however uniform items or have something to help ID fighters like arm bands,flags,etc which they do have. [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] [media]youtube.com/watch?v=9A_JUIJOmCU[/media] [media]youtube.com/watch?v=VLxv8WS69GE[/media]
ITT: Everyone's a military expert and has personally conducted BDAs. We've no way of knowing for sure either way. I'll take the word of the MoD over that of armchair generals with nothing to offer but speculation. It's not unimaginable especially if as Sableye said, they're only hitting "guaranteed" targets IE convoys, camps etc outside of urban centres. They don't have to be combatants to be members of ISIS either. [QUOTE=RearAdmiral;50231614]I was aware of the black uniforms but I was under the impression those were mostly just for PR stuff and maybe what the suicide troops wear, rather than everyday/combat dress. I could be wrong though, I've not looked too hard into what they're wearing.[/QUOTE] There's a [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1516516"]video[/URL] showing them wearing Western equipment and uniforms. If it weren't for the fact they're using AKs and makeshift APCs and speaking arabic etc, it'd be easy for someone uninformed to mistake them for American troops. GoPro and other footage shows them wearing all sorts of shit, I'm inclined to agree that their notorious black uniforms are for PR, considering plain black is among the least effective camouflage.
Daesh to my knowledge doesn't keep tabs on their soldiers, it's an insurgency in which anyone can join the fighting any time they want. So technically Daesh is a whole bunch of angry civilians
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50231683]ITT: Everyone's a military expert and has personally conducted BDAs.[/QUOTE] With a wealth of information access through multiple human rights organizations, journalist & news outlets, and different government agencies, it's not as if we're pulling our assumptions clear out of the sky. [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SilverDragon619;50231686]Daesh to my knowledge doesn't keep tabs on their soldiers, it's an insurgency in which anyone can join the fighting any time they want. So technically Daesh is a whole bunch of angry civilians[/QUOTE] This is in fact quite wrong. They're very well organized, keeping financial records and pay for each fighter and where they are stationed. They aren't an insurgency and haven't been for years, they are fighting as a formal conventional military, just a poorly equipped and unrecognized one.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50231727]With a wealth of information access through multiple human rights organizations, journalist & news outlets, and different government agencies, it's not as if we're pulling our assumptions clear out of the sky.[/QUOTE] Not mention there a good few people on FP who are actually in the military like myself, and have been following the Civil War for a while to have knowledge of our famous Jihadi group [editline]30th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SilverDragon619;50231686]Daesh to my knowledge doesn't keep tabs on their soldiers, it's an insurgency in which anyone can join the fighting any time they want. So technically Daesh is a whole bunch of angry civilians[/QUOTE] They have ID cards and pay checks FYI, ISIS has records on nearly everyone
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50231727]With a wealth of information access through multiple human rights organizations, journalist & news outlets, and different government agencies, it's not as if we're pulling our assumptions clear out of the sky.[/QUOTE] Well then some account (Other than any made by ISIS/Sympathisers) contradicting the MoD's statement is needed to give credence to everyone's doubt
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50231727] This is in fact quite wrong. They're very well organized, keeping financial records and pay for each fighter and where they are stationed. They aren't an insurgency and haven't been for years, they are fighting as a formal conventional military, just a poorly equipped and unrecognized one.[/QUOTE] I admit, I haven't seen ISIS documents prior, only like a transportation receipt, which I didn't decode, but a percentage of fighters still use civilian clothing. They do have a pouch or vest, which varies, but from a FLIR it's difficult to spot.
[QUOTE=SilverDragon619;50231923]I admit, I haven't seen ISIS documents prior, only like a transportation receipt, which I didn't decode, but a percentage of fighters still use civilian clothing. They do have a pouch or vest, which varies, but from a FLIR it's difficult to spot.[/QUOTE] This gives an idea what ISIS tends to tote about in combat and some of the gear they've managed to take from various groups supplied by Iran and etc. [thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8Bx0FBl2Pfo/VV-ADSrHxJI/AAAAAAAADr8/-X9lg35XxdY/s1600/2.png.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6kUG5KASGbM/Vu8DOnqcheI/AAAAAAAAFeU/HFW9kZF4cygTzuxTLhCiZ-QJQaQlre-TQ/s1600/42.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZHpaIS-aS3U/VurgKBBgMeI/AAAAAAAAFbw/LyGdybIIVHYRu0oZKuz0jPPibon0M564g/s1600/083%2B-%2BkAq6cmu.png[/thumb] [thumb]https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e54age2aJUc/VxUQIcSWjTI/AAAAAAAAFog/vAbZcR7nLEgdBh4zw3Fh_PCQaLIVRXucwCLcB/s1600/19.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4-HpVYYbu_E/VxGDbEURIeI/AAAAAAAAFnc/Xs6N5Bi2FI0DdHbrNei0Up63JyAxB9u8QCLcB/s1600/-41-2.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2JzxXWJ2Rns/VxGDbsYJ1bI/AAAAAAAAFng/YZv0D68VOxQwqNAN_PheJ1E-L-TImPukgCLcB/s1600/-38-2.jpg[/thumb]
Equipment =/= uniform
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50232124]Equipment =/= uniform[/QUOTE] It's what they typically wear, ISIS has no set uniform unlike the SAA,ISF,YPG/J, and Peshmerga. Sure they wear all black or MARPAT shit for executions or publicly photos but they rarely attack in-uniform unless it's an infiltration mission or a much smaller group that's able to be outfitted. This also helps them blend into the area in case they retreat.
I don't know about zero, but I'm pretty certain the numbers dead from coalition air strikes are extremely low from all reports I've seen, so the RAF would be no exception.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.