It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bombing is immoral, stupid and never wins wars. Syria is the latest victim

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973



Firstly to add to the quality of the debate, can you please provide the source for your quote.


Here you go . This appears to be a very good website . One i may use again on here .

airwars.org/


Sorry i could not find the original text quoted .

edit on 18-9-2015 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Hopefully that sire or something similar will keep tabs on Russian and Syrian strikes.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Hopefully that sire site or something similar will keep tabs on Russian and Syrian strikes.

edit on 19-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Thankyou for that link


Here is some info on the civilian casualty counting they are recording. I am unsure as to the integrity of their system to be honest.


To September 12th 2015, an overall total of between 1,230 and 1,601 civilian non-combatant fatalities had been reported from 193 separate incidents, in both Iraq and Syria. However, some caution is needed given the significant challenges of casualty verification at present.

It is our provisional view at Airwars that between 575 and 772 civilian non-combatants have been killed in 89 incidents where there is fair reporting publicly available of an event, and where Coalition strikes were confirmed in the near vicinity on that date.

Eleven alleged Coalition incidents have been disproven (60 to 124 deaths). An additional 40 to 60 civilians died in ten events where the reporting is fair, but where it remains unclear whether the Coalition carried out any attack in the vicinity on the date in question.


So just to clarify their position, if it is only reported on arabic speaking news ie an international news team cannot make it to the site to cover it off, they count it as not valid.

That in itself seems dodgy - there are plenty of places within ISIS / DAESH / ISIL or whatever you want to call it held territory that is far from safe for news reporters to get to.

I'd call their numbers conservative to be nice. And for the very same reasons, I suspect that the numbers of insurgents that have killed to be over reported perhaps. The only real data I would trust off that site is the number of air strikes, and who was responsible for them.
edit on 19-9-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973




So just to clarify their position, if it is only reported on arabic speaking news ie an international news team cannot make it to the site to cover it off, they count it is not valid.

That in itself seems dodgy


Yes most likely so , but in reality both sides will adjust the numbers to suit their own agendas . The site appears to be updated almost daily . It may be the closest we ever get to the real ( adjusted ) numbers . By adjusted i guess i am saying verified .




top topics
 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join