What's new

Exclusive: US accused of covering up death of six children in Syria air strike

Luffy 500

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
5,562
Reaction score
2
EXCLUSIVE: US accused of covering up death of six children in Syria air strike | Middle East Eye

Father seeks justice for family after US insists no civilians were killed in coalition raid on Syrian town in August

syria%20familyCROP.jpg
Six of Muawiyya al-Amouri's eight children were killed by a US air strike (MEE/Bilal Abdul Kareem)


A Syrian father has accused the American military of attempting to cover up the deaths of six of his children and the serious injury of two others in a US-led coalition air strike.

Standing amid the rubble of his former home, Muawiyya al-Amouri told Middle East Eye that six of his children, aged between 10 months and 10 years old, and three members of a refugee family sharing their house, had died in the attack near Atmeh, a town close to the Turkish border, on 11 August.

“A plane belonging to the alliance shelled my house with six missiles. They destroyed my house and my children died. I had some refugees in my home from Ariha [near Idlib city] who died as well,” he said.

US Central Command confirmed that the coalition had carried out an air strike in the area as part of its campaign against the Islamic State (IS) group and launched an investigation into possible civilian casualties following media reports at the time.

The incident was also the subject of a report by the Syrian Network for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group.

But in recent emails, US military spokespeople told MEE the investigation had concluded that allegations of civilian casualties were "unfounded" and said the strike had targeted an IS "staging area".

"After careful review and based on the best available evidence, it was determined that allegations of civilian casualties by the coalition were unfounded and deemed not credible," said Centcom spokesman Kyle Raines.

Yet al-Amouri, who was not in the house at the time, said that five of his daughters had been killed: Fatimah, aged 10; Hayat, aged nine; Amina, aged seven; Asia, aged five and Marwa, aged four; as well as his 10-month-old son Abdullah.

Untitled_1.png
Muawiyya al-Amouri's 10-month-old son Abdullah was killed in the US air strike (MEE/Bilal Abdul Kareem)


He also identified the three members of the refugee family who were killed as Umm Tawfiq, her son Yusuf Yaseen, 25, and daughter Fatima Yaseen, 17.

Al-Amouri's two surviving children, Ali, aged five, and Nariman, aged two, were pulled out of the rubble with serious injuries. His wife also suffered injuries including a broken arm and leg.

He said his son had required several operations for head injuries and had spent a month in hospital, while his daughter could no longer walk, was blind and could not speak.

"She used to walk and talk, she had no problems. Now her legs are as you can see. I don't know what is wrong with them. She doesn’t speak, doesn’t see, and I don’t know what to do for her," he said.

Asked what his message was to those he believes carried out the attack, Al-Amouri said: “I would say to them, Allah is enough for us as a disposer of our affairs. We hadn’t even finished with Bashar [al-Assad, the Syrian president] and then the alliance [the US-led coalition] came. I am charging the alliance and I am suing them. I’m a civilian and six of my children were killed, my house was destroyed and now I have nothing.”

A doctor who was on duty at a nearby hospital on the night of the air strike, who did not want to be identified, told MEE that he had initially feared the hospital was being targeted because of the force of the explosions.

“Around 8:15pm we felt and heard the powerful blasts,” he said. “Approximately 15 minutes later casualties began coming in. There were three hospitals that the injured were brought to. Fatima Yaseen [one of the refugees] was brought to our hospital. She died of her injuries shortly after her arrival.”

Al-Amouri and other local residents also rejected US claims that IS had been present in the area.


Asked by MEE to clarify what the target of air strike had been, Centcom spokesman Major Tim Smith wrote: "The target was a Daesh [IS] staging area in the vicinity of Atmeh. And it was a successful strike by the Coalition.

"The Coalition takes a lot of time and research into developing our targets to ensure maximum effect against Daesh and to minimize the potential for civilian casualties. No evidence links casualties or injuries to the Coalition air strike."

But Al-Amouri said: "IS hasn’t been in this area for approximately two years. This is my house. My home. It was occupied by me, my children, some refugees. All civilians."

IS not in area of strike

Sources in Atmeh told MEE that IS had been forced out of the town by local rebel groups in early 2014 after setting up checkpoints where some residents had been shot, and attempting to take over local mosques.

Initial reports of the air strike had suggested that the main target had been a nearby building used as a headquarters and munitions factory by a rebel group originally from Homs known as Jaysh al-Sunna. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that 10 fighters as well as civilians had been killed.

But Tauqir Sharif, a British aid worker based in Atmeh's nearby refugee camp, told MEE that all the victims he had seen had been civilians. He was a few hundred metres away when the missiles struck and helped to pull bodies out of the rubble, he said.

"In the factory nobody was killed. They didn't kill any soldiers or military personnel. The warehouse was clearly a warehouse and the house was clearly a civilian house. It was very precise, they targeted that house. There was nothing left," he said.

“The strike was at sunset and we were digging all night to take people out of the ground. The last child was taken out at about 5.30 in the morning. It was all in darkness. We were using torches."

Sharif said that local residents did not know why the coalition had attacked a group with no affiliation to IS or Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda-linked group it has occasionally also targeted, including in a previous air strike in Atmeh in March.

"I'd never heard of this group, Jaysh al-Sunnah, until the strike. I didn't even know they existed in Atmeh," he said.

He later learned rebels were making mortar bombs and distributing them to different groups to use against President Assad's forces.

Atmeh and the surrounding area has been relatively safe since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011 because its proximity to the Turkish border has protected it from air attack by government forces, drawing thousands of Syrians displaced from elsewhere in the country.

"This has always been known as a safe zone but it has created a sense of fear," said Sharif. "Many locals are saying the reason the Americans did this is they don't want people to help the rebels. People are afraid now to help the rebels, because here they just want a safe place to live."

Doubts over Centcom probe
Centcom's response to MEE also appears to raise questions about the rigour of its inquiries into the Atmeh strike. At the time, it had initially denied reports of the attack, but later said that had been due to confusion over the spelling of the town's name.

Asked what evidence investigators had considered and whether they had sought to contact witnesses in Atmeh, Major Smith wrote: "When comparing what was reported to be eyewitness reports, photos of the scene, photos of the casualties at the scene, and the various social media videos and pictures to coalition target imagery, the assessment found significant contradictions. Most glaringly is the fact that there are no pictures that show casualties at the strike location."

Aleji Wael, a spokesman for the Syrian Network for Human Rights, told MEE that the US military had not contacted the organisation despite its report into the attack, and said he was surprised it had dismissed reports of civilian deaths.

"If they say that they have initiated an investigation into this incident I would imagine that they would get in touch with the people who reported it," he said.

"We are confident that it was a coalition strike. Our team of researchers have interviewed and spoken to eyewitnesses and victims of the strike. I would encourage the US authorities to show evidence of this investigation and publish the results so we are informed about what they think."

The US military, which has conducted about 95 percent of more than 2,800 air strikes in Syria since the beginning of Operation Inherent Resolve against IS last September, has so far published only one report acknowledging civilian casualties in Syria; two children it said were likely killed near Harem in Idlib province in November 2014.

On Friday, the US also said that four civilians had been killed in a coalition air strike against an IS checkpoint near Hatra in Iraq.

In July, the coalition bombing campaign was described by Lt Gen Charles Q Brown Jr, the commanding general, as "the most precise in the history of warfare". But monitoring groups have accused the coalition of killing hundreds of civilians in both Syria and Iraq, and of failing to properly investigate reports of casualties.

Jennifer Gibson, a lawyer at the human rights organisation Reprieve which has taken legal action on behalf of civilian victims of drone strikes, called for the US to launch "proper, public investigations into dozens of credible claims of civilian casualties".

"We’ve seen this time and time again in the war on terror. The US wages a 'precise' air campaign and claims little to no civilian damage. Yet, the realities on the ground paint a different picture. They paint a picture of faulty intelligence, shattered lives and terrorised communities who are left with nowhere to turn for answers," Gibson told MEE.

"The reality is that the US quite simply has no idea who it is killing. This lack of transparency is the hallmark of a US counterterrorism approach that fires missiles based on faulty intelligence and no accountability."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Aslan @Akheilos @LfcRed @AUz @Malik Abdullah
 
.
Yeah, the US is the bad guy, not the people who seek legitimacy for evil causes by trotting out cute children.

Go soak your head - or eat a smart bomb.
 
.
“I would say to them, Allah is enough for us as a disposer of our affairs.

If Allah is enough for him as a disposer of his affairs as he claims, then why is he suing the Great Satan for money? How ironic!
 
.
Yeah, the US is the bad guy, not the people who seek legitimacy for evil causes by trotting out cute children.

Go soak your head - or eat a smart bomb.
You are one sick minded son of a bitcch. People like you can come up with arguments for masacres as well. If it had been in US you people probably would have alaughtered millions in response.
 
.
You are one sick minded son of a bitcch. People like you can come up with arguments for masacres as well. If it had been in US you people probably would have alaughtered millions in response.

To compare the collateral damage to civilians that is the rule in every war, with the deliberate massacres of innocents that is rife in the Ummah, utterly validates my point.

And in point of fact, after the WTC bombings (heading off "false flag, Mossad is omnipotent, etc"), the US did not just find and kill a few million random Muslims. If that had been the goal, Afghanistan would today be devoid of people.

How often do these kinds of apologias for Islamic violence come back to "if," "almost," "probably," because the facts just aren't there?
 
. .
And in point of fact, after the WTC bombings (heading off "false flag, Mossad is omnipotent, etc"), the US did not just find and kill a few million random Muslims.

well last time i checked that's exactly what US has done in Afghanistan and Iraq no ??

If that had been the goal, Afghanistan would today be devoid of people.

i think you need to come out of your trailer home .. and look at the Causality rate in Afghanistan , and than tell if every one you killed there was a Taliban ? for less than 3000 people died in 2001 , you invaded countries after countries .. toppling up govt and creating monsters like ISIS ..

How often do these kinds of apologias for Islamic violence come back to "if," "almost," "probably," because the facts just aren't there?

please enlighten us what is Islamic Violence ? in that case what should i call Iraq Invasion ? killing hundreds of thousands there , on a false intelligence report , and keep the country occupied , armed the rebels , militia , ignite sectarian violence in every corner of Iraq ..
I salute your way of thinking .. dumbest and Pathetic .
 
.
If the US's goal was to kill random people, today there would be no one living there. It's that simple. Your potpourri arguments only serve to validate my initial claim.
 
.
I'm so sorry for all the innocent people that we mistakenly killed. Please forgive us.
 
.
To compare the collateral damage to civilians that is the rule in every war, with the deliberate massacres of innocents that is rife in the Ummah, utterly validates my point.

And in point of fact, after the WTC bombings (heading off "false flag, Mossad is omnipotent, etc"), the US did not just find and kill a few million random Muslims. If that had been the goal, Afghanistan would today be devoid of people.

How often do these kinds of apologias for Islamic violence come back to "if," "almost," "probably," because the facts just aren't there?

You talk like as if there is much of Afghanistan and Iraq left to even talk about after you liberated them. Even after killing hundreds and thousands you people have no shame and come up with thousand different excuses to justify killing of innocent. Bombing a hospital in Afghanistan recently is just one of the few of activities that even come up on media by mistake. ore recently the indiscriminate bombing in Syria to get rid of asad is just topping on your big fat icecream of genocide of muslims.
Dont convince me with your bull$hit but yourself as you seem to have more if and buts than me.
 
.
What else did you expect from America?

America is famous for invading poor and defenceless countries, lining up all the women and children, raping them, killing them all and burning all the bodies to hide the evidence.

That's exactly how the soooper powaaaa America operates.
 
.
"In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east.

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

So the Americans ( who are questionably good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

So, now that you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered." - author unknown.




"In case you don't know what's happening... - Alex Stmrock Wong | Facebook
 
.
We are good at killing civilians, accept US or die.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom