[ad_1]
A New York Times study found that as many as 64 women and children could be killed in a plane crash in March 2019.
U.S. forces cover the 2019 airstrikes in Syria that killed at least 64 women and children, as a result of the war against ISIL (ISIS), The New York Times reported on Saturday.
Two consecutive air raids on the back of Baghuz were controlled by a special US military base operating in Syria, according to reports.
The newspaper reported that the US Central Command, which oversaw U.S. aviation operations in Syria, had approved the first attack this week and said it was correct.
In a statement on Saturday, Central Command echoed a report in the newspaper that said 80 people had been killed in the bombings, including 16 ISIL fighters and four civilians. The military said it was not known if the other 60 people were civilians, probably because women and children would have been soldiers.
In a statement on Saturday, the military said the militants were “legitimate defenders”, accordingly, and “appropriate measures were taken to prevent the presence of civilians”.
“We are disgusted with the deaths of innocent people and are doing everything we can to prevent it. In this case, we have explained ourselves and investigated the strike according to our evidence and take full responsibility for the unintentional loss of life,” Central Command said.
The number of civilians among the 60 people killed was not known because “several armed women and one armed child were seen” in the video of the incident, it said, adding that most of those 60 were probably militants.
The Central Command said the terrorist attacks took place when the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – which is fighting ISIL – was on high alert and in increased danger and the SDF said civilians were civilians.
A senior U.S. Department of Defense official launched an investigation into the March 18, 2019 incident, but his report was “dropped” on anything related to the bombing and an independent investigation, according to the Times.
The newspaper said the report was based on confidential documents and explanations of confidential reports, as well as interviews with co-workers.
An attorney for the military who was on duty at the time believed the threats were military violence and later warned the head of the security department and the Senate Armed Services Committee when nothing happened, the Times said.
[ad_2]
Source link
