3 ms·
Not at all. That’s terror tactics when you cannot achieve your goal otherwise. It’s also completely counter productive in a country or region you plan or want t
by kergonath 5y ago
Not at all. That’s terror tactics when you cannot achieve your goal otherwise. It’s also completely counter productive in a country or region you plan or want to annex. Fallujah, Raqqa, and even Mosul were organised operations, during which neighbourhoods were isolated, reduced, and then taken street after street more or less methodically. Nobody ever sat there just bombing indiscriminately. The closest example you could find is Aleppo.
Taking Fallujah: ~2000 insurgents killed, ~1000 captured, ~800 dead civilians, ~10000 buildings destroyed out of ~50000. Even without taking the 90% destruction rate at face value, Mariupol is already much, much worse (at least 4 times the number of civilian casualties, double the number of dead Ukrainians soldiers, and more than half the buildings destroyed). And the numbers will likely grow more and more as mass graves are recovered.
- caoilte 5y agoFallujah sounds like terror tactics to me. It was defended by a poorly armed militia far smaller than the western trained and armed forces in Ukraine and America still had to destroy 20% of the city. Years later 200,000 of the 350,000 residents still hadn't returned, birth defects from depleted uranium had sky rocketed and people were still suffering white phosphorus burns. And Raqqa was far worse. The difference is propaganda. When we destroy a city it's methodical and proportionate. When our enemies do it it's genocide and terror tactics. But urban warfare is always awful.