Incident Code
CS1419
Incident Date
26 August 2017
Location
Ar Raqqah, Raqqa, Syria
Geolocation
35.9505639,
39.0094148
Accuracy: City
Geolocation
35.9505639,
39.0094148
Accuracy: City
Airwars Assessment
Last Updated: December 15, 2024
(Previous Incident Code: S1241)
A male civilian was killed as a result of US-led Coalition airstrikes on Raqqa, local media reported. All tracked sources held the US-led Coalition responsible, referring to “bombing by International Coalition aircraft”.
Airwars has limited information on the location of the incident.
Key Information
Country
Military Actor
Civilian Harm Reported
Yes
Civilian Harm Status
Fair
Civilians reported killed
1
1 Man
Geolocation Notes
Airwars has insufficient information to geolocate the incident beyond Raqqa city. The assessment summary uses genetic coordinates for Raqqa: 35.9505639, 39.0094148
Military Statements
U.S.-led Coalition Assessment
Suspected belligerent
U.S.-led Coalition
U.S.-led Coalition position on incident
Non credible / Unsubstantiated
Reason for non-credible assessment
Insufficient information on the time and location
Civilian deaths conceded
None
Civilian injuries conceded
None
Stated location
near Raqqah, Syria
U.S.-led Coalition Strike Report
For August 26th-27th the Coalition reported “Near Raqqah, 18 strikes engaged four ISIS tactical units and destroyed 14 fighting positions, six logistics nodes, and three vehicles.” It was additionally reported that “On Aug. 26, near Raqqah, Syria, 22 strikes engaged 15 ISIS tactical units and destroyed 21 fighting positions.” And that “On Aug. 26, near Raqqah, Syria, two strikes destroyed five fighting positions.”
UK Military Strike Report
‘Saturday 26 August – Typhoons and Tornados eliminated four sniper teams in Raqqa…The focus for RAF missions remained on Raqqa over the weekend. A mixed flight bombed four sniper teams there on Saturday 26 August, whilst on Sunday, three RAF flights used Paveway IVs to attack a total of ten Daesh positions in the city.’
U.S.-led Coalition Civilian Casualty Statement
2018-05-31
Original Source ↗
The report contains insufficient information of the time, location and details to assess its credibility.