by and for citizen investigative journalists

CONFIRMED: US Responsible for Aleppo Mosque Bombing

March 16, 2017

By Christiaan Triebert

This is a developing investigation, which will be updated as soon as there are new findings. We are currently waiting for a reaction from CENTCOM and the Pentagon with regards to our findings. Last update: March 17, 2017, 20:55 UTC.

This is an investigation into the bombing by the United States (US) of a mosque in Al-Jīnah, a Syrian village located in the western part of the Aleppo governorate. The report is structured along the lines of the five W-questions:

  • What happened?
  • When did it happen?
  • Where did it happen?
  • Who is responsible?
  • Why did it happen?

What happened?

In the evening of March 16, 2017, reports came in that a mosque in a Syrian village in the western part of the Aleppo governorate was targeted by one or more airstrikes, killing over 50 attendees of evening prayer.

Most of the initial posts on social media blamed either the Russian or the Syrian Air Force for the attack. Some reports, however, accused the US or the US-led Coalition, operating under the name Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR). Other reports said that the planes could not be identified.

The civilian casualty figures are high, ranging from 29 (Syrian Network for Human Rights), to 35 (Syrian Civil Defence), to even higher casualty figures putting the number of civilians killed at over 50.

Local media sources claimed that a religious meeting was ongoing in the ‘Umar ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb mosque when they were targeted by what an eyewitness described as seven airstrikes. The mosque, which could host over 200 individuals, partly collapsed. According to reports, the evening prayer was mainly attended by civilians, and was also used for religious teaching. The amount of damage will be further discussed under “Where did it happen?” section.

There are dozens of photos and videos of victims and the airstrike aftermath, such as this excerpt filmed by Thiqa News Agency, which shows how a child is uncovered from under the rubble.

When did it happen?

The alleged airstrike took place on March 16, 2017. In several videos of the event, people are saying that the airstrikes took place during the Isha prayer, meaning that the specific time of the airstrike must have been somewhere between 19:00 and 19:30 local time.

Where did it happen?

Based on the information available, the location of the airstrike is said to be at a mosque in or around Al-Jīnah, an opposition-held village located in the western part of the Aleppo governorate. Some reports call the mosque the ‘Umar ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb mosque.

There are three mosques found on satellite imagery in Al-Jīnah itself; however, local activists told Bellingcat that the targeted mosque was a relatively newly built house of worship just southwest of the village: 36.107721, 36.787080 (Wikimapia).

Based on a video uploaded to YouTube by citizen journalist Hadi Al-Abdallah showing the aftermath, it is possible to confirm that the two locations match.

Videos published the next morning give a better impression of the targeted site –  and serve as additional confirmation of the site. One video was uploaded by SMART News Agency, and two other videos by On the Ground News, which is ran by the controversial Bilal Abdul Kareem. Photo and video reports by other media agencies followed.

Based on historical satellite imagery, for example via Google Earth, it can be determined that the mosque was not built yet in June 2011. This means the mosque must have been constructed after the Syrian civil war began.

By cross-referencing ground footage from the aftermath with satellite imagery, it is can be established that the northern side of the blue mosque (marked in blue) has been destroyed. A sign post shown in a video also shows that the name of the mosque is the ‘Umar ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb mosque. A video of OGN also clearly shows that the northern part of the mosque has been destroyed.

The southern side of the ‘Umar ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb mosque, which is the prayer room, has some damage, but is still standing.

The old mosque as well as the new construction right north of the new mosque are completely intact. Locals confirmed to Bellingcat that the smaller building with minarets and speakers is indeed a mosque, which is visible in a video of RFS.

Therefore, there were two mosques right next to each other. This is important to note, because an initial statement of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) claimed that it bombed a building at the opposite side of the street, but did not target the mosque. They also claimed that the mosque was not damaged. This seems to suggest that CENTCOM refers to the smaller and older mosque, which is indeed undamaged.

The above theory was indeed confirmed on March 17, when the Pentagon presented a photo of the airstrike aftermath, shown below.

The image is annotated below by Bellingcat to show that it is indeed the same location as shown above on the Google Earth satellite imagery.

It is thus clear that the Pentagon, the local citizens, activists, and journalists on the ground, as well as Bellingcat, are speaking of the very same location. But while the small building is confirmed to be a mosque, and clearly looks like one, what can we find out about the bigger building? Was it indeed a mosque?

All available information from local and international media points towards it indeed being a mosque.

First of all, a sign post can be spotted in one of the videos, saying this is the ‘Umar ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb mosque.

Secondly, the interior of the targeted building does strongly resemble the interior of a mosque, as shown in videos uploaded by On the Ground News and Maaz al-Shaami. The latter video is shown above, displaying the interior of the southern part of the mosque.  The On the Ground News video is shown below.

 

Who is responsible?

This section was written before the US confirmed it had conducted the airstrike, the discussion ‘Who is responsible’ is clear from the previous section. Nevertheless, it is worth showing how alleged weapon remnants were the first visual sources to indicate that the US may have been the perpetrator. The photos were followed by an online search to match the remnants with possible weapons deployed by the US.

Both the Russian Air Force as well as the United States(-led Coalition) have been accused of targeting the mosque in Al-Jīnah.

However, a photo showing an alleged weapon remnant found in the rubble of the mosque may reveal more about the perpetrator of the attack.

The photo was published on Twitter by Sakir Khader, a Dutch journalist, who said he received the photo from local activists on the ground. No results show up in a reverse image search, suggesting the photo has not been indexed by Google and may thus be authentic. The location and authenticity of the photo could not be independently referenced, and we are currently awaiting more photos and videos from the targeted site.

A text in Latin is visible on the alleged weapon remnant: “WT: 52.0 kg”. ‘WT’ is an abbreviation for ‘weight’, possibly referring to the weight of the missile.

Interestingly, the specific font and abbreviation are used on US missiles, as can be seen in hundreds of reference pictures of AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, as shown below. This fact, combined with the striking similarity of rivets, paint, et cetera, strongly suggests the photographed object is a remnant of a US AGM-variant.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is that the exact same label on a weapon remnant was found at the site of an alleged drone strike on a high value target (HVT) in Syria’s Idlib province in October 2016. At the day that those photos were published by pro-opposition Step News Agency, the US admitted targeting a target with a drone.

If the photo of Mr. Khader thus indeed was taken at the mosque site, it is highly likely that the US is the perpetrator of this attack. It is, however, also worth mentioning that the damage shown in the October 16, 2016, footage of Idlib is considerably smaller than the March 16, 2017, strike, as was noted by Twitter-uster @sasmojo.

An explanation follows the next day, when Washington Post journalist Thomas Gibbons-Neff tweets a statement by a US official he spoke: “US official: AQ strike in N. Syria involved two Reapers that fired roughly entirety of their Hellfire payload and followed up w/ 500lb bomb.”

The MQ-9 Reaper drone usually carries up to four Hellfire missiles, meaning eight missiles were fired at the location. A strong 500 lb bomb followed. That is quite something for such a small location. A photo, courtesy of Getty Images/Anadolu Agency, of the aftermath shows what a massive crater has been created by that 500 lb bomb.

The next morning, new photos emerged of weapon remnants published by both the Syrian Institute for Justice as well as Getty Images, which can be grouped by three different objects.

First of all, there is an object with the Latin inscription which reads “30000892-01 REV C S/N 005827”. ‘S/N’ refers to the serial number, which is thus 005827. However, it is unclear to which specific group of ammunition this object belongs, but some have suggested it may be a GUB-12 or GBU-39.

The second object has a label with a text in Latin and three bar codes. The text read: “WOODWARD HRT Revision B”; “(1P) MFR PART# 41013490-108”; “SERIAL# 15862”; and “[??] DATE 1[?]12/22”; “(17V) MFR CAGE 81873”.

Woodward is a US company which supplies fin actuators for  Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which are guidance kits which convert unguided bombs, or “dumb bombs”, into all-weather “smart” munitions. The CAGE code (Commercial and Government Entity Code), a unique identifier assigned to suppliers to various government or defence agencies, also corresponds to Woodward.

It has been suggested that the remnants pictured may be related to JDAM-ER. Woodward received several US Department of Defence (DoD) contracts, though the the Military-Industrial Complex website only lists contracts with a value of $6.5 million USD or higher.

The third object was visible in photos in the Getty Images databank, provided by Anadolu Agency. It is unclear what the object belongs to.

Why did it happen?

On social media, many were fast to say that the mosque was attended by “young men of fighting age”, and that rebel fighters were attending the evening prayer. None of this can be confirmed.

However, it is possible that the US was aiming to kill one or more high value targets (HVTs) of the various groups in Syria that are designated as a terrorist organisation by the US. It is important to note that the US airstrikes targeting Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra) have been separate from US-led CJTF-OIR.

On eve of the attack, CENTCOM did report that they struck “Al Qaeda terrorists” in Idlib. As we have seen above, the mosque’s location is in the Aleppo governorate though only 4 km from the governorate’s border with Idlib. For that reason, it may have been that the Idlib strike referred to the same incident – something Airwars journalist Samuel Oakford first noted.

However, confusion remained, so Bellingcat e-mailed CENTCOM for a statement of clarification regarding these strikes. In an e-mailed reply, they said that:

We believe this is the same strike. We do not mean to cause any confusion. Different internal reports may have this listed differently.

Now, this is interesting. Bellingcat contributors and others, most notably Twitter user @obretix, have geolocated official CJTF-OIR airstrike videos from Iraq and Syria for over two years now. All these videos came with a rough description of a location, e.g. “near Raqqah”. Obretix mapped all these geolocated videos and used a Voronoi diagram to get an impression of the region labels the Coalition – which is led by CENTCOM – uses. It shows that they labels were not always that accurate, and that governorate borders may well overlap each other.

Either way, CENTCOM said it targeted a building in the Idlib governorate, while it actually was in the Aleppo governorate.

It is possible that the US was really not aware that the targeted building was a mosque, which would explain their noticeable surprise in their initial claims from the ground that a mosque was bombed. After all, their imagery documented to them that the sole mosque they were aware of was still standing and undamaged.

However, this would raise questions about the targeting and verification process. The US has not stated that it has killed high value targets, solely that “Al Qaeda terrorists” were targeted. Therefore, we will ask CENTCOM a number of questions based on the information above, and will update the article once we have received a reply.

Christiaan Triebert

Christiaan Triebert is an all-source conflict analyst with an interest in conflict and development. He has conducted fieldwork in Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine, among other countries. King's College London and University of Groningen graduate. Contact via Twitter: @trbrtc

17 Comments

  1. pop

    – A sign haphazardly propped up to a demolished building doesn’t prove anything.
    – Photographs of pieces of US military hardware that are not proven to be from this specific location or incident.
    – Most “evidence” here is circumstantial or hearsay. And the Pentagon has actually confirmed to have bombed in the area, so it is to be expected to find fragments of US military hardware in the area.
    – Nothing in this article proves anything either way, it doesn’t prove the claim of a bombed mosque is true, and it doesn’t prove what the Pentagon says is true. It’s conclusions, interpretation and verification of the provided evidence is sloppy at best and biased at worst.

    I’m not here to defend the US, I’m here to defend quality journalism, which this isn’t. Very poor job.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)