Afghan hospital bombing..interesting test case..

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,483
1,359
113
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34440965

So the Afghans and Americans claim there were reports of Taliban in the hospital and they leveled the MOFO. There were all kinds of westerners in killed and injured, utter mayhem. This is the sort of thing Israel does quite routinely in Gaza, so its going to be interesting to see how the chips fall when these rules of engagement are applied to western people.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34440965

So the Afghans and Americans claim there were reports of Taliban in the hospital and they leveled the MOFO. There were all kinds of westerners in killed and injured, utter mayhem. This is the sort of thing Israel does quite routinely in Gaza, so its going to be interesting to see how the chips fall when these rules of engagement are applied to western people.
It's not the first time Western people have been killed by friendly fire, not even the first time in Afghanistan--for example the Tarnak Farm incident where US forces bombed the Princess Patricia's by mistake. You're the only one who is going to have a hard time getting your head around the concept--in a war sometimes you hit the wrong target.

You have NEVER grokked the concept of intentionality.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,840
113
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34440965

So the Afghans and Americans claim there were reports of Taliban in the hospital and they leveled the MOFO. There were all kinds of westerners in killed and injured, utter mayhem. This is the sort of thing Israel does quite routinely in Gaza, so its going to be interesting to see how the chips fall when these rules of engagement are applied to western people.
antisemitism is alive and well. Whatever you say, whatever you do will always mean less because of this. I hope you have the brain capacity to understand this simple fact.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
30,282
4,467
113
Test case? What are going to do? Send out Brisco and Curtis to arrest the entire US military and have Jack McCoy try them?

Seriously? Nothing will come of this.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
Test case? What are going to do? Send out Brisco and Curtis to arrest the entire US military and have Jack McCoy try them?

Seriously? Nothing will come of this.
It entirely depends upon what the investigation shows. Was there a knowing intent to bomb a hospital or not. For instance, although I may be proven wrong, thus far I've not seen photographs showing that large red crosses or red crescents were painted on the roof of the hospital
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,497
4,903
113
antisemitism is alive and well. Whatever you say, whatever you do will always mean less because of this. I hope you have the brain capacity to understand this simple fact.
Exactly! Israel has the right to defend herself against hospitals and children playing soccer.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
90,407
21,720
113
Exactly! Israel has the right to defend herself against hospitals and children playing soccer.
Israel attacked a Palestinian hospital yesterday in order to 'arrest' someone.
18 injured and all security cameras destroyed.

Before dawn on Sunday, a large military force broke into the Jenin refugee camp and surrounded the home of Qays a-Sa'adi, a member of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. It remains unknown whether he was in the home when it was hit by a LAW missile and destroyed.

At least 18 Palestinians were wounded, some seriously, in clashes that erupted between the army and youths. Three were arrested. A special army force entered the Arab hospital and arrested one of the patients, Karm al-Masri, 23, hospital officials told the Ma'an news agency.

The youth was hospitalized two days ago because of a broken hand, according to the hospital. While dragging Masri through the building stairwell toward the outside, the soldiers broke hospital surveillance cameras, the hospital director reported.
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-1.678774

So much for peace.

And the US?
U.S. Bombs Somehow Keep Falling in the Places Where Obama “Ended Two Wars”
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/30...-the-places-where-obama-boasts-he-ended-wars/
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,483
1,359
113
It's not the first time Western people have been killed by friendly fire, not even the first time in Afghanistan--for example the Tarnak Farm incident where US forces bombed the Princess Patricia's by mistake. You're the only one who is going to have a hard time getting your head around the concept--in a war sometimes you hit the wrong target.

You have NEVER grokked the concept of intentionality.

That was a very different situation, sorry. And it was caused by a pilot ignoring orders. This one seems very different.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
It has now come out that this was not a bombing run, rather an AC-130 gunship orbiting overhead. It is also being reported that there was hostile gunfire coming from the Hospital.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,497
4,903
113
It has now come out that this was not a bombing run, rather an AC-130 gunship orbiting overhead. It is also being reported that there was hostile gunfire coming from the Hospital.
Your excuses for this war crime is falling flat. The US commander in Afghanistan now says:

1. The US military ordered the strike
2. He has ordered retraining of his people on "rules of engagement"
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
That was a very different situation, sorry. And it was caused by a pilot ignoring orders. This one seems very different.
Whenever there is a friendly fire incident you can always find that somebody fucked up somewhere. Either they failed to pass on information to the right people, or they misunderstood information, or failed to follow an order, or whatever. If no one ever made a mistake there would be no friendly fire.

That is how these things happen.

In broad terms when you go around bombing a lot of targets and you make a mistake this is the result, and people make mistakes.

That is what happens in a war.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
It's not the first time Western people have been killed by friendly fire, not even the first time in Afghanistan--for example the Tarnak Farm incident where US forces bombed the Princess Patricia's by mistake. You're the only one who is going to have a hard time getting your head around the concept--in a war sometimes you hit the wrong target.

You have NEVER grokked the concept of intentionality.
Difficulty here is that the Good GUys are claiming they hit the right target. Although they're confused about who ordered what, they consistently say they bombed Taliban who were firing on their people. They just vary in how they admit they have always known it was a hospital; MSF stoutly denies any Taliban fighters were active or even there, and so far no proof to the contrary has been offered. Although the Afghan spokesperson claimed all the Taliban were killed, the only bodies are staff and patients.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Difficulty here is that the Good GUys are claiming they hit the right target. Although they're confused about who ordered what, they consistently say they bombed Taliban who were firing on their people. They just vary in how they admit they have always known it was a hospital; MSF stoutly denies any Taliban fighters were active or even there, and so far no proof to the contrary has been offered. Although the Afghan spokesperson claimed all the Taliban were killed, the only bodies are staff and patients.
Again, you have no reason to think they intentionally targeted a hospital. You don't even admit the possibility that they acted on wrong information or misinformation it that MSF has wrong information or misinformation.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
90,407
21,720
113
Difficulty here is that the Good GUys are claiming they hit the right target. Although they're confused about who ordered what, they consistently say they bombed Taliban who were firing on their people. They just vary in how they admit they have always known it was a hospital; MSF stoutly denies any Taliban fighters were active or even there, and so far no proof to the contrary has been offered. Although the Afghan spokesperson claimed all the Taliban were killed, the only bodies are staff and patients.
Its the standard excuses.
'there were terrorists there'
'it wasn't us'
'it was an accident'

But there are no excuses for bombing a hospital.
Its a war crime.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,497
4,903
113
But there are no excuses for bombing a hospital.
Its a war crime.
Intent has no meaning. There has never been a war crime, where the intent was not good.

Fucky and Aaerdie always drag out the tired old excuse: "the US/Israelis did not intend any harm, they just by mistake killed a wedding party, hospital patients, soccer playing boys, etc. etc."

The excuse is not bought by anybody.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Intent has no meaning. There has never been a war crime, where the intent was not good.
In addition to your crass school yard insults like "fucky", for which you should be banned, you are completely ignorant.

Intent is the key concept in all criminal law.

If there was no intent to commit a crime there is no crime. If you did not intend to kill someone you can't be charged with their murder.

In the case of war where the whole idea of war is to kill people the question becomes who did you intend to kill and were any other casualties reasonable. There is even a clear definition of when other casualties are reasonable: when the casualties anticipated are proportionate to the military advantage anticipated.

You may not like the law but you can't go around denying that it exists, and the overwhelming majority of people, and all nations that signed the Geneva Conventions, have bought into that concept.

You just prove in this post how ignorant you are, along with how utterly childish you are.

You can't debate facts or logic so you hurl insults, for which you should be banned.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
In addition to your crass school yard insults like "fucky", for which you should be banned, you are completely ignorant.

Intent is the key concept in all criminal law.

If there was no intent to commit a crime there is no crime. If you did not intend to kill someone you can't be charged with their murder.

In the case of war where the whole idea of war is to kill people the question becomes who did you intend to kill and were any other casualties reasonable. There is even a clear definition of when other casualties are reasonable: when the casualties anticipated are proportionate to the military advantage anticipated.

You may not like the law but you can't go around denying that it exists, and the overwhelming majority of people, and all nations that signed the Geneva Conventions, have bought into that concept.

You just prove in this post how ignorant you are, along with how utterly childish you are.

You can't debate facts or logic so you hurl insults, for which you should be banned.
And in this instance, no responsible spokesperson has emerged from the many variously excusing the bombing who can explain how a known hospital could have been mistakenly targetted, or bombed so ineffectually that there were no enemy casualties at all. The barbaric calculus you describe can always soothe the conscience of the killers, as can their 'sincere' regret that they 'had' to kill the civilians so incoonveniently trying to survive among the brute-boys at their games. But so far, no such equation can even be imagined because the only known factor is the guys who boast their pilots can accurately target a five-gallon pail from way up there didn't care to know what they were doing or who they were killing. But the pilots did hit their target.

Bomb the generals.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,497
4,903
113
America’s Latest War Crime

by Dave Lindorff













Email

.


Kunduz Hospital

Really? The best that Nobel Peace Laureate President Obama can do after the US bombs and destroys a hospital in Afghanistan, killing 22 people, including 12 volunteer doctors from Doctors Without Borders, is to say, “We’re sorry”?

No wonder people around the globe hate the US.

A decent human being in the White House would be calling for an independent international investigation into the incident and would be insisting that heads would roll! After all, the initial reports out of the Pentagon were that the strike had been called in to protect threatened American troops — an action that would be a clear war crime since hospitals have special protected status under the internationally accepted laws of war. Only later did the Pentagon backpedal and claim that the strike was a “mistake” that had been called-in by Afghan government forces. But that alibi founders on reports from Doctors Without Borders that days before the assault on their facility in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz, their organization had provided the US with clear coordinates of the hospital, so as to avoid any such “accident.”

But hey, this is America. We don’t do justice. We don’t have to because, as “the exceptional nation,” we are always just in our actions. We kill and maim and then we say we’re sorry (but only if Westerners get killed and maimed as in this instance). And then we move on.

Hospitals? The US always claims it’s an accident, or “collateral damage,” when they get hit. It’s never a matter of deliberate targeting.

But people on the ground where the bombs and rockets fall know better: That the American military has been targeting hospitals and ambulances deliberately for decades. The US bombed hospitals in North Korea in the 1950s. And it bombed them in North Vietnam with a regularity that made a joke of claims to the contrary.

In fact, painting a red cross or a red crescent on the roof of a hospital in an area where the US is conducting one of its many illegal wars is simply an invitation to be bombed.

In the all-out assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in November/December 2004, hospitals were deliberately bombed, as well as raided by US troops, ambulances were shot up and hit with bombs and rockets, and fleeing civilians were mowed down as they swam a river to escape. No apologies were offered — presumably because no volunteer Western medical personnel were killed.

In Kunduz, the assault on the hospital in question lasted 20 long minutes and involved not just bombs and rockets, but also a deadly spraying of intense fire by a gunship designed to kill everything within the area of the target. Those who weren’t hit by direct fire or exploding bombs died (including three children) in the ensuing raging fire. The hospital was destroyed totally.

Doctors Without Borders isn’t mincing words. Its president, Dr. Joanne Liu, has called the attack a war crime, and she wants it investigated not by the US military, which is like asking the Mafia to investigate it’s own hit, or for that matter, for a police department to investigate a police officer’s killing of an unarmed civilian, but rather by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, a body established precisely for that purpose, and recognized by 76 nations (but not by the US).

This latest atrocity occurred in Afghanistan, a country where the president claims the 14-year US invasion is over. Clearly it’s not.

War crimes, under international law, must be investigated, and the perpetrators punished. When a country responsible for a war crime by its military refuses to do that, those in authority, up to and including the top leadership in the military chain of command, are considered to be guilty of the same war crime. That would include a president and commander-in-chief who refuses to investigate and punish war criminals under his command.

Of course, this president is already guilty of not prosecuting the war criminals who preceded him in the White House, President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, who launched the criminal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. So what does he have to fear in committing yet another war crime by covering up this latest atrocity by US forces?

The sad reality is: nothing.

As much as the Republicans who control Congress hate America’s first black president, and as much as they’d like to punish him, it won’t be for war crimes, because the members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are all war lovers, and nearly all of them, for having backed America’s criminal wars, are really war criminals themselves.

As for the American people, we are just the latest incarnation of those long-pilloried “good Germans” — the silent majority in Weimar Germany who by their support or their silence in the early 1930s enabled or supported the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Evolution of a lie: The sequence of US explanations for the attack on the hospital in Kunduz

On Saturday, October 3 (day of the attack), Col. Brian Tribus, spokesman for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan said:

“U.S. forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am (local), Oct 3, against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility. This incident is under investigation.”

On Sunday, October 4, Gen. John Campbell, U.S. military chief in Afghanistan, said:

“U.S. forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am (local), Oct 3, against insurgents who were directly firing upon U.S. service members advising and assisting Afghan Security Forces in the city of Kunduz. The strike was conducted in the vicinity of a Doctors Without Borders medical facility.”

On Monday, October 5, Gen. John Campbell, U.S. military chief in Afghanistan said,

“We have now learned that on October 3, Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from U.S. forces. An airstrike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck. This is different from the initial reports, which indicated that U.S. forces were threatened and that the airstrike was called on their behalf.”

On Tuesday, October 6, Gen. John Campbell told the Senate Armed Services Committee:

“On Saturday morning our forces provided close air support to Afghan forces at their request. To be clear, the decision to provide aerial fires was a U.S. decision, made within the U.S. chain of command. A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility … I assure you that the investigation will be thorough, objective and transparent.”

Analysis: The initial explanation seeks to claim the hospital was not targeted. When the level of destruction proved that it was in fact the target, the fall back a day later seeks to continue that claim, less explicitly, but ends up almost admitting to the war crime of targeting a hospital. The third explanation one more day later seeks to pass the buck by claiming Afghan forces called in the strike. On day four, the US has to admit it made the decision to attack on its own and hit the hospital on purpose but “by mistake.” Never addressed is the claim by Doctors Without Borders that they provided clear coordinates of the hospital the the military days before precisely to avoid any mistaken attack on the compound.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
And in this instance, no responsible spokesperson has emerged from the many variously excusing the bombing who can explain how a known hospital could have been mistakenly targetted, or bombed so ineffectually that there were no enemy casualties at all.
So you are presuming guilt? No one has emerged with convincing evidence that it was intentionally targeted either. The public statements we do have is that they believed they were targeting Taliban.

Whether their belief was true, whether it was a reasonable belief, whether the people pulling the triggers knew a hospital was there (as opposed to a paper pusher a thousand miles away knowing) are good questions.

But your presumption of guilt over innocence is disturbing.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
America’s Latest War Crime

by Dave Lindorff













Email

.


Kunduz Hospital

Really? The best that Nobel Peace Laureate President Obama can do after the US bombs and destroys a hospital in Afghanistan, killing 22 people, including 12 volunteer doctors from Doctors Without Borders, is to say, “We’re sorry”?

No wonder people around the globe hate the US.

A decent human being in the White House would be calling for an independent international investigation into the incident and would be insisting that heads would roll! After all, the initial reports out of the Pentagon were that the strike had been called in to protect threatened American troops — an action that would be a clear war crime since hospitals have special protected status under the internationally accepted laws of war. Only later did the Pentagon backpedal and claim that the strike was a “mistake” that had been called-in by Afghan government forces. But that alibi founders on reports from Doctors Without Borders that days before the assault on their facility in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz, their organization had provided the US with clear coordinates of the hospital, so as to avoid any such “accident.”

But hey, this is America. We don’t do justice. We don’t have to because, as “the exceptional nation,” we are always just in our actions. We kill and maim and then we say we’re sorry (but only if Westerners get killed and maimed as in this instance). And then we move on.

Hospitals? The US always claims it’s an accident, or “collateral damage,” when they get hit. It’s never a matter of deliberate targeting.

But people on the ground where the bombs and rockets fall know better: That the American military has been targeting hospitals and ambulances deliberately for decades. The US bombed hospitals in North Korea in the 1950s. And it bombed them in North Vietnam with a regularity that made a joke of claims to the contrary.

In fact, painting a red cross or a red crescent on the roof of a hospital in an area where the US is conducting one of its many illegal wars is simply an invitation to be bombed.

In the all-out assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in November/December 2004, hospitals were deliberately bombed, as well as raided by US troops, ambulances were shot up and hit with bombs and rockets, and fleeing civilians were mowed down as they swam a river to escape. No apologies were offered — presumably because no volunteer Western medical personnel were killed.

In Kunduz, the assault on the hospital in question lasted 20 long minutes and involved not just bombs and rockets, but also a deadly spraying of intense fire by a gunship designed to kill everything within the area of the target. Those who weren’t hit by direct fire or exploding bombs died (including three children) in the ensuing raging fire. The hospital was destroyed totally.

Doctors Without Borders isn’t mincing words. Its president, Dr. Joanne Liu, has called the attack a war crime, and she wants it investigated not by the US military, which is like asking the Mafia to investigate it’s own hit, or for that matter, for a police department to investigate a police officer’s killing of an unarmed civilian, but rather by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, a body established precisely for that purpose, and recognized by 76 nations (but not by the US).

This latest atrocity occurred in Afghanistan, a country where the president claims the 14-year US invasion is over. Clearly it’s not.

War crimes, under international law, must be investigated, and the perpetrators punished. When a country responsible for a war crime by its military refuses to do that, those in authority, up to and including the top leadership in the military chain of command, are considered to be guilty of the same war crime. That would include a president and commander-in-chief who refuses to investigate and punish war criminals under his command.

Of course, this president is already guilty of not prosecuting the war criminals who preceded him in the White House, President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, who launched the criminal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. So what does he have to fear in committing yet another war crime by covering up this latest atrocity by US forces?

The sad reality is: nothing.

As much as the Republicans who control Congress hate America’s first black president, and as much as they’d like to punish him, it won’t be for war crimes, because the members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are all war lovers, and nearly all of them, for having backed America’s criminal wars, are really war criminals themselves.

As for the American people, we are just the latest incarnation of those long-pilloried “good Germans” — the silent majority in Weimar Germany who by their support or their silence in the early 1930s enabled or supported the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Evolution of a lie: The sequence of US explanations for the attack on the hospital in Kunduz

On Saturday, October 3 (day of the attack), Col. Brian Tribus, spokesman for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan said:

“U.S. forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am (local), Oct 3, against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility. This incident is under investigation.”

On Sunday, October 4, Gen. John Campbell, U.S. military chief in Afghanistan, said:

“U.S. forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am (local), Oct 3, against insurgents who were directly firing upon U.S. service members advising and assisting Afghan Security Forces in the city of Kunduz. The strike was conducted in the vicinity of a Doctors Without Borders medical facility.”

On Monday, October 5, Gen. John Campbell, U.S. military chief in Afghanistan said,

“We have now learned that on October 3, Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from U.S. forces. An airstrike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck. This is different from the initial reports, which indicated that U.S. forces were threatened and that the airstrike was called on their behalf.”

On Tuesday, October 6, Gen. John Campbell told the Senate Armed Services Committee:

“On Saturday morning our forces provided close air support to Afghan forces at their request. To be clear, the decision to provide aerial fires was a U.S. decision, made within the U.S. chain of command. A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility … I assure you that the investigation will be thorough, objective and transparent.”

Analysis: The initial explanation seeks to claim the hospital was not targeted. When the level of destruction proved that it was in fact the target, the fall back a day later seeks to continue that claim, less explicitly, but ends up almost admitting to the war crime of targeting a hospital. The third explanation one more day later seeks to pass the buck by claiming Afghan forces called in the strike. On day four, the US has to admit it made the decision to attack on its own and hit the hospital on purpose but “by mistake.” Never addressed is the claim by Doctors Without Borders that they provided clear coordinates of the hospital the the military days before precisely to avoid any mistaken attack on the compound.
MSF has traditionally NOT painted red crosses on the roofs of its facilities. This is another article from danmand full of claims that are wholesale made up.

Nonsense he likes because it demonizes Americans, so he doesn't bother thinking critically about the bullshit it contains.

The hate in the article, such as likening the US military to the mafia, is just disgusting.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts