Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We have no M1's in Afghanistan.

 Jihadin wrote:
We have no M1's in Afghanistan.

We both know that the media uses the word "tank" rather liberally. Anything heavier than a humvee qualifies.

And my opinion of alot of people on Dakka has gone down.
Are we seriously defending, and rationalizing, the bombing of a Neutral hospital because they treat everyone equally?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And my opinion of alot of people on Dakka has gone down.
Are we seriously defending, and rationalizing, the bombing of a Neutral hospital because they treat everyone equally?

I'd jokingly say that it's explained by the fact that most people here are Americans, but...

Jokes aside, I'd say that US military screwed up big time. I don't think they wanted to kill civilians/Médecins Sans Frontières (And not "Medicine San Frontiers" ) members, though. But some people here seem better informed than I am, I'm just merely giving my opinion.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And why did MSF request to be informed before the military entered to start their own investigation, this whole thing is starting to stink of corruption.

So nobody was surprised and reacted violently to an incursion on a neutral hospital by armed US forces? Consider the possibility that there are several US marines stranded in a neutral hospital in a war zone. Without warning, a group of insurgents force their way into the facility with a tank. Will the marines act calmly and just let the insurgents go about their business, or will they assume that the facility is under attack and react accordingly?

Look, I get that you don't like the idea that the US messed up, but please don't clutch at straws to try and prematurely justify what happened.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And why did MSF request to be informed before the military entered to start their own investigation, this whole thing is starting to stink of corruption.

So nobody was surprised and reacted violently to an incursion on a neutral hospital by armed US forces? Consider the possibility that there are several US marines stranded in a neutral hospital in a war zone. Without warning, a group of insurgents force their way into the facility with a tank. Will the marines act calmly and just let the insurgents go about their business, or will they assume that the facility is under attack and react accordingly?

Look, I get that you don't like the idea that the US messed up, but please don't clutch at straws to try and prematurely justify what happened.

YouI think you are not understanding this. The US went in through the gate AFTER the incident in order to investigate. Going through the gate is not what caused Talibs to fire from the hospital and then get zapped by the AC130 (if there was fire from the hospital, still an unknown).

 CptJake wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And why did MSF request to be informed before the military entered to start their own investigation, this whole thing is starting to stink of corruption.

So nobody was surprised and reacted violently to an incursion on a neutral hospital by armed US forces? Consider the possibility that there are several US marines stranded in a neutral hospital in a war zone. Without warning, a group of insurgents force their way into the facility with a tank. Will the marines act calmly and just let the insurgents go about their business, or will they assume that the facility is under attack and react accordingly?

Look, I get that you don't like the idea that the US messed up, but please don't clutch at straws to try and prematurely justify what happened.

YouI think you are not understanding this. The US went in through the gate AFTER the incident in order to investigate. Going through the gate is not what caused Talibs to fire from the hospital and then get zapped by the AC130 (if there was fire from the hospital, still an unknown).

And I think you're not understanding what I've written. I'm talking about the US going in after the incident, and why it might be useful to be forewarned of any military entering a neutral medical facility. I never said anyone attacked or retaliated, I was saying that it could happen if the US (or insurgents) just plowed into the hospital in an armoured vehicle, because Ghaz didn't seem to understand that when people are dosed up (or not, which could be worse) on meds/painkillers, surprising them with weapons might not be the best course of action.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And why did MSF request to be informed before the military entered to start their own investigation, this whole thing is starting to stink of corruption.

So nobody was surprised and reacted violently to an incursion on a neutral hospital by armed US forces? Consider the possibility that there are several US marines stranded in a neutral hospital in a war zone. Without warning, a group of insurgents force their way into the facility with a tank. Will the marines act calmly and just let the insurgents go about their business, or will they assume that the facility is under attack and react accordingly?

Look, I get that you don't like the idea that the US messed up, but please don't clutch at straws to try and prematurely justify what happened.

YouI think you are not understanding this. The US went in through the gate AFTER the incident in order to investigate. Going through the gate is not what caused Talibs to fire from the hospital and then get zapped by the AC130 (if there was fire from the hospital, still an unknown).

And I think you're not understanding what I've written. I'm talking about the US going in after the incident, and why it might be useful to be forewarned of any military entering a neutral medical facility. I never said anyone attacked or retaliated, I was saying that it could happen if the US (or insurgents) just plowed into the hospital in an armoured vehicle, because Ghaz didn't seem to understand that when people are dosed up (or not, which could be worse) on meds/painkillers, surprising them with weapons might not be the best course of action.

If MSF is so insistent on its neutrality, it shouldn't be letting those hypothetically wounded Marines or insurgents carry their weapons on the premises while they're being treated. That's just a stupid idea. But I could understand those groups wanting to keep their weapons with them, since MSF insists that their neutrality will protect them from massacres.


In any regards, I'm okay with them breaking down the gate with no forewarning. If there truly was someone that Special Operations was watching as a link in a network, there might have been material present on site that MSF's investigation would not turn up(whether from simply not finding the material, the material in question being innocuous items like binoculars and a radio, or from turning a blind eye to the presence of the material) but an Army investigation might.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And my opinion of alot of people on Dakka has gone down.
Are we seriously defending, and rationalizing, the bombing of a Neutral hospital because they treat everyone equally?

If I'm honest, it comes across as a case of "If you're not with us, you're against us" to attempt to justify the bombing of the hospital, combined with a healthy dose of "You're not in the military, you wouldn't know man, you weren't there" to justify it if it was a mistake.

 Goliath wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And my opinion of alot of people on Dakka has gone down.
Are we seriously defending, and rationalizing, the bombing of a Neutral hospital because they treat everyone equally?

If I'm honest, it comes across as a case of "If you're not with us, you're against us" to attempt to justify the bombing of the hospital, combined with a healthy dose of "You're not in the military, you wouldn't know man, you weren't there" to justify it if it was a mistake.

Close, it is more a case of "IM mad because the US did stuff!" and then the few of us who have active service recently and understand how close air support works are pointing out how easy this would be to feth up. Nobody is saying bombing a hospital is a good thing. If the talibs were using it for a base of operations then MSF loses all credibility and protected status.

In the end I have a feeling of 1 of 2 results, the US will prove that the hospital had talibs actively fighting from it and MSF will deny it and say the US is lying OR the US will find that they can't prove the hospital had any hostiles in it, and will launch a further investigation to see who fethed up. In no situation do I see MSF admitting fault if they are in fact guilty.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And my opinion of alot of people on Dakka has gone down.
Are we seriously defending, and rationalizing, the bombing of a Neutral hospital because they treat everyone equally?

If I'm honest, it comes across as a case of "If you're not with us, you're against us" to attempt to justify the bombing of the hospital, combined with a healthy dose of "You're not in the military, you wouldn't know man, you weren't there" to justify it if it was a mistake.

Close, it is more a case of "IM mad because the US did stuff!" and then the few of us who have active service recently and understand how close air support works are pointing out how easy this would be to feth up. Nobody is saying bombing a hospital is a good thing. If the talibs were using it for a base of operations then MSF loses all credibility and protected status.

In the end I have a feeling of 1 of 2 results, the US will prove that the hospital had talibs actively fighting from it and MSF will deny it and say the US is lying OR the US will find that they can't prove the hospital had any hostiles in it, and will launch a further investigation to see who fethed up. In no situation do I see MSF admitting fault if they are in fact guilty.

Military service is completely irrelevant here. This is a case of international law, and international law says that attacking a hospital is a war crime, no exceptions. Even if a hospital is used by the enemy, attacking it is still a war crime. The only way one is allowed to attack a hospital is when the hospital is used by the enemy to attack your forces. In such a case, you are required to give due warning you are about to attack the hospital, and give enough time for them to evacuate. If hostile activities from the hospital do not cease after the warning, only then are you allowed to attack. No warning, still a war crime.

Whether there were taliban fighters on the premises or not is completely irrelevant. If the US knew that the hospital was there, and launched an airstrike nonetheless, it is a war crime. That is why the most important thing is to establish whether the authorities responsible for ordering the airstrike could have been aware of the fact that they attacked a hospital.

You do not seem to be aware of the Geneva Conventions. Whether MSF treats Taliban fighters or not is completely irrelevant to their legal protection and credibility. In fact, quite the contrary. MSF is an apolitical medical organisation. They are required to help everyone, no matter their political allegiance.
Now please stop the ultranationalism.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And why did MSF request to be informed before the military entered to start their own investigation, this whole thing is starting to stink of corruption.

So nobody was surprised and reacted violently to an incursion on a neutral hospital by armed US forces? Consider the possibility that there are several US marines stranded in a neutral hospital in a war zone. Without warning, a group of insurgents force their way into the facility with a tank. Will the marines act calmly and just let the insurgents go about their business, or will they assume that the facility is under attack and react accordingly?

Look, I get that you don't like the idea that the US messed up, but please don't clutch at straws to try and prematurely justify what happened.

YouI think you are not understanding this. The US went in through the gate AFTER the incident in order to investigate. Going through the gate is not what caused Talibs to fire from the hospital and then get zapped by the AC130 (if there was fire from the hospital, still an unknown).

And I think you're not understanding what I've written. I'm talking about the US going in after the incident, and why it might be useful to be forewarned of any military entering a neutral medical facility. I never said anyone attacked or retaliated, I was saying that it could happen if the US (or insurgents) just plowed into the hospital in an armoured vehicle, because Ghaz didn't seem to understand that when people are dosed up (or not, which could be worse) on meds/painkillers, surprising them with weapons might not be the best course of action.

You do realize at this point the hospital is inactive, there were a handful of MSF staff there but no patients. What alot of us are saying (and this applies to hotsauces opinion drop as well) is people need to stop reflexively believing whats being said by one side in the news and wait for the investigation to take its course.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And my opinion of alot of people on Dakka has gone down.
Are we seriously defending, and rationalizing, the bombing of a Neutral hospital because they treat everyone equally?

If I'm honest, it comes across as a case of "If you're not with us, you're against us" to attempt to justify the bombing of the hospital, combined with a healthy dose of "You're not in the military, you wouldn't know man, you weren't there" to justify it if it was a mistake.

Close, it is more a case of "IM mad because the US did stuff!" and then the few of us who have active service recently and understand how close air support works are pointing out how easy this would be to feth up. Nobody is saying bombing a hospital is a good thing. If the talibs were using it for a base of operations then MSF loses all credibility and protected status.

In the end I have a feeling of 1 of 2 results, the US will prove that the hospital had talibs actively fighting from it and MSF will deny it and say the US is lying OR the US will find that they can't prove the hospital had any hostiles in it, and will launch a further investigation to see who fethed up. In no situation do I see MSF admitting fault if they are in fact guilty.

Military service is completely irrelevant here. This is a case of international law, and international law says that attacking a hospital is a war crime, no exceptions. Even if a hospital is used by the enemy, attacking it is still a war crime. The only way one is allowed to attack a hospital is when the hospital is used by the enemy to attack your forces. In such a case, you are required to give due warning you are about to attack the hospital, and give enough time for them to evacuate. If hostile activities from the hospital do not cease after the warning, only then are you allowed to attack. No warning, still a war crime.

Whether there were taliban fighters on the premises or not is completely irrelevant. If the US knew that the hospital was there, and launched an airstrike nonetheless, it is a war crime. That is why the most important thing is to establish whether the authorities responsible for ordering the airstrike could have been aware of the fact that they attacked a hospital.

You do not seem to be aware of the Geneva Conventions. Whether MSF treats Taliban fighters or not is completely irrelevant to their legal protection and credibility. In fact, quite the contrary. MSF is an apolitical medical organisation. They are required to help everyone, no matter their political allegiance.
Now please stop the ultranationalism.

A zone which contains only wounded and sick (see Rule 47), medical and religious personnel (see Rules 25 and 27), humanitarian relief personnel (see Rule 31) and civilians (see Rule 1) may not be attacked by application of the specific rules protecting these categories of persons, applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Further down it specifically states that the hospital loses its protected status if they enemy is using it for hostile actions, such as shooting at Afghan patrols and such. And it may be targetted only after a reasonable warning has been given. I would say that the warning is when The Taliban is shooting through the windows but im not a lawyer. Please keep your Russian biased Ultra nationalism to yourself

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And my opinion of alot of people on Dakka has gone down.
Are we seriously defending, and rationalizing, the bombing of a Neutral hospital because they treat everyone equally?

If I'm honest, it comes across as a case of "If you're not with us, you're against us" to attempt to justify the bombing of the hospital, combined with a healthy dose of "You're not in the military, you wouldn't know man, you weren't there" to justify it if it was a mistake.

Close, it is more a case of "IM mad because the US did stuff!" and then the few of us who have active service recently and understand how close air support works are pointing out how easy this would be to feth up. Nobody is saying bombing a hospital is a good thing. If the talibs were using it for a base of operations then MSF loses all credibility and protected status.

In the end I have a feeling of 1 of 2 results, the US will prove that the hospital had talibs actively fighting from it and MSF will deny it and say the US is lying OR the US will find that they can't prove the hospital had any hostiles in it, and will launch a further investigation to see who fethed up. In no situation do I see MSF admitting fault if they are in fact guilty.

Military service is completely irrelevant here. This is a case of international law, and international law says that attacking a hospital is a war crime, no exceptions. Even if a hospital is used by the enemy, attacking it is still a war crime. The only way one is allowed to attack a hospital is when the hospital is used by the enemy to attack your forces. In such a case, you are required to give due warning you are about to attack the hospital, and give enough time for them to evacuate. If hostile activities from the hospital do not cease after the warning, only then are you allowed to attack. No warning, still a war crime.

Cite the relevant articles of the Geneva Convention please. Because now you're making stuff up to justify your usual "the US is in the wrong" stance.

Whether there were taliban fighters on the premises or not is completely irrelevant. If the US knew that the hospital was there, and launched an airstrike nonetheless, it is a war crime. That is why the most important thing is to establish whether the authorities responsible for ordering the airstrike could have been aware of the fact that they attacked a hospital.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Stop now while you're ahead.

You do not seem to be aware of the Geneva Conventions. Whether MSF treats Taliban fighters or not is completely irrelevant to their legal protection and credibility. In fact, quite the contrary. MSF is an apolitical medical organisation. They are required to help everyone, no matter their political allegiance.

They're also required to be apolitical. Several posters in this thread have cited instances where the MSF has violated their apolitical stance because their ability to stay and treat is more important to them than retaining that stance.

Now please stop the ultranationalism.

#ultraironicpost


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
We have no M1's in Afghanistan.

We both know that the media uses the word "tank" rather liberally. Anything heavier than a humvee qualifies.

In this case it isn't the media that made the distinction. All the articles I've read citing this instance make it clear that it was Medicine San Frontiers claiming that the US rolled a tank through their gate.

I would guess it was probably a Stryker though.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And my opinion of alot of people on Dakka has gone down.
Are we seriously defending, and rationalizing, the bombing of a Neutral hospital because they treat everyone equally?

If I'm honest, it comes across as a case of "If you're not with us, you're against us" to attempt to justify the bombing of the hospital, combined with a healthy dose of "You're not in the military, you wouldn't know man, you weren't there" to justify it if it was a mistake.

Close, it is more a case of "IM mad because the US did stuff!" and then the few of us who have active service recently and understand how close air support works are pointing out how easy this would be to feth up. Nobody is saying bombing a hospital is a good thing. If the talibs were using it for a base of operations then MSF loses all credibility and protected status.

In the end I have a feeling of 1 of 2 results, the US will prove that the hospital had talibs actively fighting from it and MSF will deny it and say the US is lying OR the US will find that they can't prove the hospital had any hostiles in it, and will launch a further investigation to see who fethed up. In no situation do I see MSF admitting fault if they are in fact guilty.

Military service is completely irrelevant here. This is a case of international law, and international law says that attacking a hospital is a war crime, no exceptions. Even if a hospital is used by the enemy, attacking it is still a war crime. The only way one is allowed to attack a hospital is when the hospital is used by the enemy to attack your forces. In such a case, you are required to give due warning you are about to attack the hospital, and give enough time for them to evacuate. If hostile activities from the hospital do not cease after the warning, only then are you allowed to attack. No warning, still a war crime.

Cite the relevant articles of the Geneva Convention please. Because now you're making stuff up to justify your usual "the US is in the wrong" stance.

Whether there were taliban fighters on the premises or not is completely irrelevant. If the US knew that the hospital was there, and launched an airstrike nonetheless, it is a war crime. That is why the most important thing is to establish whether the authorities responsible for ordering the airstrike could have been aware of the fact that they attacked a hospital.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Stop now while you're ahead.

From Article 19 of the 1949 Geneva convention:

The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.

Source:https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/4090b0df66b7df7fc12563cd0051bb1e" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/4090b0df66b7df7fc12563cd0051bb1e

So what's a "reasonable timeframe"?

Also, stop referring to this as "an airstrike". This isn't the crap that Putin is doing where a jet drops a bomb and says "Ooooops, we totally didn't mean to drop that on anti-government forces. We bombed ISIS!".

All reports are that the engagement involved an AC-130--which is something that would have been potentially nearby and does not "shoot and scoot".
It stays on station and likely would have recordings of the engagement.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So what's a "reasonable timeframe"?

Also, stop referring to this as "an airstrike". This isn't the crap that Putin is doing where a jet drops a bomb and says "Ooooops, we totally didn't mean to drop that on anti-government forces. We bombed ISIS!".

All reports are that the engagement involved an AC-130--which is something that would have been potentially nearby and does not "shoot and scoot".
It stays on station and likely would have recordings of the engagement.

I know what an AC-130 is. Those things are epic. But an airstrike is any strike made by aircraft, so this was an airstrike. What else should one call it?

 Kanluwen wrote:
So what's a "reasonable timeframe"?

Also, stop referring to this as "an airstrike". This isn't the crap that Putin is doing where a jet drops a bomb and says "Ooooops, we totally didn't mean to drop that on anti-government forces. We bombed ISIS!".

All reports are that the engagement involved an AC-130--which is something that would have been potentially nearby and does not "shoot and scoot".
It stays on station and likely would have recordings of the engagement.

In what way is this not an airstrike?

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So what's a "reasonable timeframe"?

Also, stop referring to this as "an airstrike". This isn't the crap that Putin is doing where a jet drops a bomb and says "Ooooops, we totally didn't mean to drop that on anti-government forces. We bombed ISIS!".

All reports are that the engagement involved an AC-130--which is something that would have been potentially nearby and does not "shoot and scoot".
It stays on station and likely would have recordings of the engagement.

In what way is this not an airstrike?

"Airstrike" is the term generally used by the media to refer to a fast-moving aircraft(jet) or drone that has no real stationary capacity to observe the situation after it has dropped a payload, typically something which is a relatively large piece of ordnance. "Airstrikes" are something which typically are done in reaction to something happening on the ground, not something that will be occurring as the situation unfolds. You don't ever see the media refer to an Apache or an AH-6 making passes on a target as an "airstrike".

The fact that an AC-130 was purportedly involved means that this strike(the correct term in this case) could have been any kind of cannon shots(or in the case of the new AC-130W variant--250lb laser guided bombs) placed on target. The fact that the hospital is still standing(remember: it was only rendered "unusable", not actually destroyed like some people in this thread make it out to be) means that they engaged with the least amount of firepower that they could have thrown down.

It was a "Call for Fire" that was initiated by ground forces. TOC process the target. Since it involve one building a precision weapon platform was needed. Since a AC130 gunship was providing CAS......
I've called in two strikes over my time in Paradise. So its a "Coordinated Air Strike" but still an "Air Strike" to anyone who are not familiar with this process
Unsure if they removed M119's (105's) from fire base but the artillery strike is not pin point strike for the target since its a area effect involving 1-4 tubes
Same as mortars.
155mm tube would have flatten the building

Since the ANA was taking "fire" from a harden building (walled in compound) FO came into play
Call for Fire process is not a Wham Bam Thank You ma'am speed

An Air Strike is pre-planned from afar
Weapon selection made tailored to the target
Someone from the Air Force I am sure can give a better description on this then I can

 Jihadin wrote:
It was a "Call for Fire" that was initiated by ground forces. TOC process the target. Since it involve one building a precision weapon platform was needed. Since a AC130 gunship was providing CAS......
I've called in two strikes over my time in Paradise. So its a "Coordinated Air Strike" but still an "Air Strike" to anyone who are not familiar with this process
Unsure if they removed M119's (105's) from fire base but the artillery strike is not pin point strike for the target since its a area effect involving 1-4 tubes
Same as mortars.
155mm tube would have flatten the building

Since the ANA was taking "fire" from a harden building (walled in compound) FO came into play
Call for Fire process is not a Wham Bam Thank You ma'am speed

An Air Strike is pre-planned from afar
Weapon selection made tailored to the target
Someone from the Air Force I am sure can give a better description on this then I can

Air Strike is only used when its preplanned on an ATO which I think is what you are getting at with your last set of bullets. The aircraft knows it's target, route and everything else before it takes off. This was on call CAS without preplanned targets although the AC-130 was most likely overhead on-call.

Speed is relative to the guy on the ground getting shot at on-call CAS takes forever. When compared to the normal timelines for a targeted strike it's lightning fast.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And my opinion of alot of people on Dakka has gone down.
Are we seriously defending, and rationalizing, the bombing of a Neutral hospital because they treat everyone equally?

I think there are a lot of unknowns here that need to be looked into. This is why there needs to be a impartial investigation.

Hospitals are protected, that much is true. Until the are used as a staging ground for attacks, which from initial investigations, may have been the case. Also, from what I understand, ground forces called for the strikes. Generally, when there are allies on the ground, saying they are being attacked from a position, you respond as quickly as possible, otherwise you may lose more of your own.

Of course, this is just speculation.

I have to admit though....kinda stupid for them to be there, I mean this city has been under siege for a bit, and a organization is going to operate a hospital in the middle of this and get surprised that they get caught in the cross fire? I'm not saying its right, but damn, it stinks of stupidity.

That's most of what they do. Their mission is to go into warzones, conflict zones, ect. and care for people who may not be able to get medical care otherwise.

MSF are brave as hell. The criticism of them here is revolting.

 Da Boss wrote:
MSF are brave as hell. The criticism of them here is revolting.

Implying they are above reproach?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
MSF are brave as hell. The criticism of them here is revolting.

Implying they are above reproach?

Yeah, paying off AQ in Somalia is brave.

Brave enough to put themselves in harms way to provide medical care to civilians stranded in war zone in a world where everybody things that they deserve to be blown to hell if someone decides to use their hospital as a point of contact.

But after reading much of this thread it is pretty clear that we don't have to look to the Middle East to find barbaric monsters who don't give a feth about anybody but themselves and their own interest.

 Da Boss wrote:
MSF are brave as hell. The criticism of them here is revolting.

Even someone who is well intentioned can be bias, or even stupid at times.

They take huge risks by establishing themselves in a warzone, especially in a place where there is a active battle going on. Common sense would say that you move out of the cross fire and administer aid in a area where you don't have to worry about possibly being blown up.

Furthermore there are accusations that the MSF was letting the Taliban use their facility to launch attacks on Afgan forces, and were storing weapons there as well.

At the end of the day, the leadership of MSF have a obligation to protect their personal as much as possible, they failed them. Instead of taking any sort of accountability they are pointing fingers at the U.S., even before an investigation has been finished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Brave enough to put themselves in harms way to provide medical care to civilians stranded in war zone in a world where everybody things that they deserve to be blown to hell if someone decides to use their hospital as a point of contact.

But after reading much of this thread it is pretty clear that we don't have to look to the Middle East to find barbaric monsters who don't give a feth about anybody but themselves and their own interest.

Good intentions doesn't exuse stupidity, running a medic station in a active warzone is.....risky at best, stupid at worst.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
MSF are brave as hell. The criticism of them here is revolting.

Even someone who is well intentioned can be bias, or even stupid at times.

They take huge risks by establishing themselves in a warzone, especially in a place where there is a active battle going on. Common sense would say that you move out of the cross fire and administer aid in a area where you don't have to worry about possibly being blown up.

Furthermore there are accusations that the MSF was letting the Taliban use their facility to launch attacks on Afgan forces, and were storing weapons there as well.

At the end of the day, the leadership of MSF have a obligation to protect their personal as much as possible, they failed them. Instead of taking any sort of accountability they are pointing fingers at the U.S., even before an investigation has been finished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Brave enough to put themselves in harms way to provide medical care to civilians stranded in war zone in a world where everybody things that they deserve to be blown to hell if someone decides to use their hospital as a point of contact.

But after reading much of this thread it is pretty clear that we don't have to look to the Middle East to find barbaric monsters who don't give a feth about anybody but themselves and their own interest.

Good intentions doesn't exuse stupidity, running a medic station in a active warzone is.....risky at best, stupid at worst.

It is not stupid. MSF doctors risk their lifes to aid people where it is needed most. They are heroes. And they are protected by international law, knowingly attacking them is a warcrime, which is why people make such a fuss about this.
As the Geneva Conventions will tell you, it doesn't matter one bit whether a hospital is used by a party in a conflict. Attacking a hospital without due warning is a warcrime in all circumstances.
Personally, I think this episode tells one everything about the US and its military one should know. Now with these rumours of US military forcing their way onto the site to destroy evidence even more so.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
MSF are brave as hell. The criticism of them here is revolting.

Even someone who is well intentioned can be bias, or even stupid at times.

They take huge risks by establishing themselves in a warzone, especially in a place where there is a active battle going on. Common sense would say that you move out of the cross fire and administer aid in a area where you don't have to worry about possibly being blown up.

Furthermore there are accusations that the MSF was letting the Taliban use their facility to launch attacks on Afgan forces, and were storing weapons there as well.

At the end of the day, the leadership of MSF have a obligation to protect their personal as much as possible, they failed them. Instead of taking any sort of accountability they are pointing fingers at the U.S., even before an investigation has been finished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Brave enough to put themselves in harms way to provide medical care to civilians stranded in war zone in a world where everybody things that they deserve to be blown to hell if someone decides to use their hospital as a point of contact.

But after reading much of this thread it is pretty clear that we don't have to look to the Middle East to find barbaric monsters who don't give a feth about anybody but themselves and their own interest.

Good intentions doesn't exuse stupidity, running a medic station in a active warzone is.....risky at best, stupid at worst.

Treating a casualty as soon as possible massively increases the chances of survival. That is why the US made use of aid stations and MASH units close to the front lines in the Korean War and also Vietnam.

Now, a civilian who gets bombed in a city is probably not going to have the means to get miles away from that city in order to get medical treatment. They may, however, be able to get to a hospital within close proximity.

That is why MSF and other organizations such as the Red Cross operate in these areas. Because otherwise they may be safe but they also cannot actually do anything to help the people who need them most.