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.

I remember the thread where the US Military was slammed because everyone thought we (US Military) was running the hospital. If fact it was compared to Auschwitz which the Mod's change the title thread. There's what you know and then there is what is known.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.

I feel for the civilians I really do. However, there has been allegations that the MSF was allowing the Taliban to use the facility to launch attacks and store weapons. Whether the MSF was given a choice in the matter is irrelevant. Per the LOW, if a hospital, school, church etc etc is being used as a base for attack in any way, they are subject the being engaged. The MSF was also treating Taliban fighters, which is another reason that the Afgan forces were targeting the facility.

Guys, im not saying it was right that the place got attacked, I'm saying that there are circumstances here that need to be looked into before we go making knee jerk responses. Were the Taliban attacking Afgan forces from the facility? Were they storing weapons at the facility, did the MSF take precautions to prevent this, or did they contact Coalition forces to let them know what was going on? Did the MSF take proper precautions to keep its people safe?

I mean, if your operating in a active war zone, there is risk involved, Accidental or not. It might have been a good idea for them to suspend serves while bullets are flying by their heads, or at least move critical services out of the way. The MSF has some blame to take in this as well.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

Your age is showing here. Either you do not comprehend what happen and the Geneva Article you posted....simplified
Small Arms weapons and ammo is allowed to be there
Taking fire from there renders the Article void.

Do the discussion without spamming guys

 Jihadin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

Your age is showing here. Either you do not comprehend what happen and the Geneva Article you posted....simplified
Small Arms weapons and ammo is allowed to be there
Taking fire from there renders the Article void.

It seems you did not read. It is not simplified, it is the full English text of article 19 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
Storage of ammo or small arms are no valid reason for an attack, taking fire from an hospital is, but only after due warning has been given. The law literally could not be more clear on this.

It seems you did not read. It is not simplified, it is the full English text of article 19 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
Storage of ammo or small arms are no valid reason for an attack, taking fire from an hospital is, but only after due warning has been given. The law literally could not be more clear on this.

I have to disagree with you, it could be significantly clearer. What is considered to be "Due Warning". is giving them a hand wave saying stand the feth by enough? or do you have to write a formal written letter to the facility saying, we intend to bomb you on this date, please ensure that you tell the Taliban to vacate before then".

Again Nobody is saying that bombing hospitals is a good thing, but if the Taliban were firing at ANA or US forces from the hospital, my opinion is that the out going fire is the "Due Warning" and the incoming fire is just the follow through.

In Iraq we blew up Minarets on Mosques because the Haji's thought that we wouldn't dare damage a mosque. This worked for a few hours until an officer finally got tired of losing his men because of these cowardly tactics and ordered his supporting tanks to start making holes.

Neutral buildings are neutral, until the enemy decides to use them for their own purposes.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

It seems you did not read. It is not simplified, it is the full English text of article 19 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
Storage of ammo or small arms are no valid reason for an attack, taking fire from an hospital is, but only after due warning has been given. The law literally could not be more clear on this.

I have to disagree with you, it could be significantly clearer. What is considered to be "Due Warning". is giving them a hand wave saying stand the feth by enough? or do you have to write a formal written letter to the facility saying, we intend to bomb you on this date, please ensure that you tell the Taliban to vacate before then".

Again Nobody is saying that bombing hospitals is a good thing, but if the Taliban were firing at ANA or US forces from the hospital, my opinion is that the out going fire is the "Due Warning" and the incoming fire is just the follow through.

In Iraq we blew up Minarets on Mosques because the Haji's thought that we wouldn't dare damage a mosque. This worked for a few hours until an officer finally got tired of losing his men because of these cowardly tactics and ordered his supporting tanks to start making holes.

Neutral buildings are neutral, until the enemy decides to use them for their own purposes.

I couldn't have said it better myself Giant Orc chieftain.

It reminds me of right before the start of OIF 1 when leftist anti-war protestors traveled to Iraq to prevent us from invading. Saddam placed them at schools and other places where he was storing weapons. Didn't stop us from doing what we had to do.

In the grand scheme of things this is just a waste of money for everybody involved. Nothing will come of it, at all. The UN has no power, nobody can enforce war crimes on another unless they are stronger. An honestly big countries (the ones with the power to enforce) will look the other way because they don't want to invite others to pry into their activities. China and Russia will stay out of this because the US points fingers as a show (like they do) but won't actually do anything.

The Geneva Convention is a good feelings document that is just paper. International organizations that have the jurisdiction to apply it are at the mercy of those they would judge. The US is one of the most powerful enforcing arms of the UN.

US invades Iraq against international agreements, nothing happens. Russia goes into Cremia, nothing happens. China does what it wants humanitarily, nothing happens.

The US might demote or fire a few people if it feels it has to but that is it. Unless leadership in the military find a gross screw up there will be nothing even remotely resembling a war crimes trial.

I know I basically am saying stop arguing because its pointless, but it really really is pointless. Even if the US is fully at fault nothing will happen, there will be no sticking it to the military or the US.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
In the grand scheme of things this is just a waste of money for everybody involved. Nothing will come of it, at all. The UN has no power, nobody can enforce war crimes on another unless they are stronger. An honestly big countries (the ones with the power to enforce) will look the other way because they don't want to invite others to pry into their activities. China and Russia will stay out of this because the US points fingers as a show (like they do) but won't actually do anything.

The Geneva Convention is a good feelings document that is just paper. International organizations that have the jurisdiction to apply it are at the mercy of those they would judge. The US is one of the most powerful enforcing arms of the UN.

US invades Iraq against international agreements, nothing happens. Russia goes into Cremia, nothing happens. China does what it wants humanitarily, nothing happens.

The US might demote or fire a few people if it feels it has to but that is it. Unless leadership in the military find a gross screw up there will be nothing even remotely resembling a war crimes trial.

I know I basically am saying stop arguing because its pointless, but it really really is pointless. Even if the US is fully at fault nothing will happen, there will be no sticking it to the military or the US.

This man deserves a free chicken dinner.

You nailed it on the head, outside of some finger wagging and hurtie feelings no one will do anything. Nations can't be accused of war crimes, only people and intent has to be proven. Even if someone was shown to have intended to bomb the hospital, we would prosecute our own, I can't ever see a day where we would submit a U.S. service member to be tried in the Hague.

So, euros can be as pissed as they want, there's not a damn thing they can do about it, and they know it.

Besides, it's hard for me to take the EU serious when it comes to pursuing war criminals and trying to take a moral high ground. Not even 30 years ago they had ethnic cleansing and genocide going on in their backyard (Kosovo/Serbia) and didn't do a god damned thing about it, we had to go in and take care of business because they don't have the balls to do it.

Now we're saying entire continents have no balls we're done here. Well done OT