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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Things are getting even murkier with an Afghan government spokesman claiming that the Taliban were using the hospital as a fire base (despite MSF saying the opposite),

and even less believably claiming that all (15 I don't remember the number he said, but it was something like that) Taliban fighters in the hospital were killed by the airstrike

(and how would they know being that the area is under Taliban control, and dead bodies inside a burning building would be invisible to even the best drones)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34435238

thats actually fairly believable, remember HAMAS utilizing UN schools and hospitals to stage weapons and fighters? The Taliban used Schools and hospitals in our AO to facilitate IED training and such.

Yes, but then why would the medical organisation claim there was not a taliban in sight?

Beyond the fact that harboring enemy forces makes them legitimate military targets. They might be expelled from the country.

Also the fact that Taliban look exactly like regular afghans....because they are. Its only when the run around waving RPGs they look different. (Not AKs though, those are about as common as shovels)

MSF treat everybody- they are neutral. They'll treat whoever needs treating, that's the point of MSF. They're not a legitimate target because they might have some Taliban in their hospital.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Which is not a reason to bomb them. That's called a hostage situation. Besides, if that had happened, why would they lie about it? And why would the US deny it?

Not necessarily. its only a hostage situation once the hostage takers are holding you against your will. If there is even tacit cooperation(like letting them be there and not reporting it) then you are now harboring them.

As for the US denying it, I think nobody yet has any complete information and there is a bunch of confusion. Maybe our planes got bad coords from someone on the ground(maybe from Afghani spotters), maybe the coords were correct but nobody realized it was a hospital, etc...

 Da Boss wrote:
I don't expect that the US will apologise

Why not? We've apologized for accidental casualties before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Not that it matters really - the US would never allow anyone to be prosecuted for that.

Why not? The US has prosecuted US service members for war crimes in the past.

That came across wrong - I meant more that I would not be hugely outraged if they did not apologise.

They might well offer some sort of apology, once they've investigated and determined what happened. If there were Taliban fighters in the hospital though, I don't think they will, and cynically, I just can't make myself care too much about that in the self righteous way I am supposed to.

Edit: The US does not allow anyone _else_ to prosecute it's soldiers.

Its only a War Crime if the targeting of the Hospital was deliberate. If it was bad coordinates, bad intel, or a scattering munition then no crime was committed, just a tragic accident.

 Da Boss wrote:
That is also possible, but in situations like that wouldn't it be the procedure to wait til the militants had left the hospital before attacking them?

The fact that that is possible illustrates how difficult it is for the US to fight conventionally against these guys- they've got no problems with violating international law and codes of decency. It makes a degree of sense of course- the power difference between the two forces is such that if they didn't fight dirty they'd be completely obliterated. But it must be wearing as all hell to try and fight that "by the book".

If someone decided "Eff it, we'll just bomb it and kill them" then I think that person committed a war crime, even if the Taliban were committing a similar crime by using the hospital as a base. Not that it matters really - the US would never allow anyone to be prosecuted for that.

Probably wouldn't happen. Something like that happened in Iraq and the officers involved were sent to prison.

Yup. If it was deliberate (which I think is insanely unlikely, US soldiers are not mindless drones who would follow such an order even if it was given to them, which is also ridiculously unlikely), then war crime.

If it's an accident, well, unfortunately, gak like that happens in wars sometimes. The person who messed up should be disciplined, but that's about as much as you can do.

It certianly won't do any favors for US popularity in the region though, and is certainly going to be used by ISIS in it's recruitment videos.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It certianly won't do any favors for US popularity in the region though, and is certainly going to be used by ISIS in it's recruitment videos.

As if our popularity could get any lower.

At this point I think we should stop worrying about our image, it can't get any worse, so we should focus on objectives.

 Da Boss wrote:
That came across wrong - I meant more that I would not be hugely outraged if they did not apologise.

They might well offer some sort of apology, once they've investigated and determined what happened. If there were Taliban fighters in the hospital though, I don't think they will, and cynically, I just can't make myself care too much about that in the self righteous way I am supposed to.

Edit: The US does not allow anyone _else_ to prosecute it's soldiers.

Okay, that's more clear. At first I thought by "didn't expect" you meant "do not think they will" as opposed to "do not think they necessarily need to." And you're right, we wouldn't let someone else prosecute our soldiers. I thought you meant that we would never prosecute them either. But I got what you meant now, thanks for clarifying.

Yeah sorry, I'm not as anti-US military as I might appear given the generally lefty slant of my posts. I can totally see why you would have read that the way you did given my posting history. You guys do the best job you can in whatever given circumstances there are.

I'm less of a fan of the politicians who send troops into quagmires like the middle east with apparently no clear goal in sight beyond blowing a bunch of stuff up, though.

 Da Boss wrote:
MSF treat everybody- they are neutral. They'll treat whoever needs treating, that's the point of MSF. They're not a legitimate target because they might have some Taliban in their hospital.

Exactly.
They are doctors, and one of the most important tenets of the medical profession is "You treat the patient in front of you"
It doesn't matter if they are US Soldiers or Taliban insurgents, the doctor should treat them with equal care.

Who exactly did they inform? Washington and Kabul they said. Dept. of State most likely. First time I've heard of MSF.

 Jihadin wrote:
Who exactly did they inform? Washington and Kabul they said. Dept. of State most likely. First time I've heard of MSF.

It's more commonly know, at least in America, by the English translation, "Doctors Without Borders".

Are we sure at this point that this wasn't just an accidental clocking?

(I'm sorry)

 Jihadin wrote:
First time I've heard of MSF.

They've been on the go since the early '70s, generally work in war zones and the like, and are completely non political. I believe they have an advisory seat at the UN too.
My cousin spent some time with them when he was newly qualified.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The way I see it, if your target is close enough to a hospital where even a slight deviation could cause that hospital to get hit, you should probably reconsider bombing that target.

You do know this is why terrorists set up shop near/in hospitals and schools, yah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:


Edit: The US does not allow anyone _else_ to prosecute it's soldiers.

Thats a norm for nation-states.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The way I see it, if your target is close enough to a hospital where even a slight deviation could cause that hospital to get hit, you should probably reconsider bombing that target.

WHy?

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The way I see it, if your target is close enough to a hospital where even a slight deviation could cause that hospital to get hit, you should probably reconsider bombing that target.

You do know this is why terrorists set up shop near/in hospitals and schools, yah?

Yes, I am well aware of that, Captain Obvious. Which is why our $600 billion should be finding better solutions than "bomb them and hope we don't miss".

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The way I see it, if your target is close enough to a hospital where even a slight deviation could cause that hospital to get hit, you should probably reconsider bombing that target.

You do know this is why terrorists set up shop near/in hospitals and schools, yah?

Yes, I am well aware of that, Captain Obvious. Which is why our $600 billion should be finding better solutions than "bomb them and hope we don't miss".

Kinetic weapons from orbit? its the only way to be sure. Nothing says loving like tungsten rods from space.

 Frazzled wrote:
Kinetic weapons from orbit? its the only way to be sure. Nothing says loving like tungsten rods from space.

Whatever happened to MOABs? Or fuel bladders with daisy cutter fuses attached?

Sigh... you kids with your fancy space gadgets. No appreciation for the old ways.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Things are getting even murkier with an Afghan government spokesman claiming that the Taliban were using the hospital as a fire base (despite MSF saying the opposite),

and even less believably claiming that all (15 I don't remember the number he said, but it was something like that) Taliban fighters in the hospital were killed by the airstrike

(and how would they know being that the area is under Taliban control, and dead bodies inside a burning building would be invisible to even the best drones)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34435238

thats actually fairly believable, remember HAMAS utilizing UN schools and hospitals to stage weapons and fighters? The Taliban used Schools and hospitals in our AO to facilitate IED training and such.

Yes, but then why would the medical organisation claim there was not a taliban in sight?

Because they would be admitting to harboring terrorists. They'd have good reason to lie about that.

No, MSF is not a political organisation. Whether some government has labeled some people as terrorists should not be factor in them giving medical aid to those people. Bombing a hospital however, is a pretty serious war crime, even if enemy combatants are receiving medical aid there.
In my opinion (pardon the rant), the people responsible for this should be brought to justice. Surprising this is not receiving more attention. If Russia would bomb a hospital the entire Western world would be all over it, but if America does it it is apparently no big deal. Typical Western attitude to human rights. Saudi Arabia beheading gay people and invading Yemen is 100% okay, but Russia having a law banning "homosexual propaganda to minors" and invading Ukraine means Putin is the new Hitler. Yay hypocrisy!

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:


Edit: The US does not allow anyone _else_ to prosecute it's soldiers.

Thats a norm for nation-states.

*cough*Serbia*cough*

 Breotan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Kinetic weapons from orbit? its the only way to be sure. Nothing says loving like tungsten rods from space.

Whatever happened to MOABs? Or fuel bladders with daisy cutter fuses attached?

Sigh... you kids with your fancy space gadgets. No appreciation for the old ways.

I see your MOAB and I raise you...a diamond pattern US WWII bomber formation dropping MOABS on a pattern drop.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Things are getting even murkier with an Afghan government spokesman claiming that the Taliban were using the hospital as a fire base (despite MSF saying the opposite),

and even less believably claiming that all (15 I don't remember the number he said, but it was something like that) Taliban fighters in the hospital were killed by the airstrike

(and how would they know being that the area is under Taliban control, and dead bodies inside a burning building would be invisible to even the best drones)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34435238

thats actually fairly believable, remember HAMAS utilizing UN schools and hospitals to stage weapons and fighters? The Taliban used Schools and hospitals in our AO to facilitate IED training and such.

Yes, but then why would the medical organisation claim there was not a taliban in sight?

Because they would be admitting to harboring terrorists. They'd have good reason to lie about that.

No, MSF is not a political organisation. Whether some government has labeled some people as terrorists should not be factor in them giving medical aid to those people. Bombing a hospital however, is a pretty serious war crime, even if enemy combatants are receiving medical aid there.
In my opinion (pardon the rant), the people responsible for this should be brought to justice. Surprising this is not receiving more attention. If Russia would bomb a hospital the entire Western world would be all over it, but if America does it it is apparently no big deal. Typical Western attitude to human rights. Saudi Arabia beheading gay people and invading Yemen is 100% okay, but Russia having a law banning "homosexual propaganda to minors" and invading Ukraine means Putin is the new Hitler. Yay hypocrisy!

Honestly, I think it has more to do with the fact that the US accidentally killing civilians over in that part of the world just isn't anything new anymore. It's almost become accepted that there will be "collateral damage" or "accidents" on a regular basis.

And that's another reason why we need to get the hell out of there.

 Da Boss wrote:
That is also possible, but in situations like that wouldn't it be the procedure to wait til the militants had left the hospital before attacking them?
. . .
If someone decided "Eff it, we'll just bomb it and kill them" then I think that person committed a war crime, even if the Taliban were committing a similar crime by using the hospital as a base. Not that it matters really - the US would never allow anyone to be prosecuted for that.

If the hospital was being used by the enemy for military purposes then it loses its protection under international law.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
That is also possible, but in situations like that wouldn't it be the procedure to wait til the militants had left the hospital before attacking them?
. . .
If someone decided "Eff it, we'll just bomb it and kill them" then I think that person committed a war crime, even if the Taliban were committing a similar crime by using the hospital as a base. Not that it matters really - the US would never allow anyone to be prosecuted for that.

If the hospital was being used by the enemy for military purposes then it loses its protection under international law.

Wasn't this a big 'ol stink when Hamas was shooting rockets at Israel?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
That is also possible, but in situations like that wouldn't it be the procedure to wait til the militants had left the hospital before attacking them?
. . .
If someone decided "Eff it, we'll just bomb it and kill them" then I think that person committed a war crime, even if the Taliban were committing a similar crime by using the hospital as a base. Not that it matters really - the US would never allow anyone to be prosecuted for that.

If the hospital was being used by the enemy for military purposes then it loses its protection under international law.

Even then a warning needs to be given first before an attack is allowed. Without warning it is still a war crime. Also, I don't think it has been proven that this hospital was used for military activities.

Shooting a hospital is no better then a terrorist act. I rarely agree with the Russians but this time I agree with him. This is the reason the states are hated so much around the world.

Read some of these messages" shoot people who are held captive at a hospital who cares. If they help some different troops shoot them hell kill them all".

It seems like U.S.A. is quickly becoming a terrorist state. They started what 5 wars that didn't concern them? They are attacking places for no other reason then self interest. Now they are bombing doctors with out borders for helping enemy troops.......

I say it is time we really consider dumping U.S.A from the U.N. before they get us in a world war or worse. Turn on the news it is starting. War with north korea, war with russia, war with... what all middle east minus iseral. Hell they made isis.

Cant wait to see what comes home to roost due to all this crap.

Sorry, do you have evidence that this was done intentionally?

Because I haven't seen any real evidence that this was done intentionally. There's speculation that it was done intentionally, but there's speculation that the Twin Towers attack was committed by the CIA.

Speculate all you want, but don't presume that you actually have the facts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
That is also possible, but in situations like that wouldn't it be the procedure to wait til the militants had left the hospital before attacking them?
. . .
If someone decided "Eff it, we'll just bomb it and kill them" then I think that person committed a war crime, even if the Taliban were committing a similar crime by using the hospital as a base. Not that it matters really - the US would never allow anyone to be prosecuted for that.

If the hospital was being used by the enemy for military purposes then it loses its protection under international law.

Actually, it doesn't.

You have to PROVE that it was knowingly being used for that purpose, with the agencies running the hospital aware of that fact. Even then it's an uphill battle to be able to really show that such a thing was happening.

It's also worth noting that impersonating/disguising military facilities as hospitals or belonging to a recognized aid agency is a REALLY big no-no for the same reasons why targeting recognizing aid agency facilities is a really big no-no without some rock solid evidence that they have compromised their neutral status.