Massive Hospital Bombing 70 dead so far.

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.

**SemperMortis**

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/asia/pakistan-hospital-blast/

As of yet no group has claimed responsibility and it appears as if the attacker was specifically targeting judges and lawyers. I am wondering if this has to do with the person assassinated and his stance on sharia law in regards to Pakistani Law.

forgot to mention this, the city where this took place "Quetta" is a known insurgent hotbed for the Taliban.

**Manchu**

When discussing subjects like this, please maintain some sense of decorum in consideration of the dignity of the victims and their families. Thanks.

**Iron_Captain**

Of all places, why attack a hospital?

**SemperMortis**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Of all places, why attack a hospital?

They waited for the lawyers and friends to gather after they assassinated the original target.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
When discussing subjects like this, please maintain some sense of decorum in consideration of the dignity of the victims and their families. Thanks.

Can you please explain to me why my image was taken down? If someone honestly finds it offensive I would offer to pay a full tuition at the school of "suck it up".

**Manchu**

As a reminder, following moderator instructions is non-optional. Thanks.

**Ouze**

Bold strategy, Cotton.

**djones520**

BBC is reporting the 70 dead, plus 120 wounded.

Unbelievable, the depths that these barbarians will lower themselves to...

**sirlynchmob**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Of all places, why attack a hospital?

well the precedence has been set recently, it has been decided that hospitals are fair game to be attacked.

Israel attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.
America attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.

Meaning no disrespect to the dead, but maybe this hospital deserved it and it was a valid military target.

bombing hospitals is despicable, and a warcrime, no matter who does it. Maybe some good will come of it and more people will realize and understand this and stop defending the bombing of hospitals when their country does it.

**AlmightyWalrus**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Of all places, why attack a hospital?

well the precedence has been set recently, it has been decided that hospitals are fair game to be attacked.

Israel attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.
America attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.

Meaning no disrespect to the dead, but maybe this hospital deserved it and it was a valid military target.

bombing hospitals is despicable, and a warcrime, no matter who does it. Maybe some good will come of it and more people will realize and understand this and stop defending the bombing of hospitals when their country does it.

There's a massive difference between going after a hospital on purpose and hitting one because of a feth up. In the American case there was nothing indicating that the US troops knew that it was a hospital and shot anyway; it was incompetence, not malice.

**NuggzTheNinja**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Of all places, why attack a hospital?

well the precedence has been set recently, it has been decided that hospitals are fair game to be attacked.

Israel attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.
America attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.

Meaning no disrespect to the dead, but maybe this hospital deserved it and it was a valid military target.

bombing hospitals is despicable, and a warcrime, no matter who does it. Maybe some good will come of it and more people will realize and understand this and stop defending the bombing of hospitals when their country does it.

How is it that the Evil Jews have managed to strike again, in a thread about Muslims killing other Muslims?

**Scrabb**

My condolences for the families of the recently dead. Terrible, senseless, evil destruction.

Death is so real, no matter how much we try to hide it away behind hospital curtains.

**AlmightyWalrus**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Of all places, why attack a hospital?

well the precedence has been set recently, it has been decided that hospitals are fair game to be attacked.

Israel attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.
America attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.

Meaning no disrespect to the dead, but maybe this hospital deserved it and it was a valid military target.

bombing hospitals is despicable, and a warcrime, no matter who does it. Maybe some good will come of it and more people will realize and understand this and stop defending the bombing of hospitals when their country does it.

How is it that the Evil Jews have managed to strike again, in a thread about Muslims killing other Muslims?

He didn't say that, did he? He's not singling "the evil Jews" out anywhere, that leap of logic only works if you equate Israel with Jews, which would be your problem, not his.

**Hordini**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Israel attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.
America attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.

I don't recall anyone here ever claiming that a hospital was a valid military target. Are you sure you don't have some sort of agenda? I get the sense that you might be projecting.

**boyd**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Of all places, why attack a hospital?

well the precedence has been set recently, it has been decided that hospitals are fair game to be attacked.

Israel attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.
America attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.

Meaning no disrespect to the dead, but maybe this hospital deserved it and it was a valid military target.

bombing hospitals is despicable, and a warcrime, no matter who does it. Maybe some good will come of it and more people will realize and understand this and stop defending the bombing of hospitals when their country does it.

How is it that the Evil Jews have managed to strike again, in a thread about Muslims killing other Muslims?

He didn't say that, did he? He's not singling "the evil Jews" out anywhere, that leap of logic only works if you equate Israel with Jews, which would be your problem, not his.

Not worth arguing. Instead I'm going to watch my country dominate sports.

**d-usa**

Hordini wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Israel attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.
America attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target.

I don't recall anyone here ever claiming that a hospital was a valid military target. Are you sure you don't have some sort of agenda? I get the sense that you might be projecting.

It is actually claimed pretty frequently.

For Israel it's usually "when hospitals let Hamas use them as storage facilities, they will stop being targets" or "if Hamas doesn't want them hitting hospitals, they should stop hiding in them".

When the US hit the hospital the thread was filled with "they were helping the bad guys, they lost their protection" posts.

**Ouze**

Hordini wrote:
I don't recall anyone here ever claiming that a hospital was a valid military target. Are you sure you don't have some sort of agenda? I get the sense that you might be projecting.

You have a very different recollection of how these threads went then I did.

Spoiler:

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
Hordini wrote:
I don't recall anyone here ever claiming that a hospital was a valid military target. Are you sure you don't have some sort of agenda? I get the sense that you might be projecting.

You have a very different recollection of how these threads went then I did.

Spoiler:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:If the hospital was being used by the enemy for military purposes then it loses its protection under international law.

Ghazkuul wrote:Beyond the fact that harboring enemy forces makes them legitimate military targets.

Grey Templar wrote: If there is even tacit cooperation(like letting them be there and not reporting it) then you are now harboring them.

Ghazkuul wrote:if the insurgents were utilizing the hospital for military purposes and the hospital staff allowed it to happen then they were knowingly helping the insurgency and if not reported they do in fact become a military target

Ghazkuul wrote:If the talibs were using it for a base of operations then MSF loses all credibility and protected status.

SuperTony51 wrote: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.

Xenomancers wrote:I don't really care if Russia bombed a hospital. I don't care if Israel did ether...it's the oldest trick in the book right now. Hide your weapons cache in the hospital - they have to destroy the hospital to destroy our weapons cache. Brilliant!

Xenomancers wrote:If your enemy doesn't play by the rules - why should you?

CptJake wrote:If Talibs were firing from the MSF facility in Afghanistan, the MSF facility lost its protected status (which honestly it may never of had, still waiting for someone to show it had the markings required by the Geneva conventions).

Fair point, so I guess if he's trying to draw a true equivalency, then he can show how the hospital in Pakistan was being used to illegally stage weapons and serving as a fighting position?

**Tannhauser42**

I think the point that is trying to be made is that if one side justified targeting a hospital because the enemy is there, then the other side also gets to use that same justification for their actions.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
I think the point that is trying to be made is that if one side justified targeting a hospital because the enemy is there, then the other side also gets to use that same justification for their actions.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

**sirlynchmob**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
I think the point that is trying to be made is that if one side justified targeting a hospital because the enemy is there, then the other side also gets to use that same justification for their actions.

pretty much, it's a classic case of you reap what you sow. When the "civilized" countries destroy hospitals, to a large extent, the citizens bend over backwards to justify the action, agreeing that hospitals are valid targets, and showing no remorse what so ever for the victims. By doing so they've opened up the idea that hospitals are valid targets. It's why the geneva convention was formed, we agreed to not blow up hospitals, to not only show the enemy some degree of compassion, but so they would also agree to not target hospitals.

@djones I'm still waiting to see how the hospital in afganistan was being used to illegally stage weapons and served as a fighting position. A known hospital already on a no strike list. That's right I was reminded earlier, that bombing was ok, because gross incompetence from the military is acceptable. And the american doctors working there weren't killed out of malice.

**reds8n**

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/09/an-entire-generation-of-a-citys-lawyers-was-killed-in-pakistan/

Baluchistan is a place that desperately needs lawyers.

Pakistan's largest province by area, it is the home of a decades-old separatist insurgency, fueled by real grievances over neglect and lack of political representation. It is also increasingly the target of Sunni extremists, who bomb and kill its Shiite minorities. What leaders the province has are widely considered corrupt. Dozens of local journalists have been kidnapped in the past few years. It is nearly impossible for foreign reporters to enter Baluchistan. Lawyers are almost all that give the province a semblance of justice.

About 60 of them were killed in one attack on Monday in Baluchistan's capital, Quetta. They were packed into an emergency room where the body of a slain colleague lay, riddled with gunshot wounds. A widely circulated video showed lawyers milling about the hospital before an enormous explosion. A Pakistani Taliban offshoot claimed the attack, as did the Islamic State, though analysts say the latter's claim is dubious.

A week earlier, another lawyer was fatally shot. In June, the principal of the province's law college was, too.

A generation of lawyers has been wiped out in Quetta, and it will leave Baluchistan, in more ways than one, lawless.

On Tuesday, the Pakistani bar association called for an indefinite boycott of the courts. But so few lawyers are left in Baluchistan that it will be years, probably, until its legal community recovers.

The global response has been muted. Ban Ki-moon, Hillary Clinton and other international figures issued brief statements. Pakistan's leaders did much the same. No officials have been held responsible for the security breakdown at what should have been a highly guarded scene. The website of Dawn, a Pakistani English-language newspaper, had only a day-old story and photo gallery about the attack on its homepage on Tuesday evening.

Barkhurdar Khan, a member of the Baluchistan Bar Council, was one of the few lawyers who survived the attack. He has practiced in Quetta for nine months. After the attack, Khan offered his singular perspective in a heartrending stream of posts on social media.

"All, I repeat ALL senior practicing lawyers and barristers died today," he wrote. "The number of junior lawyers, who are the sole breadwinners of their homes and who are now unemployed runs into hundreds."

"Most of those who died were first-gen educated. The scenes of misery and loss cannot be put into words. The bent shoulders of their fathers, the broken backs of their brothers. Their kids, still oblivious to their own loss, playing and hoping," Khan continued. "Every lawyer that has ever given me a lift home is dead, except for one, Naveed Qambrani, he is critical and was airlifted to Karachi."

"Heartwrenching is an understatement."

**Ouze**

sirlynchmob wrote:
[@djones I'm still waiting to see how the hospital in afganistan was being used to illegally stage weapons and served as a fighting position. A known hospital already on a no strike list.

Well, all this "maybe they were staging weapons out of the hospital" argument is really kind of a strawman argument. I mean, it's helps to establish the idea that some people think it's OK to attack a hospital (counter to someone saying they don't remember anyone saying that). It segues back nicely into this thread, and the idea it's OK to attack a hospital.

However, the reason it's a strawman is because it's presuming that the hospital had become a valid military target due to the alleged presence of weapons, and so the strike was intentional and legal.

The truth is that the strike was just a full-fledged feth-up. Full stop. The AC-130 identified the target visually, they didn't check the no strike list, and the coordidates they called in to HQ weren't picked up by HQ - which knew there was a hospital at those coordinates, and they had them on a no-strike list! There was no malice, there just was no competence, and so there is no reason to invent a reason to justify it as OK. No idea why Djones is still floating the idea that "maybe it was OK because weapons were there", still absent evidence, nearly 9 months after the US Military's own investigation's showed it was just a regular old feth-up. They didn't decide the hospital lost it status, the aircrew didn't even know it was a hospital.

As Scooty said, a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

the only thing more remarkable is how many typos I packed into a single post

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
As Scooty said, a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

Well, George Orwell said it. I just quoted it.

**Hordini**

I think there's a difference between someone making a general claim that a hospital is a legitimate military target, and someone saying that a hospital is a legitimate military target when being actively used by an enemy force as a fighting position.

It's also different, as Ouze pointed out, if the strike is neither of those two, but rather a "full-fledged feth-up."

Someone saying "America attacks one, clearly the hospital deserved it. It was a valid military target," makes it sound like America is just going around targeting hospitals and that they are inherently a valid, purposely selected military target - like hospitals are being targeted because they are hospitals. That's not really the whole story.

Also, last I checked the mere presence of enemy forces (that is, enemy wounded being treated there) isn't an event that would make something like a hospital targetable. Enemy forces using it as an active fighting position is something different.

It's kind of similar with the situation with Mosques and other religious sites. The US avoids attacking them whenever possible, with the caveat that an enemy force taking advantage of this and using the site as a fighting position will often void that protection.

**djones520**

Some Law of Armed Conflict info here.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law3_final.pdf

If the medical or religious facilities or equipment are
being used for military purposes they lose their protection, but only
after a warning has been given which gives the offenders a reasonable
amount of time in which to respond and after such warnings are ignored
or remain unheeded. Under no circumstances must medical or religious
protection be used to try and shield military objectives from attack.

I can't link any of the official stuff I train off of, since you guys don't have the security certificates to access those sites. This website is pretty close to what we get though.