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.

 d-usa wrote:
But if I had to choose between "MSF harboring terrorists and lying about their hospital being used for military operations" and "between Afghanistan and the US there was someone who screwed up somehow" I would pick the screwup possibility almost every time.

Yeah no shizz. I mean, I'm not gaking on the Air Force (assuming it was them that did the strike) - that's just the nature of war, really. Not trying to be callous, but innocent bystanders get killed, and friendly fire, and other such unintentional unpleasantness has been the history of every war, ever, in the history of man and will almost certainly remain that way forever and ever. You try and avoid it when possible but any reasonable person can probably agree that this sort of thing is just part of the price of hostilities.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But if I had to choose between "MSF harboring terrorists and lying about their hospital being used for military operations" and "between Afghanistan and the US there was someone who screwed up somehow" I would pick the screwup possibility almost every time.

Yeah no shizz. I mean, I'm not gaking on the Air Force (assuming it was them that did the strike) - that's just the nature of war, really. Not trying to be callous, but innocent bystanders get killed, and friendly fire, and other such unintentional unpleasantness has been the history of every war, ever, in the history of man and will almost certainly remain that way forever and ever. You try and avoid it when possible but any reasonable person can probably agree that this sort of thing is just part of the price of hostilities.

A few sources are saying it was done by an AC-130, the sole user of which Wikipedia tells me is the USAF. No idea how reliable either of those are.

more info from a US general

http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/621848/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-gen-campbell-in-the-pentagon-briefing-r

in general a measured and thoughtful statement, I'll pick out a few bits

We have now learned that on October 3rd, Afghan forces -- that they were taking -- we have now learned that on October 3rd, 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 initial reports which indicated that U.S. forces were threatened and that the airstrike was called on their behalf.

so US forces were not directly threatened, and, apparently it was the Afghans that called in the strike

As you know, the United States military takes extraordinary steps to avoid harm to civilians. However, the Taliban have purposefully chosen to fight from within a heavily urbanized area, purposely placing civilians in harm's way

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas. If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

and finally

In addition, I would be remiss if I did not offer my condolences to the crew and passengers of the C-130 aircraft that crashed on Friday, October 2nd. The six airmen who were lost in the accident will arrive at Dover today. These and all those who have fallen before them are the true heroes of our efforts in Afghanistan over the past 14 years.

I can understand why he said this (it was recent, a tragedy and in Afghanistan), but I feel it was not appropriate for the press conference as called, and felt a bit like he was basically 'trading off' their deaths against those of the MSF doctors and other civillians (I'm sure that was not the intent, but it was how it came off)

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas. If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

There is a difference from fighting in populated areas because that is what you are currently defending and fighting in populated areas because you hope to use the civilians as human shields. Terrorists do the latter, anyone can do the former.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

As you know, the United States military takes extraordinary steps to avoid harm to civilians. However, the Taliban have purposefully chosen to fight from within a heavily urbanized area, purposely placing civilians in harm's way

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas. If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

To be fair, it's not just the whole "fighting in civilian areas" thing.

We have rules of engagement and uniforms. In the hypothetical you've presented, I doubt the US military would ditch their uniforms and try to blend in with the populace to use them as shields--and I doubt that the US military would even allow the civilian populace of a town/city where they plan to bring an enemy force to battle to stay in the town/city. That's all hypothetical though.

The insurgency? They have no uniforms and they purposely keep civilians in the area specifically so that they can deter us from going after them for PR purposes. It would be like in the hypothetical you presented the US forcibly kept US citizens in their homes and parked artillery or armored vehicles in the garages to fire at the North Koreans, then feeding the world footage of the North Koreans returning fire and killing those people that our forces kept in their homes.

In addition, I would be remiss if I did not offer my condolences to the crew and passengers of the C-130 aircraft that crashed on Friday, October 2nd. The six airmen who were lost in the accident will arrive at Dover today. These and all those who have fallen before them are the true heroes of our efforts in Afghanistan over the past 14 years.

I can understand why he said this (it was recent, a tragedy and in Afghanistan), but I feel it was not appropriate for the press conference as called, and felt a bit like he was basically 'trading off' their deaths against those of the MSF doctors and other civillians (I'm sure that was not the intent, but it was how it came off)

Ehhh...it's not like he gives that many press conferences. It might seem in poor taste to you or me, but I doubt he has much media coverage.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And lastly, I really like doctors without borders, and I think those guys have some seriously big balls to go around and do this. However, if they were compromised by the Taliban and did nothing about it, to the point where Heavy Machine guns, RPGs and dozens of fighters were permanently stationed in the building, then I feel that they lost their neutral status.

Medicine Sans Frontier are strenuously denying there were any weapons, and stating that they had an absolute moratorium on any weapons even being brought in to their hospitals, let alone having their facility used as a fire base. And given their record of maintaining absolute neutrality, I'm inclined to believe them.

Not saying it isn't possible, but it's a lot less likely than any other options. Well, perhaps the suggestion that the US fired on the hospital because it was treating Taliban is the most ludicrous, the idea that MSF was letting their hospital be used as a firebase the second least likely.

Really, the most likely answer is that it's some form screw up. Afghan troops thought fire was coming from the hospital, but it was coming from some nearby building. Or the fire was correctly identified, but wrongly translated on the map. Or co-ordinates were misunderstood. I think those things are all fairly likely.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And by the same token the US Air force is pretty big and well known and do a lot of good, and are pretty dedicated, This would be very odd for them to do as well

Yes, but it's the difference between deliberately deciding to act in a completely different manner to how they've acted at any other time in the history of the organisation, or screwing up a difficult thing that often gets screwed up.

As an example, say a US pilot is shot down in the city. He has serious injuries and is taken to a DWB hospital, where he is treated and dies on the operating table. On review, his injuries were serious but isn't generally lethal given what was available in the hospital. It is possible the doctor in question screwed up, had a bad day. It is also possible that the doctor in question decided to kill that pilot, because he hates Americans. But the latter option is extremely improbably, given what we know about DWB and the people who work for that organisation.

It's the same thing with the attack on the hospital. The odds of MSF deciding all of a sudden to abandon their extremely strong stance on neutrality is simply nowhere near as likely as the odds that somewhere between the Afghan soldiers and the US Air Force, there was a goof and they blew up the wrong building.

If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

.....Manila, Philippines declared an open city during the Japanese invasion in WWII

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas.

You're totally off in left (and I do mean left) field here. You want governments to stop condemning terrorists for using human shields and fighting in civilian areas?

As for the "occupation" viewpoint, most of our forces have withdrawn from both Iraq and Afghanistan....and look at what has happened. The Afghans called in the strike, if you want to assign blame...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas. If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

There is a difference from fighting in populated areas because that is what you are currently defending and fighting in populated areas because you hope to use the civilians as human shields. Terrorists do the latter, anyone can do the former.

So... the Iraqi insurgents defending their homes from an invading country? Which side do they fall on?

President Obama has apologized for the strike and has promised a full investigation.

Anyone know if the maps used to call in the airstrike indicated there was a Hospital there?

 Ouze wrote:
President Obama has apologized for the strike and has promised a full investigation.

Wow, that has to be a first surely?

My money is on mess-up of communications or intel, I think far more likely than any other scenario.

Thinking the map they used did not indicate a hospital there.

 Jihadin wrote:
Thinking the map they used did not indicate a hospital there.

Map? never heard of satellites, spotter planes? Verifying? Screw up is screw up.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Thinking the map they used did not indicate a hospital there.

Map? never heard of satellites, spotter planes? Verifying? Screw up is screw up.

Its not like they paint the names of buildings on rooftops for our satellites to look at. Unless its marked on an actual map or in the intel we don't know its there.

If only maps had GPS markings on them so that someone somewhere could have put a "do not bomb" sticker on the hospital.

Sure, but they can't do that if they don't know its there.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, but they can't do that if they don't know its there.

MSF repeatedly notified both sides of their location and designation as an MSF hospital, the most recent only several days before the bombing; its location and coordinates were--or should have been--well know. 'We didn't know it was there' is not a reasonable excuse in this circumstance, not that it's been officially used AFAIK.

A military map is used to plot a artillery strike or air strike.

Though the front entrance is


Edit



Edit

Inside the compound


another

 Avatar 720 wrote:
MSF repeatedly notified both sides of their location and designation as an MSF hospital, the most recent only several days before the bombing; its location and coordinates were--or should have been--well know. 'We didn't know it was there' is not a reasonable excuse in this circumstance, not that it's been officially used AFAIK.

Sure, but the point ultimately is that lots of things should happen in war, but don't. The same is true for any organisation of sufficient complexity.

That doesn't make it okay, but it does make it one of those things that happens.

Probably the lesson out of this is that next time we're gearing up for war, before deciding whether we are for or against the fight, we should all agree that there's going to be a bunch of incidents where some civilians will get killed by stray bombs or poor checking of the site, and maybe there will be a hospital or a school blown up, maybe even a few. And once we accept that is going to happen and we still think it's worth the fight, then we go in.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas. If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

There is a difference from fighting in populated areas because that is what you are currently defending and fighting in populated areas because you hope to use the civilians as human shields. Terrorists do the latter, anyone can do the former.

Well, if "terrorists" (which is a word many just seem to use for "anyone who doesn't put the US's interests above his own" ) are using human shields, you could just walk away. But no, you slaughter anyone, then lie and make excuses.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas. If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

There is a difference from fighting in populated areas because that is what you are currently defending and fighting in populated areas because you hope to use the civilians as human shields. Terrorists do the latter, anyone can do the former.

Well, if "terrorists" (which is a word many just seem to use for "anyone who doesn't put the US's interests above his own" ) are using human shields, you could just walk away. But no, you slaughter anyone, then lie and make excuses.

If that was true, incidents like the one in Somalia would have seen hundreds slaughtered.

So what do we have

1. ANA FO called for a strike
2. ANA FO plotted a strike on a military map that more likely does not show the Hospital
3. ANA FO is not from that province/city being they do not serve in the same province they enlist in
4. ANA FO highly likely not able to read English and unable to identify the building as a hospital (No signifying identification. Like a red crescent of something etc etc)
5. SOG more likely using the same map
6. TOC more likely using the same map
7. AC130 gunship plotted the grid and commence firing

last episode of "Fighting Season" has a outstanding "Calling in a Air Strike"

Sounds like the ANA FO gave a ten digit grid using

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas. If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

There is a difference from fighting in populated areas because that is what you are currently defending and fighting in populated areas because you hope to use the civilians as human shields. Terrorists do the latter, anyone can do the former.

Well, if "terrorists" (which is a word many just seem to use for "anyone who doesn't put the US's interests above his own" ) are using human shields, you could just walk away. But no, you slaughter anyone, then lie and make excuses.

Who is using the term "terrorists" in that way? If there are so many people who are doing it I'm sure you can give us plenty of examples.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas. If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

There is a difference from fighting in populated areas because that is what you are currently defending and fighting in populated areas because you hope to use the civilians as human shields. Terrorists do the latter, anyone can do the former.

Well, if "terrorists" (which is a word many just seem to use for "anyone who doesn't put the US's interests above his own" ) are using human shields, you could just walk away. But no, you slaughter anyone, then lie and make excuses.

Don't let common sense run in the way of your train of nonsense. ROE, Rules Of Engagement. By the ROE US service members aren't allowed to engage hostile targets unless they are directly engaged in hostile actions, Planting IEDs, aiming a weapon directly at you and so on. Simply having a gun is not enough for US service personnel to engage. Furthermore, where the risk of civilian casualties is likely kinetic strikes are not authorized unless US personnel are themselves at great risk. So anyway blah blah blah

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

this is basically true but I do wish the US (UK & other militaries/governments) would stop condemning their opponents for fighting in civilian areas unless they are willing order their own military's not to fight in or occupy civilian areas. If for (ridiculous) example the US was invaded by the menace of North Korea I can see no circumstance where they would hand over cities without a fight because they were civilian areas they could not possibly fight in

There is a difference from fighting in populated areas because that is what you are currently defending and fighting in populated areas because you hope to use the civilians as human shields. Terrorists do the latter, anyone can do the former.

Well, if "terrorists" (which is a word many just seem to use for "anyone who doesn't put the US's interests above his own" ) are using human shields, you could just walk away. But no, you slaughter anyone, then lie and make excuses.

Don't let common sense run in the way of your train of nonsense. ROE, Rules Of Engagement. By the ROE US service members aren't allowed to engage hostile targets unless they are directly engaged in hostile actions, Planting IEDs, aiming a weapon directly at you and so on. Simply having a gun is not enough for US service personnel to engage. Furthermore, where the risk of civilian casualties is likely kinetic strikes are not authorized unless US personnel are themselves at great risk. So anyway blah blah blah

Maybe having a gun isn't enough for them to engage legally but some do it anyway, such as the helicopter that gunned down the journalists a couple of years back after mistaking a film camera for an RPG and claiming it was taking fire.

Mistakes happen, especially when the journalists wrote a bad report about helicopter pilots

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But if I had to choose between "MSF harboring terrorists and lying about their hospital being used for military operations" and "between Afghanistan and the US there was someone who screwed up somehow" I would pick the screwup possibility almost every time.

Yeah no shizz. I mean, I'm not gaking on the Air Force (assuming it was them that did the strike) - that's just the nature of war, really. Not trying to be callous, but innocent bystanders get killed, and friendly fire, and other such unintentional unpleasantness has been the history of every war, ever, in the history of man and will almost certainly remain that way forever and ever. You try and avoid it when possible but any reasonable person can probably agree that this sort of thing is just part of the price of hostilities.

Are you serious?? It"s med san! they are the people who off their own backs who go into shitstorms and give medical care off their own backs>gak storms created by militaries and they go in to help the people that have had infrastructure destroyed by militaries. Med San are well declared in regard to position as it is (supposedly) the only thing that keeps them safe.
Any reasonable person can agree that bombing a neutral medical force that is just their to dispense aid is a witch act.These people go over there for free and give up their life to help people and some deadshit with an armament kills them and it's a fething accident?

supposedly we have bombs that can go though a vent and still hit the targets and collateral damage is a thing?? sounds more like a feth up than anything else>

A feth up that would only happen if someone was aiming... these are declared positions.

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/10/15/apnewsbreak-us-spec-ops-knew-afghan-site-was-hospital

WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the Oct. 3 U.S. air attack on a hospital in Afghanistan,
American special operations analysts were gathering intelligence on the facility — which they knew was a
protected medical site — because they believed it was being used by a Pakistani operative to
coordinate Taliban activity, The Associated Press has learned.

Maybe it was not so accidental?

Maybe it's just my non-military mindset jumping to silly civilian conclusions again, but that article would make it even worse.

If you have US special forces gathering intelligence about a single Pakistani operative using a protected medical facility to coordinate activities and end up with Afghan forces ordering a full blown air strike on the same facility, then you don't even have the excuse of "we didn't know" anymore.

If a Pakistani operative is using the facility you get the damn Pakistani operative. You don't blow up a hospital.