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.

That's not good. Surely they could just arrange with dwb to have soldiers stationed in the building, instead of bombing it.

That'd defeat the entire point of DWB being neutral in the first place.

I don't see why the police stopping a criminal would really harm that. They still treat every one equally, they aren't required to stop their patients from being arrested, AFAIK.

 d-usa wrote:
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.

Alternatively, declare war on Pakistan one minute before MERVs hit all military facilities and major points of communication. You'd probably be mad about that though.

Well, usually you want definitive proof the Pakistani gov't is involved before declaring war. Although that hasn't stopped us before.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, usually you want definitive proof the Pakistani gov't is involved before declaring war. Although that hasn't stopped us before.

We were actively tracking ISI agents in Afghanistan, they would cross the border to train Taliban and other Insurgents not aligned with the Taliban on how to make HME and IEDs. It was fairly common for the ISI to train pashtun Snipers in Pakistan and then send them into Afghanistan to snipe American/English soldiers.

So we've actively known about the Pakistani's being involved in the war, we just don't do anything about it because they aren't being overt about it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, usually you want definitive proof the Pakistani gov't is involved before declaring war. Although that hasn't stopped us before.

How about their years of support for the Taliban? We attacked the Taliban for supporting Al Qaeda. Why not? India would be pleased.

if there was a Taliban operative in the hospital (or more than one) that negates their neutrality.

I'm just providing an option. The Slav in me thinks scorched earth is the reason for the season.

"If all you have is a scorched earth policy, then everything looks like a Hitlerite invasion."
-absolutely no one.

Sounds like they (SPECOP's/MI) was monitoring the cell frequencies. Like maybe to many "Ticks" was coming from the hospital that coincided with Insurgent movements during the battle. Unsure if the if the defense of the Insurgents went down hill after the strike but it seemed that way after their "TOC" was taking out

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

That's a pretty serious oversimplification of that situation. As far as I remember, the pilot never claimed to be taking fire. They were supporting a unit on the ground that had been engaged from the location where the journalists were. The journalists were with a group of insurgent fighters who did have weapons, many of which are clearly visible even in the gun camera footage. And to be fair, with the way the cameraman was leaning around the corner with the extended lens, it did look a lot like an RPG.

 Hordini wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

That's a pretty serious oversimplification of that situation. As far as I remember, the pilot never claimed to be taking fire. They were supporting a unit on the ground that had been engaged from the location where the journalists were. The journalists were with a group of insurgent fighters who did have weapons, many of which are clearly visible even in the gun camera footage. And to be fair, with the way the cameraman was leaning around the corner with the extended lens, it did look a lot like an RPG.

No gak. He also clearly shows the captured image to his insurgent buddies, all the better for them to plan their next movements.

Add in, there was an RPG found within feet of one of the 'journalists' bodies, along with several rifles, and that insurgents very often were filming their attacks and I end up black on feths for these guys. The pilots did the right thing.

 CptJake wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

That's a pretty serious oversimplification of that situation. As far as I remember, the pilot never claimed to be taking fire. They were supporting a unit on the ground that had been engaged from the location where the journalists were. The journalists were with a group of insurgent fighters who did have weapons, many of which are clearly visible even in the gun camera footage. And to be fair, with the way the cameraman was leaning around the corner with the extended lens, it did look a lot like an RPG.

No gak. He also clearly shows the captured image to his insurgent buddies, all the better for them to plan their next movements.

Add in, there was an RPG found within feet of one of the 'journalists' bodies, along with several rifles, and that insurgents very often were filming their attacks and I end up black on feths for these guys. The pilots did the right thing.

Its not a war crime when Insurgents gun down embedded journalists with the marines/army why would it be a war crime when the opposite happens?

A battlefield is not a game, if you are walking around with the 'bad guys' and you get merc'd its your fault. Weapons used by militaries are not the ones in the movies. They are considerably more destructive and violent. If those journalist thought they were somehow going to be safe then they were delusional at best.

 Frazzled wrote:

if there was a Taliban operative in the hospital (or more than one) that negates their neutrality.

No, no it doesn't. The entire definition of "neutral" is that they treat everyone. Only in some bizarro troll logic world is that not true.


If the operative was using the hospital as a staging ground for something, or hiding there while collecting info etc. then sure, there's a case, but the mere presence of someone who's aligned to one side does not make the hospital a legitimate target.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

if there was a Taliban operative in the hospital (or more than one) that negates their neutrality.

No, no it doesn't. The entire definition of "neutral" is that they treat everyone. Only in some bizarro troll logic world is that not true.

If you're sheltering enemy using your position as a base, you're a target.

And I feel at this time in the cycle it's worth reminding people that MSF say there was no activity, and at the moment we still have no proof there was. And definitely not enough proof to justify the strike that occurred.

 motyak wrote:
And I feel at this time in the cycle it's worth reminding people that MSF say there was no activity, and at the moment we still have no proof there was. And definitely not enough proof to justify the strike that occurred.

Westerners need proof. If it were the Russians or Chinese they would only need coordinates.

 motyak wrote:
And I feel at this time in the cycle it's worth reminding people that MSF say there was no activity, and at the moment we still have no proof there was. And definitely not enough proof to justify the strike that occurred.

And the ANP say there was Talib activity.

Both sides have reason to lie. It wouldn't be the first time MSF has taken an anti-US stance nor the first time ANP troops were less than honest.

Did the MSF folks mark their facility according to the Geneva Conventions? Jihadin's pictures didn't show any red cross/crescent, and they would have needed one observable from the air if they want to claim protected status. If there was a Talib leader operating from the facility, or if as the ANP forces say there were Talibs actually firing from the facility, even proper markings would not give the facility protected status.

I'm waiting on the investigations. I know what goes into an AC130 strike, they don't hit random targets and i suspect the video/audio will sort out a lot of this.

MSF wouldn't have a Red Cross or Crescent because it isn't the Red Cross or the Red Crescent.

They are completely different organisations.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
MSF wouldn't have a Red Cross or Crescent because it isn't the Red Cross or the Red Crescent.

They are completely different organisations.

Yet, those are REQUIRED markings for a medical facility in a conflict zone to get protected status according to the Geneva Conventions. Just as medics and ambulance vehicles must be marked, even those belonging to a military and not members of the Red Cross or Red Crescent.

So did MSF purposely avoid marking their facility? And you want to hold them blameless?

 CptJake wrote:

Both sides have reason to lie. It wouldn't be the first time MSF has taken an anti-US stance nor the first time ANP troops were less than honest.

Pray tell, how does an organization that treats wounded people in warzones take an anti-US stance?

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

if there was a Taliban operative in the hospital (or more than one) that negates their neutrality.

No, no it doesn't. The entire definition of "neutral" is that they treat everyone. Only in some bizarro troll logic world is that not true.

If you're sheltering enemy using your position as a base, you're a target.

Read what I said again. It's not the presence of an enemy that makes it a legal target, it's the enemy using the position that's basis for engaging it within the rules of war.

Frazzled wrote:

 motyak wrote:
And I feel at this time in the cycle it's worth reminding people that MSF say there was no activity, and at the moment we still have no proof there was. And definitely not enough proof to justify the strike that occurred.

Westerners need proof. If it were the Russians or Chinese they would only need coordinates.

Coordinates are for liberasts. Just give the name of the city...

CptJake wrote:

 motyak wrote:
And I feel at this time in the cycle it's worth reminding people that MSF say there was no activity, and at the moment we still have no proof there was. And definitely not enough proof to justify the strike that occurred.

And the ANP say there was Talib activity.

Both sides have reason to lie. It wouldn't be the first time MSF has taken an anti-US stance nor the first time ANP troops were less than honest.

Oh please... MSF is a humanitarian medical organisation that helps anyone in need. It is not 'anti-US'.

MSF (or at least prominent members of, to include directors) have declared several times that it is more important to stay and treat than to remain neutral. They've paid off AQ militias in Somalia. They've turned a blind eye to organizations (like the Talibs) doing bad things in order to be allowed to work in areas controlled by those organizations. They've been critical of the US, this latest cry of War Crimes! before they know what has happened is just the latest example. I know guys who were on the ground in Liberia and Senegal who dealt with them. Maybe it is just they are anti-military, and it tends to be the US involved. Of course, that anti-military doesn't tend to extend to groups like the Talibs or AQ...

Anyone find out if they marked their facility according to the Geneva Conventions? (I honestly do not know the answer, but it makes a big difference when you throw the term War Crime around).

 CptJake wrote:
MSF (or at least prominent members of, to include directors) have declared several times that it is more important to stay and treat than to remain neutral. They've paid off AQ militias in Somalia. They've turned a blind eye to organizations (like the Talibs) doing bad things in order to be allowed to work in areas controlled by those organizations. They've been critical of the US, this latest cry of War Crimes! before they know what has happened is just the latest example. I know guys who were on the ground in Liberia and Senegal who dealt with them. Maybe it is just they are anti-military, and it tends to be the US involved. Of course, that anti-military doesn't tend to extend to groups like the Talibs or AQ...

Anyone find out if they marked their facility according to the Geneva Conventions? (I honestly do not know the answer, but it makes a big difference when you throw the term War Crime around).

So, and organisation dedicated to helping people is willing to do some questionable stuff in order to be able to help people. Got it.
I mean, what exactly do you want them to do? If they were to start having a go at the Taliban then they wouldn't be able to work there, and many more people would end up dead due to lack of care.

And then they had the temerity to complain when the US shot them and killed nine of their staff. How dare they act so overtly anti-US!

Posted pictures earlier in this thread showing the front of the building. Only symbol was DWB and not very dominant visual
To a ANA Forward Observer he actually might not grasp written English and more likely not fully capable reading Arabic (word use to encompass general written languages over there)

To the "Operative" in there from "Pakistan" he might have been under observation to identify his network contacts
The "Operative" might have had visual overview of the engagement and was coordinating with cell(s) since we've seen this before maybe 4-5 cells to contact 4-5 "units"

To DWB they are not in every room of that multi-story building with multiple rooms.
To DWB they could not see on the other side of wall if *Insurgent forces" were using the depressions in the walls, vehicles, curb, chunk of rock, donkey, donkey with cart, Jingle Truck, and/or whatever cover that was in front of the entrance.
To DWB they were more likely fixated on the wounded and moving patients out of harm way that a "Afghani" talking on a cell(s) might have been misconstrued as someone calling Kabul to get the strike called off

And MSF gave the coordinates to the US military on multiple occasions, and we now have reports that the US had observed the hospital prior to opening fire on it.

And again when a air strike/artillery strike is called it always plotted on the map
The ANA FO who plotted it is more likely using a military map not indicating the building is a hospital. Because outside looking at it you can't tell its a hospital
If they (US Military_) were observing the hospital then more likely we had active shooters there. More likely the "ticks" being plotted on the digital map coincided with Insurgent movements.
Since this intel coming from Darkside/CIA we're not going to know exactly who, what, when, and where of details concerning the time line of the "Pakistani Operative"
I've a feeling the pilot of the Gunship is going to get hammered

Did the fight go downhill for the Insurgents after the "Pakistani Operative" got opted out? Anyone know?

 d-usa wrote:
And MSF gave the coordinates to the US military on multiple occasions, and we now have reports that the US had observed the hospital prior to opening fire on it.

And if it was a preplanned strike off the ATO that would have the importance you place on it. But given it was close air support to called in by friendlies who were believed to be under fire you don't do the incredibly long activity including target vetting that goes in to the ATO. Now if friendlies weren't actually under fire or passed along bad coordinates then that needs to be determined and appropriate actions taken but this screaming of war crimes is non helpful BS. Either the MSF representative has never read the Geneval conventions or he's intentionally distorting them take your pick.

Jerram wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And MSF gave the coordinates to the US military on multiple occasions, and we now have reports that the US had observed the hospital prior to opening fire on it.

And if it was a preplanned strike off the ATO that would have the importance you place on it. But given it was close air support to called in by friendlies who were believed to be under fire you don't do the incredibly long activity including target vetting that goes in to the ATO. Now if friendlies weren't actually under fire or passed along bad coordinates then that needs to be determined and appropriate actions taken but this screaming of war crimes is non helpful BS. Either the MSF representative has never read the Geneval conventions or he's intentionally distorting them take your pick.

Note that those who have no understanding of the military and how it actually functions are the ones who are saying WAR CRIME, while those who have served and understand the ins and outs of the service are more inclined to believe other stories.

I'm glad that there is also a third group saying "this looks like a screw-up" or "how can we make sure stuff like this doesn't happen again".

http://news.yahoo.com/msf-us-tank-forced-way-bombed-afghan-hospital-161844466.html

Just thought it was ironic that the US Army on the ground there has such little trust in the MSF that they breached the gates to launch their own investigation. 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.