Americans kill 12 MSF medics

123468

Comments

  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    I'd imagine using a thousand pound bombs on any building for an hour would pretty much destroy the whole place.

    How many bombs were dropped in an hour? One, or two?

    I'm not in any way excusing the bombing but some folk need to understand the power of weapons and a thousand pound bomb makes a tremendous mess I imagine.

    The existence of that "but" says otherwise......
  • OvalteenieOvalteenie Posts: 24,169
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What's also interesting is how the story is buried halfway down the news headlines both on TV and in the media, none of the papers have it as the leading story. There's also been no condemnation from our politicians.
  • Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,336
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ovalteenie wrote: »
    What's also interesting is how the story is buried halfway down the news headlines both on TV and in the media, none of the papers have it as the leading story. There's also been no condemnation from our politicians.

    Which is very strange seeing as David Cameron was all over the news yesterday condemning Russia but strangely had not a word about the American Bombing of a Hospital.:confused:
  • KezMKezM Posts: 1,397
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The existence of that "but" says otherwise......

    No it doesn't . It is perfectly possible to have mitagating circumstances without it being a justification for the actions.
  • OvalteenieOvalteenie Posts: 24,169
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Which is very strange seeing as David Cameron was all over the news yesterday condemning Russia but strangely had not a word about the American Bombing of a Hospital.:confused:

    It proves that politicians' concern about human rights and war crimes are only a tool for political leverage, or as an excuse for geopolitical aims. It also explains why Obama and Cameron are bothered by Assad 'killing his own people', while ignoring Bahrain's brutal crackdown on protests there, and support Saudi Arabia chairing the UN human rights council.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ovalteenie wrote: »
    If he had any shame he would return it. Unfortunately it's not possible to revoke it.

    Thing is, Obama's meant to be some kind of pantywaisted Arab lovin liberal according to some, yet has invaded several small defenceless countries, killed thousands and brought back the Cold War.. So what's going to happen with a hawkish Republican in charge?
  • Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,336
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ovalteenie wrote: »
    It proves that politicians' concern about human rights and war crimes are only a tool for political leverage, or as an excuse for geopolitical aims. It also explains why Obama and Cameron are bothered by Assad 'killing his own people', while ignoring Bahrain's brutal crackdown on protests there, and support Saudi Arabia chairing the UN human rights council.

    Pretty much spot on.:(
  • alfamalealfamale Posts: 10,309
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ovalteenie wrote: »
    It proves that politicians' concern about human rights and war crimes are only a tool for political leverage, or as an excuse for geopolitical aims. It also explains why Obama and Cameron are bothered by Assad 'killing his own people', while ignoring Bahrain's brutal crackdown on protests there, and support Saudi Arabia chairing the UN human rights council.

    Yep and me too.

    To some in the West its like their brain can only cope with 2 decisions, either the evil of ISIS or a bit of illegal western barbarism to counter this. The west, specifically the USA but the UK as well, could adhere a bit more to international law and UN human rights yet still be no less effective. (Even if in fact on occasions less effective would be better anyhow, when you look at Iraq, Libya and now Syria).

    In this specific case the hospital has been there for years, presumably it was only recently it was on "our side" and treating all the casualties from the failed attempt to keep the taliban out of Kunduz. If the current taliban lot choose to hide in this hospital occasionally and the USA exactly know where this hospital is then i think its highly likely it was intentional. But don't object, its just war and our side needs to do these things apparently!
  • RecordPlayerRecordPlayer Posts: 22,648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thing is, Obama's meant to be some kind of pantywaisted Arab lovin liberal according to some, yet has invaded several small defenceless countries, killed thousands and brought back the Cold War.. So what's going to happen with a hawkish Republican in charge?

    Come off it - no he hasn't. You're confusing him with Putin.:p
  • John146John146 Posts: 12,926
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Civilians are protected by international law in war zones, as you know full well.

    Sorry, not strictly true, if said civilians live in a town/city/village which is considered 'unprotected' then it should not be bombed or bombarded, but should the 'enemy' place soldiers, armaments etc in said town/city/village then unfortunately it becomes a target, whilst I realise that an army medic is not a civilian, he/she would have on the uniform/helmet a large red cross, and be unarmed, but should that medic pick up a weapon he/she becomes a target, and, if the hospital is found to have been sheltering rebels, then again unfortunately it becomes a target
    http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/undefended-towns/
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John146 wrote: »
    .. if the hospital is found to have been sheltering rebels, then again unfortunately it becomes a target

    AKA the IDF defence. We only kill terrorists, therefore if we killed them, they must have been terrorists. Nearly as good as this justification of faking-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34437703

    So it was a 'composite bombing'. There are, were or might have been terrorists in or near the target, therefore it's entirely permissable and justifiable to bomb hospitals and kill patients and doctors. If you disagree, we'll see you in the International courts. Which we refuse to recognise..
  • John146John146 Posts: 12,926
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AKA the IDF defence. We only kill terrorists, therefore if we killed them, they must have been terrorists. Nearly as good as this justification of faking-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34437703

    So it was a 'composite bombing'. There are, were or might have been terrorists in or near the target, therefore it's entirely permissable and justifiable to bomb hospitals and kill patients and doctors. If you disagree, we'll see you in the International courts. Which we refuse to recognise..

    I am not sure that the Hague Convention on Warfare is considered International Law, but it does state:
    The laws of war specify that undefended places should not be attacked. The 1907 Hague Regulations on Land Warfare, still formally in force, state in Article 25: “The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.” Similar language in the 1907 Hague Convention deals with naval bombardment. - See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/undefended-towns/#sthash.0tk90EON.dpuf
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John146 wrote: »
    I am not sure that the Hague Convention on Warfare is considered International Law, but it does state:

    Yup, part of the laws of war. Which have been ignored or re-interpreted it seems in this age of 'War on Terror' and pre-emptive self-defence. See various legal opinions issued to government regarding the legality of various military ventures for more details. Oh, wait, you can't because those are secret. Or in the case of Chilcot, extremely delayed.

    Or if you're in charge of investigating Human Rights violations, as Saudi is at the moment, well, we're innocent of course, aren't we?

    But in this age of undefined opponents and a preference for 'safe' air and artillery combat against towns and cities that may or may not be sheltering combatants somewhere, the law could do with being tightened up I think.

    So the US has firm intelligence that there were terrorists in the hospital compound. Sorry, this intelligence cannot be revealed for reasons of national security.. Convenient really.
  • John146John146 Posts: 12,926
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yup, part of the laws of war. Which have been ignored or re-interpreted it seems in this age of 'War on Terror' and pre-emptive self-defence. See various legal opinions issued to government regarding the legality of various military ventures for more details. Oh, wait, you can't because those are secret. Or in the case of Chilcot, extremely delayed.

    Or if you're in charge of investigating Human Rights violations, as Saudi is at the moment, well, we're innocent of course, aren't we?

    But in this age of undefined opponents and a preference for 'safe' air and artillery combat against towns and cities that may or may not be sheltering combatants somewhere, the law could do with being tightened up I think.

    So the US has firm intelligence that there were terrorists in the hospital compound. Sorry, this intelligence cannot be revealed for reasons of national security.. Convenient really.

    Well yes, the USA now has to somehow justify their attack on the hospital, I have no doubt it will somehow come out that there were rebels in the hospital, and the USA were just defending themselves.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John146 wrote: »
    .. and the USA were just defending themselves.

    Yup. And possibly dismiss Lt. Col S.Goat. Or perhaps a Captain may suffice. But it also means that Russia and anyone else can start bombing hospitals and make the same claim..
  • Fappy_McFapperFappy_McFapper Posts: 1,302
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ovalteenie wrote: »
    What's also interesting is how the story is buried halfway down the news headlines both on TV and in the media, none of the papers have it as the leading story. There's also been no condemnation from our politicians.

    If Corbyn condemns it it will soon be front page worthy.

    COMMIE CORBYN ATTACKS THE WEST. PROBABLY HATES DOGS TOO.
  • John146John146 Posts: 12,926
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yup. And possibly dismiss Lt. Col S.Goat. Or perhaps a Captain may suffice. But it also means that Russia and anyone else can start bombing hospitals and make the same claim..

    I understood our Colonial Cousins were claiming it wasn't them who bombed the hospital but it could have been the Russians:o
  • BaconAndEggsBaconAndEggs Posts: 9,526
    Forum Member
    I'm a wee bit pragmatic.

    I'm sure if you booked a trip to Afghanistan and went on a road trip the chances of you never coming back are much greater than if you booked a trip to the US?

    The IS version of human rights isn't the one I would particularly choose, you know, the one where women aren't educated, can be raped at a whim and are basically possessions.
    I might be a wee bit less biased here if the US had a stated policy of bombing every hospital.

    Just to make it clear, I don't condone bombing hospitals but I am biased towards the Western way of life over the Taliban or Isis one.

    Me too. I'm wary though of allowing my bias to forgive the west for inhumane policies. My bias won't allow me to see as pragmatic! bombing anywhere near to a hospital. Where is the pragmatism in this bombing they aimed close enough to a hospital to hit it accident or not. It's unforgivable to drop bombs so close isn't it?
  • DaccoDacco Posts: 3,354
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John146 wrote: »
    Sorry, not strictly true, if said civilians live in a town/city/village which is considered 'unprotected' then it should not be bombed or bombarded, but should the 'enemy' place soldiers, armaments etc in said town/city/village then unfortunately it becomes a target, whilst I realise that an army medic is not a civilian, he/she would have on the uniform/helmet a large red cross, and be unarmed, but should that medic pick up a weapon he/she becomes a target, and, if the hospital is found to have been sheltering rebels, then again unfortunately it becomes a target
    http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/undefended-towns/

    Thank you John, while I have a lot of respect for Jordan, that's Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein and
    His "war crimes" statement well and truly flushed down the human rights toilet.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John146 wrote: »
    I understood our Colonial Cousins were claiming it wasn't them who bombed the hospital but it could have been the Russians:o

    Clearly a Russian pilot and plane that got left behind in 1989(?) and no one has noticed since...bit like those Japanese who pitch up on Pacific islands claiming to believe WW2 is still in progress ;-)
  • Black SheepBlack Sheep Posts: 15,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bacon&Eggs wrote: »
    Me too. I'm wary though of allowing my bias to forgive the west for inhumane policies. My bias won't allow me to see as pragmatic! bombing anywhere near to a hospital. Where is the pragmatism in this bombing they aimed close enough to a hospital to hit it accident or not. It's unforgivable to drop bombs so close isn't it?

    I don't disagree with you, but that wasn't my conversation as you might know.

    I don't condone bombing hospitals or medical facilities.

    However, the context of the conversation was that I know which folk I'd rather live with and Isis Taliban would be second choice by a long way over the US.
  • BaconAndEggsBaconAndEggs Posts: 9,526
    Forum Member
    I think we could try as our values do seem the more progressive. As in we pick up bits from very different cultures and make them inclusive while Talibal and Isis want to live at some point in the past.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate forcing them to change but persuading them, educating them and removing the rotten elements might just help.

    I'm aware that our countries don't take this view and support some regimes that don't allow freedoms that we take for granted though.

    But on balance I believe our way in principle is the best way.

    The west have proven incapable of teaching Muslim states anything other than how to hate the west. You're talking about a "war of hearts & minds" remember that? who won? not us. We lost it because we lacked the moral qualifications in the final analysis. We accussed Saddam of WMD's, We set up torture facilities, we accidentally hit civilians, we held civilians with no right to trial and some are still there to this day - held with no lawful basis.

    Idealistically it would be great if we could pass on are better values to these inhumane states, but our sh*t stinks too. And to forget that is dictating. The west are dictators, not freedom fighters. As soon as we realize this maybe we'll stop to clean are own house rather than living in an idealistic paradise that reality struggles to support.
  • BaconAndEggsBaconAndEggs Posts: 9,526
    Forum Member
    I don't disagree with you, but that wasn't my conversation as you might know.

    I don't condone bombing hospitals or medical facilities.

    However, the context of the conversation was that I know which folk I'd rather live with and Isis Taliban would be second choice by a long way over the US.

    Fair enough, you're correct.
  • snafu65snafu65 Posts: 18,187
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well the West just lost the moral high ground over Russia's bombing of anti Assad targets in Syria. Well done USA.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    The USA have a history of hitting the wrong targets since they "accidentally" hit the French Embassy in Libya, just after they had been denied permission to fly over France. Not forgetting the Vincennes blowing up a scheduled Iranian airliner, which caused the Lockerbie bomb in retaliation.
Sign In or Register to comment.