US attack on Doctors without Borders was intentional

Unless something changed in last 10 years, I am fairly certain due to Rules of Engagement in that battle space, that an AC-130 did not open fire without LIVE express consent from the White House. The President would have been aware and part of the chain to approve this attack. Only other possibility is a rogue aircrew.

I will just leave that right there.

originally posted by: Squidleepie
Yes, and the bible has many horrendous passages as well.

Are you talking about The Hebrew Bible, or The New Testament?
Please quote them.

That doesn't mean every christian follows those awful components of the bible. Many muslims likewise do not follow every word of the Koran.

Look, I'm an atheist, and in my personal opinion, organized religion of any kind usually does more harm than good. Having said that, I'm just trying to get you to realize that you generalizing every muslim in the world when in reality, there are many different types of muslims and they all pick and choose which parts of their holy book they listen to and which parts they ignore, just like christians.

a reply to: Violater1

You obviously failed to read the part of the Quran that states,"

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). According to the verse, Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill others in his cause.
What you choose to believe is now your business, but before you spread your ignorance and BS, do a little research.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yuppa

In other words the Doctors broke the Conventions stipulation because they used it improperly by treating ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who were MILITARY TARGETS themselves.

Wounded soldiers are no longer combatants under the Geneva convention. Despite that the US occupation is illegal in the first place, I mean.

Defending such action is criminal.

If they could still fire a weapon.

Maybe they participated in "criminal" activity themselves...?

Must.Protect.Criminals.

Ya gotta love the Americans and all of their buffoonery. One week they are bombing and shelling a hospital to kill Taliban. The next week they are allies and are stating they are "not conducting counter-terrorism missions against the Taliban" in reconciliation efforts.

WTF?

Gotta love the unthinking majority of democrazy. I'm positive a majority of Americans, let alone westerner's in general can't even find Afghanistan on a map.

Sigh

a reply to: Sparkymedic

I'm positive a majority of Americans, let alone westerner's in general can't even find Afghanistan on a map.

Lol, or spell it.

But hey recruiter sign me up, I wanna play Call of Duty for real…

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yuppa

In other words the Doctors broke the Conventions stipulation because they used it improperly by treating ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who were MILITARY TARGETS themselves.

Wounded soldiers are no longer combatants under the Geneva convention. Despite that the US occupation is illegal in the first place, I mean.

Defending such action is criminal.

See thats where you are wrong they are TERRORIST NOT SOLDIERS. they are ILLEGAL COMBATANTS. and as such HAVE NO PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTIONS. Legal loopholes i am afraid.

originally posted by: FlyingFox

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yuppa

In other words the Doctors broke the Conventions stipulation because they used it improperly by treating ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who were MILITARY TARGETS themselves.

Wounded soldiers are no longer combatants under the Geneva convention. Despite that the US occupation is illegal in the first place, I mean.

Defending such action is criminal.

If they could still fire a weapon.

Maybe they participated in "criminal" activity themselves...?

Must.Protect.Criminals.

Whats funny is THEY ARENT SOLDIERS. So the conventions do not protect them in reality. It calls them ILLEGAL COMBATANTS.

a reply to: yuppa

It is the action of bombing the hospital which was a violation of the Geneva Convention, not the fact that the attack was aiming at members of the Taliban. Terrorists, enemy military units, it makes no difference. The hospital being bombed is a violation regardless of who was inside of it at the time.

a reply to: grainofsand


The problem is you nor anyone else here really knows what was going on in that hospital. The first time they were attacked they should have got the hint and bugged out of town. The ANA has loads of Taliban in it and what better way to make the U.S. look bad.

Their could have been info stating AQ #2 was inside for all we know. Maybe they have been warned several times not to help the enemy and they finally bought their own ticket to this attack. Maybe the Doctors were not so innocent in all this!

NNobody knows. After seeing Hamas use the Hospitals in Gaza as a rocket base, I do not put anything past the Taliban

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: yuppa

It is the action of bombing the hospital which was a violation of the Geneva Convention, not the fact that the attack was aiming at members of the Taliban. Terrorists, enemy military units, it makes no difference. The hospital being bombed is a violation regardless of who was inside of it at the time.

The EXCEPTION is IF ITS BEING USED FOR IMPROPER USES and SUpporting ILLEGAL COMBATANTS IS a improper usage. Remember Hospitals are not always Immune. Look i tup if you dont believe there are exceptions.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: grainofsand


The problem is you nor anyone else here really knows what was going on in that hospital. The first time they were attacked they should have got the hint and bugged out of town. The ANA has loads of Taliban in it and what better way to make the U.S. look bad.

Their could have been info stating AQ #2 was inside for all we know. Maybe they have been warned several times not to help the enemy and they finally bought their own ticket to this attack. Maybe the Doctors were not so innocent in all this!

NNobody knows. After seeing Hamas use the Hospitals in Gaza as a rocket base, I do not put anything past the Taliban

So you are basically saying that the US forces were right with taking out a hospital in which MSF were operating while MSF pleaded with them to stop for up to 30 min????

And from that you are also essentially suggesting it's then best to take the US governments word over MSF...a humanitarian NGO? What would MSF have to gain by "aiding the enemy"?

MSF is Doctors Without BORDERS. They don't see nationality or allegiances when treating wounded and sick humans. Perhaps you just aren't aware of the organization. So, if you want to learn more about MSF I suggest reading the book 'Hope In Hell' by Dan Bortolotti. Quite the eye opener on the organization and the sacrifices their members have made and continue to make. Attacking a hospital with aircraft is pathetic and despicable. If they believed it to be a real threat they should have marched in soldiers... Or just gone home because there is no real reason to be there in the first place.

a reply to: yuppa

A hospital run by an international aid organisation, which treats everyone who is wounded regardless of affiliation is not an acceptable target under any convention on warfare.

a reply to: yuppa
You interpretation of the Geneva convention is completely wrong. Even if you accept their status as unlawful combatants this does not remove all protections.
The treatment of wounded is not the same as supporting the taliban. US medical bases will treat captured Talban, should the US start bombing its own bases?
Finally if this was a deliberate targeted attack then it was against civilians and as such undeniably a war crime.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: yuppa

A hospital run by an international aid organisation, which treats everyone who is wounded regardless of affiliation is not an acceptable target under any convention on warfare.

You may have a point. was th ehospital identied with a red cross on it anywhere though? I think thats one of th e stipulations in a war zone. Doctors use this whole I treat anyone thing as a shield its not when they will go right back out and kill innocent civilians themselves after being patched up. they are just as liable to come back and kill them after helping them.

W ejust have different interpretations of the Conventions is all.

(EDIT TO ADD) Clarification of geneva conventions. Unlawful combatants who are captured do not get POW status. ALso SInce these ones at the hospital were not captured they were fair game even if un armed.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Ya gotta love the Americans and all of their buffoonery. One week they are bombing and shelling a hospital to kill Taliban. The next week they are allies and are stating they are "not conducting counter-terrorism missions against the Taliban" in reconciliation efforts.
WTF?

Well...that's how it works. Different faces at the negotiating table might bring better results.

In Civil Law, it could be interpreted as conspiracy after-the-fact, as well as aiding the enemy, and providing material support.

originally posted by: Violater1
a reply to: Squidleepie

How many muslims abide by the Christian values of the Geneva Convention?

Well, lets drop Muslim and Christian from it. The US is not a full signatory to the Geneva Convention. More specificaly we do not recognize Protocol 1 or Protocol 2. What this means, is that we don't recognize them in times where the enemy is fighting back against colonial rule. Additionally, the US has taken the standpoint that they will only honor the articles if their enemy will do the same. Since ISIS and other terrorist groups aren't a sovereign entity, even if they were willing to sign the convention they have no means to do so and so the US doesn't honor the Geneva Convention against them.

a reply to: yuppa

As the article points out, the facility was marked with a bloody great big MSF logo on its roof which is clearly recognisable as a medical organisation logo, and it was easily large enough to be read from the sky. Furthermore, the hospital itself was a long established and well known location and as the article states, it had already been assaulted before, by a misdirected group of Afghan army personnel, with US gunship support.

The long and short of it is, that the US military knew exactly where the place was, exactly who was running it, and exactly what the implications of a further assault would be. Their actions in assaulting that hospital from the air like they did are simply unjustifiable. There can be no excuse, it was not an accident, it was not a failure in communication, and it cannot be brushed aside. This was an out and out failure of the US military to live up to the standards it likes its press department to suggest that it has, and a failure of its leadership to recognise a power higher than its own.

I am speaking not of the Geneva Convention specifically, although any reasonable nation would have signed up to every last letter of that document. No, I am speaking of the higher power which is held by the people the US military alleges that it protects by its every action and use of assets, the people of the United States of America.

I happen to think that despite the fact that its mainstream media is a division machine, designed to tear communities apart by way of levering them against one another, that the people of the United States are by and large a decent sort of folk. Every single one that I have ever met, or spoken to has been far more nuanced than the US media would have one believe, and has been of sound moral fibre by all accounts. These are not people who would bomb a hospital, even if Satan himself was inside the place, because they know it is wrong to do it. The military of a nation has a responsibility to the people it protects, not only to protect them by force of arms, but to represent them. Wearing a nations colours on ones uniform is an honour, and it comes with a responsibility aside from the performance in matters martial which is expected of anyone wearing it.

The other, and perhaps greater responsibility that members of a nations armed forces have, is to represent the best attributes and virtues of that nation, to be an example of the best that particular nation has to offer, not simply in terms of militaristic excellence, but also as human beings. When the camps were liberated in the Second World War, it was not the martial prowess of the soldiers who liberated those camps, that the people inside them valued. It was their compassion, their humanity.

The best interests of a nation are only served by its military, when its military behaves in a manner which echoes the morality and character of its citizenry, because any military force or member thereof, although its primary objective is to protect assets and interests with force of arms, is also an ambassador for that nation. The US military failed to represent the nation it is sworn to defend, in a light which is commensurate with the virtues that most citizens of the US would hope to project into the world. That is as much of a shocker as anything else.

I would also like to point out, that if any other nation, perhaps Syria, had bombed a hospital, then these boards, and many of the people trying to deflect and spin this situation to lessen the tarnish on the name of the military that it represents, would be calling out for blood, demanding Assad's head, wanting to tear Damascus apart by force of arms, in equal parts disgust and fury. It makes no difference whose military does wrong, only that wrong is done. Once it is done, those responsible MUST be held to proper account. Frankly, this whole sorry mess should never have happened, but now that it has, someone, probably several someones, should be very publicly losing their jobs, and some should be placed in jail. There is no justification possible for an act such as this.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well said ,great post .
Applause from me !
Any chance of you becoming the next POTUS .
I'd vote for ya ...
and I don't even live in Merica/Mexico/Brasil !

a reply to: radarloveguy

No chance what so ever.

For a start, I am British, and given that inescapable fact, I doubt a run for office of President of the United States of America would go down well with the people there, for understandable reasons.

Not only that, but running for office would go against my political beliefs. I believe that the people should be the power, that government by the few, over the many, no matter how it is gussied up, is fundamentally wrong, and cannot lead to anything but one or another shade of tyranny or oligarchy having dominion over the people.