SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
n1
on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:44PM
from the known-unknowns-of-collateral-damage dept.
from the known-unknowns-of-collateral-damage dept.
A Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) hospital was bombed by the US. Result, 12 dead staff members and 10 dead patients. The coordinates of the hospital had been communicated to the US forces before to avoid mistakes. The US admits the attack was a decision. MSF is now seeking an independent inquiry.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Afghan Hospital Bombing: MSF Demands Investigation Under Geneva Conventions
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 97 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first
overcome.
-- Dr. Johnson
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:29PM
So the word is that there were and generally are Taliban enemy combatants in Doctors Without Borders hospitals. They take everybody. The local afghan police/defense forces take umbrage with that. Those same Afghan police/defense forcess called in that they were being attacked by machine gun fire specifically coming from that building and that is still their official position.
I posit a hypothetical that is not dependent on the previous stated knowledge, but just chose to get that out of the way so it does not need to be repeated. The hypothetical goes as follows:
Doctors Without Borders repeatedly claims that they communicated their coordinates to US forces with an expectation that doing so would make them immune to attack. Was there any authentication part of that process and if so what was it? If there really is a way to communicate coordinates to avoid being attacked, wouldn't every enemy try to do it as much as possible?
Even if there is an excellent, foolproof authentication mechanism between Doctors Without Borders and the US miltary, it would not be difficult or out of character for the Taliban to coerce through force, torture, threat of violence, or simply murdering children one by one in front of doctors, to get the Doctors Without Borders staff from calling in whatever coordinates the Taliban wants.
And even if that was completely impossible through the magic of Allah himself, there still is the problem of battlefield dynamics changing a once friendly grid square into an enemy base.
Really there is not good reason to have a "Coordinates off limits for attack" field in a military database.
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:49PM
I have no idea how the verification system actually works. For all we know MSF might just post the GPS coords on their Twitter account and think they're safe. But if I was responsible for creating such a system the direction of verification would flow the opposite direction. MSF tells us where their hospital is, and then we send someone from the Army/USAF to verify and conduct reconnaissance on the building. It could probably be done by drone these days, but we also have Forward Air Controllers who specialize in doing that. They're probably already there in Afghanistan.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by BK on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:05PM
It sounds a lot like that is what was used here. This wasn't a missile from a ship 200 miles away. If either force has combatants in the compound or in the building or on the roof, then the place becomes a target. It isn't nice, but that's how things work in active combat zones.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:44PM
Some google terms to search are "Land Warrior" and "PM WIN-T" The wiki links are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Warrior [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_WIN-T [wikipedia.org]
In the 70s computerized consumer billing ran public utilities and stuff thru their little "THE COMPUTER IS ALWAYS RIGHT" moment. This is likely an early computerized military analogy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:53PM
> Really there is not good reason to have a "Coordinates off limits for attack" field in a military database.
Indeed. Forward Operating Bases should always be on the targeting list. You know, just in case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:00PM
They are. It's called "Danger close".
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:22PM
The pilot in the air can't really tell what the building on the ground is used for. The Afghan army called in airstrikes in the middle of the night (which it admits it did, because they were taking fire from the hospital). The hospital had no roof markings. Early reports say Nato forces were taking fire, but that isn't the case, it was Afghan army.
The doctors deny that there was anyone firing from the hospital grounds:
http://www.gulf-times.com/afghanistan/219/details/457460/medical-aid-group-denies-taliban-were-firing-from-afghan-hospital-hit-by-air-strike [gulf-times.com]
The Afghan army seems to have a grudge against this hospital because the above link states:
"Earlier this year, an Afghan special forces raid in search of a suspected al Qaeda operative prompted the hospital to temporarily close to new patients after the soldiers were accused of behaving violently towards staff."
Seems odd a soldier would mistreat hospital workers unless they thought there was some collusion going on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:43PM
That does not follow. Why would an accusation of soldiers inspecting a hospital behaving violently necessitate no more wounded could enter the hospital for a period of time? That just sounds like vindictiveness on the hospital's part. "Be mean to us and we will let your people die."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:07PM
Er, no. Hospitals are supposed to be safe for patients. When the army feels like it can raid a hospital at will looking for enemies then the hospital is no longer safe for patients. They can't easily move all of their current patients but they can stop taking in new ones.
This whole thread is full of war pigs. I don't know if you are just ignorant or are actual apologists. But fuck, get a clue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @10:33PM
lol, i'm sure when someone commits a murder they flee to a hospital because they are safe there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:25AM
I'm all for saving lives, but when you are fighting a group that beheads children to catchy music and puts it online for the world to see, I find it acceptable to walk into hospitals where they are being treated and shoot the bastards.
They murder innocent civilians for fun. They don't deserve human rights because they opted to give up their humanity. Watch some of their own promotional videos and get a clue. There is no honor in bandaging up these adversaries.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by tathra on Friday October 09 2015, @03:03AM
they don't have to play by the rules of war, they're not geneva convention signatories like we are. we shouldn't sink to their level, and not just because we're bound by international law, but because if we do sink to their level then we're not better than they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @09:49AM
We put people in prison for life all the time. Why is eliminating the treat to civilians "stooping to their level"?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @08:16AM
You are writing their propaganda for them.
"When you are fighting a group find it acceptable to walk into hospitals where they are being treated and shoot the patients, we find it acceptable to behead their children and fly planes into their buildings".
And that's why, when fighting evil, you must NEVER sink to their level. A fight against evil will always be unfair, because good has rules, evil does not. Drop the rules, and it becomes evil against evil, and when evil fights against evil, evil always wins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @09:51AM
Shooting an enemy combatant is not the same as beheading children or literally lighting people on fire just to watch them burn. Why are there so many terrorist apologists here?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:08PM
If standing up for international law and vilifying war criminals makes one a "terror apologist", then you're damn right I'm a "terror apologist".
(Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Friday October 09 2015, @09:15AM
But killing the doctors and nurses too is not simply 'killing the bastards' - it is killing everybody. And if the doctors were treating Taliban casualties them remember that their oath requires them to do just that. They are sworn to treat all people whom they are able to treat without prejudice. That is why they are considered non-combattants - they do not support any particular side in a conflict. US military medics have the same obligation when it is safe for them to do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:31AM
The only apologist I see is you, the one that is apologizing for ISIS and their need for a safe haven. Where are the safe havens they give the kurds and the turks?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:05AM
Safe havens during war exist for everyone. [crimesofwar.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @09:56AM
Tell that to the tens of thousands of innocent, unarmed, civilians being slaughtered by the same people being protected by these safe havens.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Friday October 09 2015, @08:19AM
No, You are being an apologist by lowering yourself to their level. Are you just trolling or really that stupid?
A civilisation is judged by how it reacts when things get though, not by what it preaches when all is well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @09:54AM
You have no idea what those words mean.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:06PM
You are whitewashing. Please remove yourself from the premises...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:08AM
Really there is not good reason to have a "Coordinates off limits for attack" field in a military database.
Yes there are, not limited to the following:
- Civilians may be in the area
- The area might cause political or cultural fallout if touched
- Red Cross or other friendlies may be in the area
Marking off-limit targets is standard for any operation, especially in an urban area.
There is no excuse for CAS to just run down a target without visual coordination from a ground unit or the commanding unit.
there still is the problem of battlefield dynamics changing a once friendly grid square into an enemy base.
This is what the intelligence branch and recon is for.
Just because your enemies are uncivil doesn't mean you get to be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:28AM
Wow you completely ignored my first few sentences that refute everything you have to say. The mind boggles as to how you got up modded. There were eyes on the ground. They were the ones that called it in. The hospital says they were wrong. Those are the facts.
What I want to discuss is the absurdity of having a coordinates-based zone where no attacks can be taken place. You can bet your ass every enemy will hide out in that box. Its pathetic to even think that you can win a war or even protect your own people if you have official off-limits areas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:10AM
Take your complaints to the UN [beyondintractability.org].
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 09 2015, @09:20AM
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=9945&cid=247315 [soylentnews.org]
The Pentagon has admitted that US Special Forces called the raid in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @10:01AM
You cited yourself which cites a vice article which has a clickbait headline and inside says:
Either you didn't read it or are a liar or both. What credibility do you have?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 09 2015, @11:27AM
The attack was requested by the Afghan forces but actually called by US SF - they are responsible for ensuring that the GC is complied with. If they do not know it is a hospital, they should not be calling in a strike. The US had been provided with the information that they needed by MSF. You cannot absolve yourself from the obligations of the GC simply by saying someone else asked you to do something.
I did read it. I am not a liar. But, unlike yourself, I understand the GC am also very aware of the its requirements and was, for a short time in my career, actually responsible for teaching it to others. My credibility is there. Dear AC - what is yours?
Taken from the statement of General Campbell. given under oath, from the article I had linked to.
Now, I suggest AC that you read that article again, and this time try to understand what it says.