Slashdot Mirror
US Bombs Hit Doctors Without Borders Hospital
Prune writes: According to multiple news sources, U.S. airstrikes partially destroyed a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Afghanistan, killing at least nine staff members and at least 50 overall, including patients, and this after giving its coordinates to U.S. forces multiple times. I'm especially saddened to report this given I had become one of the supporters of this charity after recommendations from Slashdot members in a discussion about choosing charities to donate to a while back.
not after having been made aware of their coordinates and location several times. Someone ordered this strike, believing there were "terrorists" treated at that facility, knowing very well it was a hospital and what the result would be, and giving no damn about it because they can get away with it. This is worse than all the other killings commited by U.S forces abroad, and people and governments must take a stand, or killings and murders like these will just continue.
Airstrikes on population centres cause civilian casualties you say? The cost of sending in soldiers instead is too high, justifying the cost of the collateral damage you say? But not when Assad or Putin does it you say?
""The bombing continued for more than 30 minutes after American and Afghan military officials in Kabul and Washington were first informed,” the organization said in a statement."
I guess the difference is the level competence and precision.
Bombs without borders got the date and time mixed up and there was a scheduling conflict.
Arresting people occasionally puts innocents in jail.
It's impossible to completely avoid civilian casualties in war unless you conduct absolutely no military operations whatsoever. The subtext of this is, of course, that the US should have avoided this, but how? Never go to war? That's obviously impractical.
Okay, so how about only going to war when you have a really good reason? If that's your plan, and you do approve of war as long as there is a really good reason, then (since some civilian casualties are inevitable) you've just said that you're okay with civilian casualties as long as the war is for a really good reason. Needless to say, you never see anti-war people saying this.
Being more careful in war? Well, you can be more careful, but nobody's perfect; there will always be *some* civilian casualties. So you're not really objecting to civilian casualties; you just think there are too many, but fewer but still some is okay. I've never seen anti-war people saying that either.
So what exactly should be done, other than never going to war, ever?
We were aiming at the Chinese embassy.
Have gnu, will travel.
The article contains possibly-conflicting claims as to whether the Taliban was operating out of the hospital and, just as importantly, whether those that destroyed the hospital believed it was so.
From the article:
Sultan Arab, a local police commander in Kunduz, said the hospital came under an airstrike, âoebecause the Taliban had shifted their command center inside the hospital.â
In a statement, the Taliban denied any of its fighters were at the hospital at the time of the airstrike.
A Doctors Without Borders spokeswoman declined to comment on the allegations, but noted the organization âoetreats every patient irrespective of whether they are military or civilian.â In 1999, the organization was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for its work.
Bottom line - this looks like it could be a tragic case of someone deciding to take out a hospital based on false information that it was being used by the enemy.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Gods. Doctors Without Borders is one of the best charities on the planet, and gives hope that humans can actually be civilized.
The Canadians learned the lesson at Tarnak Farm: Get the hell out of ANY country that is suffering US airforce attacks.
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
It's just another case of people in one country trying to make friends with people in another country on the other side of the planet - going very well as it seems.
Here is a prime example of your "foreign policy"
You idiots are the one who financed the Taliban, Osama bin-laden, and this brought upon 911 on yourself, and indirectly causing the rise of ISIS. The bottom half of this 1998 interview is the proof of that.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a...
It is insightful. Go learn about General Smedley Butler.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The Russian military has no regard for civilian life. What a tragedy.
Play Command HQ online
Ignorant fuck.
Bombing a hospital, even by mistake (which is hard if you've been told where it is), is very nearly an act of war in itself.
Even if you live in a country that's too fucking thick to sign up to the Geneva convention on humane treatment, you have to be a really stupid fucker to hit a hospital full of allied and even US-based doctors trying to heal the sick, injured and dying.
It's like shooting at the red cross. There's a reason that even special forces will not abuse the privileges provided by masquerading as red cross personnel.
Get your head out of your arse, and realise that your country just DELIBERATELY bombed a fucking hospital full of friendlies that they were told was there.
The sick and injured are not a threat to a military superpower.
Let us see if one of these others suit your tastes, lazy idiot.
http://www.voltairenet.org/art...
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldw...
http://www.counterpunch.org/19...
http://web.stanford.edu/class/...
And frustrating that we have to listen to Obama give us a lecture on "gun control" when his orders are responsible for the slaughter of thousands of civilians.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Having a general blanket statement like that and suggesting it be considered insightful based on one individual is a bit like claiming all Jews are swindlers and pointing to Bernie Madoff in defense of the statement. I'm sure other examples could be made as well that you would find disgusting.
I believe you're mistaken in referencing Iraq. This incident happened in Afghanistan.
We've had CNN all through the war crimes of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the illegal war against Libya, the overthrow of Ukraine's democracy, the bombing of even more countries that have never been a threat to us, the drone assassins that have killed hundreds of kids....
Obviously, none of that was stopped by CNN. Hell, the network supported most of that, along with the rest of the media. Did you think through this talking point before posting it?
No. They are terrorists. You are in control of professional soldiers. If you can't control your urge to hurt beyond such that you bomb doctors in hospitals, you shouldn't be in charge of anything remotely capable of doing that.
Where's the declaration of this war? Which nations signed up to it? Which elected official in charge of a country has been voted into power on the premise of declaring war on an entity on the other side of the world?
Terrorists have been around forever. You've melded "justice of terrorists acts" into "consensual war of nations".
Except I'm talking about a General that stopped a conspiracy by the Bush family way back when. I suggest you go read up so you understand why OP saying "US Mercenary Corps" is quite insightful.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Why don't you get real. The hospital is in a territory recently taken over by the Taliban and the air strikes were called in by afghan police who claimed they were taking fire from the building.
Given the history of the Taliban killing people from the west, what indication is there that this was still only a hospital and that these allied people were still alive and free at the time the air strike was called in? You do understand that when an enemy army takes over a city, that city is now behind enemy lines. What you know or thought you knew about it may or may not be even close to correct anymore because it is controlled by the enemy.
to avoid this. We actually rebuild the country instead of throwing billions in it's general vicinity and then letting Dick Cheny and his buds take all the money. Seriously, it's just that simple.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Maybe it's time to actually inform yourself about Afghanistan before making such bold statements?
Boots were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were withdrawn for a reason. Presenting the locals with something to shoot at wasn't improving stability in the region.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Wars do not have to be declared... No on has to "sign up to it".
Now, I'll agree that the "war on terror" is just as useless as the "war on drugs", but that is another topic...
The US has been at war with someone since the end of WWII, this isn't new.
100 years ago, The British Empire was at war with someone most of the time as well, that wasn't new. Before them it was the Spanish, before them it was someone else...
Welcome to the human race. :(
I hope you take KGB Putin to task when he kills a load of "civilians" and "children" (males with facial hair and AK-47s driving Toyotas pickups.
I'm sure the articles are already written.
(||) Nehmo (||)
If the Washington Post's article's details are correct, this was NOT a bombing gone awry. It was artillery rounds (and possibly 40mm cannon fire) from an AC-130 Spectre, a gunship that's been in use since the Vietnam era. They're usually pinpoint accurate, every round is fired with an eyeball targetting via low-vision video, and there'll be full video tape of the entire action.
Doesn't make it any nicer, doesn't make it any less of a screw-up (in fact, more so). Lots of videos online of Spectre working out in Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
The hospital should consider itself lucky: those hits were probably only 105mm howitzer rounds. If they'd been multiple thousand pounders, the catastrophe and casualties would've been even greater.
Of course if the Post is wrong and this was NOT an AC-130 .. never mind.
The only politician who comes to mind as meeting that condition is John McCain.
The US knew the precise location of the hospital. They kept bombing for thirty minutes after the hospital called to say "stop bombing us". The US has engaged in a heinous act of terrorism against Doctors Without Borders.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
I see. So if combatants that are in tactical control of a city (doesn't sound very terrorist like) start shooting at you from a building that was once thought to be a hospital, they should totally be left alone.
Yeah, that's idiotic. It isn't much of a hospital if it is a fire base.
In Afghanistan, there are nearly no Arabs. It's inhabited by Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazara, Aimaqs and other ethnic groups, none of them is Arab or speaks a semitic language.
Maybe it's time to actually inform yourself about Afghanistan before making such bold statements?
Erm.. I think you'll find that Muslims are more than adequate at speaking Arabic seeing as how it's the language of the religion itself...
This is not how you get new friends.. this is how you get terrorists. I for one hope Europe stops looking at US as the protector and understands it it the destroyer.
It's time to leave well enough alone in the world. The US is not the good force that it was that helped end WW1 and WW2. I suspect that the cold hearted sociopaths that run the military and much of the federal government is more concerned with spin than soul searching after this event.
That's just dumb. Are you saying that since they ASSUMED the doctors at hospital COULD BE dead they were right in bombing the hospital?
I like this one
http://www.globalresearch.ca/t...
(...)
Before his next appearance on Fox, Kristol could do worse than peruse Professor Hamoud Salhi’s address, presented at the Center for Contemporary Conflict, of the (U.S.) Naval Postgraduate School in June 2004.(iii pdf) It is entitled: “Syria’s Threat to America’s National Interest.” It is arguably even more pertinent now – and another reminder of how long Syria has been in U.S. sights.
He opens: “Syria’s threat to America’s national interest in the Middle East can only be understood in the context of U.S. plans to reconfigure the Middle East. Knowing now that the motive for invading Iraq was strategic, taking over Syria would give the United States further strategic depth in the region tipping the balance of power (even more) in favour of the United States regional allies, Israel and Turkey.”
Salhi notes that “strategic pre-emption” is long central to American policy in the Middle East, citing Rapid Deployment Forces during the Carter Administration, Dual Containment under Clinton, Pre-emptive Doctrine under George W. Bush. Polices, he holds, which: “have been instrumental in maintaining hegemony in the region”, avoiding threats to U.S interests, or to those of Israel,Turkey and the Gulf States.
After the 1998 US-UK Christmas bombing of Baghdad drew world-wide criticism, Salhi points out that the often daily (illegal) bombing of Iraq by the two countries was stepped up, with often daily sorties, “using the latest technology” destroying what minimal economic infrastructure remained: “under the pretext that they represented future threats.” It was he contends, the “quiet war”, an ongoing tragedy little noticed by the world.
The ground was – literally – being prepared for invasion, the trigger finger ever itchier, any excuse sought. George W. Bush would later explain that invading Iraq was necessary: “ to advance freedom in the greater Middle East ” (Emphasis mine.)
11th September 2001 arguably gave the excuse to release the safety catches. On 20th September 2001 PNAC sent a letter to Bush: “ recommending the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, even if no direct link to the 9/11 attack were found.” Time to redeem American: “supremacy in global politics (and for) regime changes in Iraq, Iran and Syria.”
Michael Ledeen, foreign policy expert, another neo-con minded Fox News commentator, alleged to be a “strong admirer” of Niccolo Machiavelli, regarded 1991’s Desert Storm attack on Iraq as a woeful missed chance states Salhi. He notes Ledeen’s view that driving Iraqi troops from Kuwait was wholly inadequate. Strategy should have been: “regime change in Baghdad” (as) “one piece in an overall mission”, which should have been: “one battle against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia.”
Addressing “The Syrian Threat”, Professor Salhi reminds of the U.S. Congress 2004 “Syria Accountability Act” which considerably financially weakened Syria’s fragile economy, with further aims clearly paving the way to regime change.
That achieved: “the United States will have completed its final stage of encircling Iran. This would further tip the region’s balance of power in favour of Israel and ultimately open new doors” for the U.S. “active involvement in toppling the Iranian regime.”
(...)
Afghanistan is just a side gig, perhaps simply an opportunity to wage war even if it's strategically useless. The "revenge war against 911" narrative needs the US to go in Afghanistan : if you only attack Iraq, every one knows it's unjustified because there's no Al Qaeda or Bin
That sounds suspiciously similar to claiming that all Catholics are Romans, because the Church still uses Latin.
That's like saying Catholics know Latin. Very few Afghans know Arabic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This space intentionally left blank
If you don't get the reference:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=3bABwDOExOMC&pg=PA135
Sadly similar, 43 years later.
That's like saying Catholics know Latin. Very few Afghans know Arabic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I guarantee you they'll know the call to prayer and the prayers themselves at the absolute minimum. along with the usual greetings etc
Mistakes happen in war, people get killed. It sucks, but that is how it is.
Yet another worthless apologist. Mistakes will only keep on happening while people with your idiotic attitude exist. Designating friendly zones is something that can be automated 100% to prevent mistakes. But no it's war so shit happens right?
You are part of the problem.
MSF/Doctors Without Borders has been adamant there were no Taliban shooting from the hospital, and MSF has a lot more credibility (they're comparable to Red Cross) than the Afghan police that reported this as supposedly a fire base. Not to mention that the police have a clear revenge motive against MSF, as they are known to have long been complaining that MSF treats patients from all sides, including the Taliban, indiscriminately.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
You are living in fantasy land if you think you'll reach 100% perfection with zero mistakes.
I guess this is what they call a "surgical strike"
When it is war, possibly yes. When it is a domestic police issue, the answer is maybe but probably no.
You see, the world does not operate in black or white. There are so many shades and colors that one solution does not fit all. If it did, every one would be rich and happy from making all the same correct decisions.
I figured I should add a citation here in case the next reader isn't familiar with McCain's stance on various military interventions and doesn't know what I'm talking about. Here's an example of what I mean (he had two sons serving in the line of fire at the time):
War is an awful business. The lives of a nationâ(TM)s finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer. However just the cause, we should shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us. But there is no avoiding this war. We tried that & our reluctance cost us dearly. While this war has many components, we canâ(TM)t make victory on the battlefield harder to achieve so that our diplomacy is easier to conduct. That is not just an expression of our strength. Itâ(TM)s a measure of our wisdom.
2004 Republican Convention Speech , Aug 30, 2004
McCain generally opposed interventions where there was no clear "win", no exit strategy. He has repeatedly argued that once we are engaged, we need to be "in it win it", get it done and over with.
I believe you're mistaken in referencing Iraq. This incident happened in Afghanistan.
You're saying it's a different war and you got +5 insightful? Jeez. I think I see where the _real_ problem is.
No sig today...
You conflated Iraq and Afghanistan and the guy who corrected you is the problem?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Erm. Everybody. Just that the Russians were the ones to send in underequipped soldiers en mass to overwhelm the enemy with numbers irrespective of casualties, killed a lot of their own people through purges and punishments, and were treated worse by the Germans once captured.
As a political force of will it was impressive. I'm not sure it was right, and it sure as fuck doesn't mean that nobody else was fighting Germany at the time.
Someone ought to be tried as a war criminal for this.
Oh, wait. The US doesn't like the concept of war criminals if it could apply to them, and even made a law to invade another NATO country (the Netherlands) if it should happen.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The US is the supreme country and if they bombed a hospital full of innocent people then you can be sure that there was a damn good reason. I suspect that there was probably a secret rocket base, terrorist enclave, or laboratory developing weapons of mass destruction secreted within the hospital. It's well known that terrorists use hospitals and other public places full of defenceless and innocents to deter retaliation by supremacist governments. That's why they build hospitals in those countries: to hide terrorists. It's quite obvious and they need to be eliminated whatever the cost.
The death and torture camps run by the US, which are full of Jews... err, Muslims, extract vital intel from these extremists and undesirables every single day. Do people really suggest that this intel should be ignored? The only obvious course of action is to destroy more civilian targets (which are, after all, probably full of Muslims anyway so no harm is really done). Peace and the oppression of terrorism is the highest priority so these costs are acceptable.
Wait... this is starting to sound a whole lot like another story I've read in my history books :(
It's direct - a lot of money from the Saudis and a lot of help from Turkey.
We attacked the Taliban at night. They retreated straight to the hospital (likely expecting a safe haven). The C-130 was tracking their movements from above and fired its computer aimed cannons on them as they retreated. Either the C-130's display was lacking the exclusion zone or in the heat of the firefight the 18 year old soldier feeding coordinates to the cannon via the infrared display (it is eerily similar to a video game) failed to notice the exclusion zone. The exclusion zone would have appeared as a transparent polygon overlay on the display. It is possible that the fight so quickly moved into the exclusion zone that the operator missed that the entire series of events was occurring inside the zone.
Kunduz became the front line last week. The front line is not a good place for a hospital, why hadn't DWB evacuated?
These tragic events will continue to happen until the Congress passes reasonable commonsense laws that limit the access of bombs by presidents.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
The local Afghan governor said yesterday that "sadly, they had to to di", because Talibans were passing through, getting treatment from MSF and borrowing (temporary stealing) the cars. Also, there is no other airforce in the area and no other hospital in that region, located ***between*** two Taliban positions (see map).
It was a clear-cut tactical decision to destroy the hospital and they kept on bombing it for almost a full hour until the central building was leveled to the ground. The MSF central has already announced that they are pulling out of Kunduz completely, which was in fact the real goal behind the bombing. If they go back there, they will be bombed again, and again, and again...
"Abashed the Devil stood, and felt how awful goodness is..."
When I was a kid there was a brand of tinned vegetables called Smedley, so yes, if he'd gone to my school he'd probably have had the mick taken out of him slightly.
Smedley pe[ea]s in a pan, dirty sod so's his gran!
They got bought by HP I think. No, the other one.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The Red Army equipped its soldiers as well as it could. It did try to concentrate mass to overwhelm enemy defenses, like every other army in this and pretty much every other war. It was harsh on its troops, but not as bad as the Germans were (although, after 1941, the survival rate for Soviets captured by the Axis rose above miniscule, since it became clear that they were better at performing labor when alive).
It's reasonable to say that the Soviets destroyed the German Army, in the same sense as it's reasonable to say the Brits and the US destroyed the Luftwaffe.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A shining example of the enlightened secular world right there.
Being ignorant of Afghan sects does not make one secular - it's probably one of those "Christians."
If you want to say nigger, say nigger, you racist piece of shit.
The only thing "wrong" with MSF is that being nicer people than me they'd probably help you if you needed it.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
American Exceptionalist Bitch, please. American's would have gotten their asses kicked even faster at the start of WWII, if they had shared the same continent with Nazi Germany. No one was capable of going toe-to-toe with the Germans in a ground war at the start of WWII.
That's sure as fuck attacking a straw man rather than deal with the fact that the Western and Pacific fronts combined were a sideshow next to the Eastern front, or that over 80% of German casualties came at the hands of the Red Army.
You must be Russian. Only they and the Americans have such a lopsided perspective of World War 2.
It ended 70 years ago, so I'll move on. Quick query though.. Did the Germans kill more Russians than Stalin and Lenin?
You must not be letting facts interfere with your storyline. If millions of Russians hadn't died defending their country, just how much harder would it have been to take back the continent if the western allies had faced the full might of the German military? We're talking three times or more the Nazi military presence, if they hadn't been tied up with fighting the very Russians you despise.
What does that do to change the fact that Russia did more to beat the Germans than all the other Allied forces combined? Jack and shit, and Jack left town.
In any case, are you sure you want to move the goalposts to domestic deaths in the USSR, most of which were due to famine. Why is it that communists are always 100% responsible for every death through famine - completely ignoring the impacts of of WWI, a drought, a civil war, not to mention a foriegn invasion. Yet, Capitalist Exceptionalists are never are responsible for any famines resulting from their policies. Irish Potato Famine, heard of it - the country had a food surplus throughout the blight, but much of their agricultural output was exported for British profit. There's plenty of other examples to choose from.
So, you're not objecting to the famine, you're objecting to the communism. A classic case of Western Exceptionalists only giving a flying fuck about human lives or human rights as long as it serves their politics and historical revisionism.
If the British hadn't destroyed the Luftwaffe..
If the British hadn't pulled multiple divisions to Africa..
If the threat of an invasion from Britain hadn't forced the Germans to keep several divisions in France and Holland..
If the Allies hadn't taken Italy out of the war..
If Germany hadn't ended fighting on two fronts..
If the US hadn't supplied Russia with continual convoys full of material..
Seems you don't know the facts.
As for communism, I'm not sure what the fuck that has to do with executing your officer cadre, shooting your own men, or indeed the other 50 million people that died due to unnatural causes. Don't go pretending all of that was famine.
Insignificant next to the impact of the Red Army on the German military. And you didn't answer the question - how much would you have wanted Churchill to face three times the German military presence if they hadn't been tied up fighting the Russians you despise? But now that we know that you're a British Exceptionalist, here's a question for you: rounding up hundreds of thousands of innocent people into concentration camps. Torturing them to death, by means such as gang rape, ramming sand into their rectums, using metal tools to first crush and then remove testicles from men....Nazi Germany or British-occupied Kenya in the 1950's?
One guess, motherfucker. Now, why don't you round up a few of your American Exceptionalist buddies and visit a bar in Moscow to tell the locals how you did all the haaard wooork of beating the Nazis in WWII. When your casualties were numbered in the thousands, theirs in the millions. Just make sure to wear a cup and mouthguard when you do it.
Your nationalist naÃveté is comical. You appear think that conducting military operations without heavy loss of life to your own force is a bad thing.
As for Kenya, I could describe numerous other occasions in which Britain has made poor decisions. I'm not in denial, unlike half the people in this conversation.