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.
Bombs without borders got the date and time mixed up and there was a scheduling conflict.
You're really telling me that you see no difference between laser guided bomb strikes that occasionally go wrong and mass-produced $200 barrel bombs rolled out of helicopters to turn cities of millions of people into this?
Yeah, totally the same thing.
As for Russia's involvement in Syria, I don't think anyone is objecting to the fact that they're bombing. It's the fact that rather than bombing Daesh, they're bombing groups opposed to Daesh, in order to prop up the failing government of the aforementioned guy flattening cities with mass-produced $200 barrel bombs. As well as having sent large amounts of equipment with absolutely no bearing to Daesh (or any rebel group really), such as advanced air defense systems and air superiority fighters carrying air-to-air missiles. People's problem with Russia's actions are not that they're taking part in military activity, but what side they're taking part on behalf of.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
Oh, and to correct:
No, they actually said:
The deletion of "in Kunduz" was clearly done to make it sound like the US kept hitting the hospital again and again; there is no other reason someone would have removed that from the sentence.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
No. You just have a naieve and unrealistic idea of what war is or what war can be.
If we had CNN in the 40s we never would have been able to defeat Japan or Germany because of all of the bleeding hearts. Now THAT was real carnage. Nothing that the US does today is remotely comparable.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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...
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.
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.
What do you mean "both sides"? There's several dozen different major militias, which really if anything fall into three "sides": Assad, Daesh (what you call ISIS), and a loose, sometimes self-sniping (but decreasingly so) alliance of kurds, secular arabs (the nominal FSA), and islamists. All three sides oppose each other.
Russia supports Assad, the party recognized by the UN and human rights groups as responsible for the lion's share of the war deaths and over 10k tortured to death in its intelligence centers. However, it's doing this not by opposing the opposition uniformly, but by heavily focusing on non-Daesh entities. If successful, this would leave a conflict between Assad and Daesh, wherein the west would basically be forced to accept Assad. Iran and Hezbollah are Russia's copatriots in this.
The US and the Gulf states support the non-Daesh forces. The US strongly supports the FSA, would support the Kurds if not for how it would cost them Turkey's support, and is willing to overlook the islamists so long as they continue along their path of denouncing anti-western activity. The Gulf states by contrast have largely been supporting the Islamist militias - Saudi Arabia in particular focusing on Ahrar ash-Sham, while Qatar seems to be in bed with al-Nusra.
Israel wants Assad and Daesh gone, and seems content at sniping at either of them within the Golan Heights, but doesn't seem to want to take a larger, riskier role.
The strategies used by the US and the Gulf states are similar in regards to Daesh: A continuous but restrained bombing campaign. Both the US and the Gulf states take part in this. The arming strategies have somewhat differed, however, and not simply in regards to what groups are the beneficiaries. The US has been very hesitant to deploy weapons to Syria, waiting three years starting and not giving anything heavier than a TOW. The strongest focus has been on coordinating small numbers of FSA members to operate as effective US ground spotters against Daesh. It's not gone very well. Providing intelligence has proven more useful, and the weaponry, although limited, has allowed for more effective operations in certain fronts, such as Idlib. The Gulf states however have focused more on money and arms to their groups, and started it early. The early successes of the islamist militias while the FSA was flailing led to many waves of desertion, turning it from the largest opposition group to at its lowpoint nearly a running joke.
Turkey has proven willing to support taking on Daesh although uses the opportunity to snipe at the Kurds. Turkey's policy of chasing back Syrian planes who even approach their border has created an effective narrow no-fly zone in Syria's north, which militias on the ground have taken advantage of. With Russia's involvement now, however, it's questionable whether Syria will be able to continue that policy, out of fear of hitting Russian jets.
Everyone has their own endgames in mind.
In Russia's and Iran's, the conflict turns into "Assad vs. Daesh", the west reluctantly agrees to accept Assad, wipes out Daesh, and their only Mediterranean ally remains in power. They know he'll probably undertake some serious purges over the next several years while trying to wipe out any vestiges of opposition remaining. Their media will happily not report it.
In the US's and Israel's preferred scenarios, the secular/kurdish/islamist coalition wipes out both Assad and Daesh, with their help on the latter. Each ends up with regions under their control. The goal would be a Lebanon-style power sharing agreement. A more realistic expectation would be a Libya-style post-dictator power vacuum with random sniping militias. Those who support this view that as a vastly better improvement than the current situation or an Assad re-conquest.
In the Gulf states view, they really could care less whether the post-Assad, post-Daesh environment would be a Lebanon-style arrangement or simply another dictator, this time not allied with Iran against them. They'd be quite
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
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.
This is the most complete and factual analysis I have seen on Slashdot so far. What concerns me and would stop me from embracing the strategy we have chosen were I sitting in the oval office is, that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not hold up after the original enemy is gone.
Al Qaeda and its offshoots and subgroups in particular are propaganda machines. When Daesh is defeated if it ever is, we will again be the Great Satin and just like before I suspect we find ourselves faced with the training and likely weapons we have provided turned on us. Its how these leaders hold on to power. Personally I think out best bet would be to just disengage form the middle east. let Southern Europe, Russia, China, Israel and the more stable elements in North Africa contain it if they can. While politically sacrificing Iraq and Afghanistan at this point is a tough pill to swallow, in the most mercenary sense the potential payback from stabilizing those places in no way approaches the costs.
Daesh could be very useful to us in that if we left it unchecked it will likely put a great deal of strain on Iran, Russia, and eventually China will be drawn in. These are our economic rivals, its hard to imagine we don't gain from them being in a multi-trillion dollar quagmire we have been stuck in for fifteen years now. A few decades of not seeing American's dropping bombs over there might cause a refocus of some of the extra-regional terrorism objectives as well.
Personally I think our best move is to pack up and go home. No foreign aide to the region. State department imposed travel bans for Americans. Lets just watch from the satellites and see how it pans out.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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
ISIS, ISIS, ISIL, Islamic State... these are all "respectful" terms. They want to be referred to as the "Islamic State", as their goal is to reestablish a new caliphate.
Daesh is an acronym of their Islamic name. Acronyms are rarely used in Arabic, which has led to confusion and anger on Daesh's part. It removes the "Islamic State" part that's so important to them. And it sounds similar to a word meaning "one who crushes underfoot". Daesh threatens to kill anyone caught using that term for them, which to me is reason enough alone to use it. It's also what the local opposition to them calls them, not wanting to dignify them as a legitimate caliphate.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
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."
Now THAT was real carnage
ROFL.
Sorry, you guys are just too soft-hearted for actual war if you call the US part in WW2 a "real carnage".
The USSR lost around 10 million soldiers in WW.
Germany lost about 5 million.
China lost 3.5 million.
The USA lost 0.4 million.
The real carnage in WW2 was on the eastern front and in China. For the Germans, the battle of Stalingrad alone cost them as many casualties (at least half a million, possibly up to 800,000) than the entire western front. 80% of the German casualties are thanks to the Russians.
And yes, the USAF bombed some German cities to rubble. But even so, German civilians fled the Red Army towards the west, not the other way around. If you've ever read stories about the siege of Leningrad from the Russian perspective, you know why. I know them. My girlfriend is from St. Petersburg as it is known today. After I've heard her tell WW2 stories from russian perspective, I laugh about US war movies. Omaha Beach: 2000 casualties. The horror. That would have been a quiet day in Stalingrad, where four times as many people died every day for five months straight.
That is what real carnage looks like.
Stalingrad had a population of 400,000 before the war. After the German 6th Army was destroyed, an official census counted 1,500 residents. Pictures from Stalingrad look worse than pictures from Hiroshima. That is real carnage.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org