Afghanistan: US Airstrike Hits Kunduz Hospital

[Apocalypse]

You don't hit something 'accidentally' for an ongoing period of 30 minutes.

That one scenario I gave of the insurgents being completely outside and then the AC-130 accidentally hitting the building, every once in a while during the 30 minute period, is unlikely. I just gave different options of what could have happened, and there might be a mixture.

There could have been some outside fighting, and then the hostile forces went into the hospital for some security while they were engaging the Afghan security forces.

[NICE MOBIUS]

They never said the Afghan security forces directly talked to the AC-130 in the first place. That wasn't the change.

Well, that's not exactly my point, is it?

[NICE MOBIUS]

That one scenario I gave of the insurgents being completely outside and then the AC-130 accidentally hitting the building, every once in a while during the 30 minute period, is unlikely. I just gave different options of what could have happened, and there might be a mixture.

There could have been some outside fighting, and then the hostile forces went into the hospital for some security while they were engaging the Afghan security forces.

Why don't you just deal with the facts: the hospital was engaged for a full 30 minutes despite civilians inside repeatedly telling the US forces.

Stop trying to muddy the waters when they're crystal clear.

[Proteus_MST]

...

If the Afghan security forces lied about the attack, and said they were getting shot at from inside the building, then it would likely be on the Afghan security forces but also us for trusting people who sometimes rape little kids.

Actually, if the Afghan forces incorrectly stated that they were shot from inside the building it wouldn´t only be on you for trusting their word, but also for not checking the status of the building (and discovering that it is a protected building (according to the geneva conventions), for which special rules of engagement would/should be in force).

[Sava]

Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I prohibits
an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

and here's where you fail, dip****

show evidence they "expected" all that

show evidence the attack was "excessive" (THE ACTUAL STANDARD OF EXCESSIVE AND NOT YOUR OPINION OF WHAT IS EXCESSIVE) in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated


negligence isn't a war crime, sorry

[NICE MOBIUS]

They never said the Afghan security forces directly talked to the AC-130 in the first place. That wasn't the change.

Also this: On Monday, Campbell said that the Afghans requested the strike.

So you are wrong.

[Apocalypse]

Well, that's not exactly my point, is it?

Well the US military is pretty ****ing terrible with communication even though most people it is a necessary quality in a good leader. The US Military took extra time to try to get he most accurate story possible, which is why they kept adding to it. It really shouldn't have taken that long to get the clear version out though, since all of those communications are logged pretty well, for legal purposes.

[Sava]

Why don't you just deal with the facts

You aren't dealing with the facts, bro. Start before telling others to do so.

[kentonio]

and here's where you fail, dip****

show evidence they "expected" all that

"Oh gee, when we bombed that hospital for 30 minutes that had been ringing asking us to please stop bombing them, we never thought there would actually be like doctors and patients inside!"

show evidence the attack was "excessive" (THE ACTUAL STANDARD OF EXCESSIVE AND NOT YOUR OPINION OF WHAT IS EXCESSIVE) in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated

The Afghans claimed (and MDF denied) that there were 10-15 terrorists in the building. Even if we accept that claim as true, 22 innocent people were killed. Please learn what words like 'excessive' and 'proportional' mean before continuing.

[NICE MOBIUS]

You aren't dealing with the facts, bro. Start before telling others to do so.

Um, I'm pretty sure a hospital got attacked?

[Sava]

"Oh gee, when we bombed that hospital for 30 minutes that had been ringing asking us to please stop bombing them, we never thought there would actually be like doctors and patients inside!"

are you really that stupid?

The Afghans claimed (and MDF denied) that there were 10-15 terrorists in the building. Even if we accept that claim as true, 22 innocent people were killed. Please learn what words like 'excessive' and 'proportional' mean before continuing.

No. By this post especially, you reveal your ignorance. I know what those words mean.

Excessive and proportional refers to the armaments used.

Start by educating yourself, then come back to this discussion. Because I literally cannot have it with you at present. You aren't qualified enough.

[Apocalypse]

Why don't you just deal with the facts: the hospital was engaged for a full 30 minutes despite civilians inside repeatedly telling the US forces.

Stop trying to muddy the waters when they're crystal clear.

If the AC-130 engaged the hospital and only the hospital for 30 minutes straight, when hostile forces were engaging the Afghan security forces, that is completely legal because the hospital was not the target, the hostile forces were the target for the purpose of self-defense.

It doesn't matter if there were civilians in there if hostile forces were using the location to attack security forces. Not firing back at the hostile forces encourages more use of civilians as human shields and is bad for civilians in the long run.

[NICE MOBIUS]

are you really that stupid?

A hospital was attacked - FACT!

Non-combatant Civilians were killed - FACT!

The hospital was attacked for at least 30 minutes - FACT!

The US Military has offered four separate versions - FACT!

[Apocalypse]

Actually, if the Afghan forces incorrectly stated that they were shot from inside the building it wouldn´t only be on you for trusting their word, but also for not checking the status of the building (and discovering that it is a protected building (according to the geneva conventions), for which special rules of engagement would/should be in force).

Whether or not it is a protected building is not an issue when hostile forces are in the process of using it to engage security forces. Rules of engagement always allow for self defense.

[Sava]

apoc is correct


also, in 30 minutes, an ac130 can level a hundred hospitals

one would think, if the intention was to target that hospital and civilians (thus making it a war crime), that it would've taken 30 seconds and not 30 minutes

but why examine the facts?