Loving Africa Chaps posted:

They're not even pretending

Brown Moses posted:

Russia bombs Latamina, claims they're bombing ISIS even though there's non ISIS within 100km of Latamina

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiA0JUdWR6M

Then they bomb the same location again, but calls it Raqqa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7fqew26a1A

And SANA posts the video calling the location Jisr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSoO0ILb2-4

Cat Mattress posted:

From what a Syrian ambassador said in an interview, the Russians targets for their airstrikes are provided by Syrian intelligence. So there isn't any surprise to be had in the fact that all the Daesh targets the Russians bomb are, in fact, not actually Daesh.

Darth Walrus posted:

So that location is in Latamina, right?

As in, I get that they're all of the same place, but do we know where that place is?

Mikojan posted:

I strongly refuse to believe any western nation (apart from maybe Israel) would knowingly bomb hospitals to swat a few insurgents.

Flavahbeast posted:

because it's super embarassing and counterproductive

lmaoboy1998 posted:

Obviously we'd all prefer 30 people hadn't died. But given they have, it would be better if just one of them were an American. Or else this won't effect the debate in the US at all. You know that this is true.

As for what to learn from this episode, how about that its a war crime to bomb hospitals, and that its an especially atrocious crime to bomb the only functional hospital in a vast warzone? That wiping out a few 19 year old insurgents with RPGs doesn't morally excuse murdering 30 doctors? I'm guessing half of your country and all of your government will defend the military's behaviour, if it's widely discussed at all, so yeah I'd say there's a few lessons to be learnt here.

The Iron Rose posted:

It isn't necessarily a war crime to target a hospital, but it's a pretty big legal barrier. Generally the rule of thumb is that the damage to the hospital must not be excessive in view of the direct and concrete advantages to be gained from attacking said target.

But that just refers to damage to the building and like I said, it requires some fairly inflexible legal requirements that would not have been followed in this case. It sounds more and more like this was a completely tragic mistake. I hope we find out more soon.

Svartvit posted:

No, targeting a hospital is always a war crime. You are talking about the concept of proportionality, but hospitals are protected by the Geneva convention.

Svartvit posted:

No, targeting a hospital is always a war crime. You are talking about the concept of proportionality, but hospitals are protected by the Geneva convention.

Murgos posted:

Targeting is the key point though. Accidents aren't war crimes.

Svartvit posted:

No, targeting a hospital is always a war crime. You are talking about the concept of proportionality, but hospitals are protected by the Geneva convention.

quote:

International humanitarian law is not, however, completely inflexible in how it evaluates collateral damage to hospitals that may result from attacks on legitimate military targets nearby. The rule of thumb is that if the damage to the hospital is not excessive in view of the direct and concrete military advantages to be gained from attacking the nearby target, then the damage may be considered lawful.

To go back to that hot day in El Salvador nine years ago. I clambered into my beat-up Mitsubishi Montero Jeep and took off down the road for Zacatecoluca. I will never forget the shock I felt when, without warning, a huge explosion erupted from what seemed like only two inches from my right ear. Temporarily deafened, I recovered my other senses enough to realize that an army artillery piece had just been fired from about twenty-five yards away; the Salvadoran military was pouring shells into the hills around Zacatecoluca, in a desultory attempt to deal with the retreating guerrillas.

When I reached the town, I made immediately for the large, modern public hospital not far from the main square. Once inside, I did indeed find that the pediatric ward had been blown to smithereens. Windows were broken, the elevator destroyed, bits of bedding lay strewn about on the floor. And the hospital personnel confirmed to us that the damage had been caused when a guerrilla unit detonated a large bomb in the ward.

End of story? Not quite. The destruction was heavy, but not entirely wanton. There had been heavy fighting that day between the army and the guerrillas. Neither side occupied the hospital or attempted to do so, but as the fighting raged among the narrow cobblestoned streets of the town, a few Salvadoran Army soldiers had become separated from their unit and attempted to flee onto the roof of the hospital. The FMLN forces cornered the government soldiers, and, in an attempt to flush them out, decided to detonate an explosive charge in the pediatric ward, the spot nearest to the soldiers’ rooftop hideout.

Hence, two crucial legal questions arise: First, were the soldiers a legitimate target for the FMLN? Almost certainly yes. (It could even be argued that the hospital lost its protected status because the soldiers chose to hide themselves there, but their flight onto the hospital roof seemed less calculated than a decision made amid the heat and panic of battle, with no cooperation from the hospital staff, and it would seem perverse to make the hospital pay for that.)

International humanitarian law is not, however, completely inflexible in how it evaluates collateral damage to hospitals that may result from attacks on legitimate military targets nearby. The rule of thumb is that if the damage to the hospital is not excessive in view of the direct and concrete military advantages to be gained from attacking the nearby target, then the damage may be considered lawful.

To go back to that hot day in El Salvador nine years ago. I clambered into my beat-up Mitsubishi Montero Jeep and took off down the road for Zacatecoluca. I will never forget the shock I felt when, without warning, a huge explosion erupted from what seemed like only two inches from my right ear. Temporarily deafened, I recovered my other senses enough to realize that an army artillery piece had just been fired from about twenty-five yards away; the Salvadoran military was pouring shells into the hills around Zacatecoluca, in a desultory attempt to deal with the retreating guerrillas.

When I reached the town, I made immediately for the large, modern public hospital not far from the main square. Once inside, I did indeed find that the pediatric ward had been blown to smithereens. Windows were broken, the elevator destroyed, bits of bedding lay strewn about on the floor. And the hospital personnel confirmed to us that the damage had been caused when a guerrilla unit detonated a large bomb in the ward.

End of story? Not quite. The destruction was heavy, but not entirely wanton. There had been heavy fighting that day between the army and the guerrillas. Neither side occupied the hospital or attempted to do so, but as the fighting raged among the narrow cobblestoned streets of the town, a few Salvadoran Army soldiers had become separated from their unit and attempted to flee onto the roof of the hospital. The FMLN forces cornered the government soldiers, and, in an attempt to flush them out, decided to detonate an explosive charge in the pediatric ward, the spot nearest to the soldiers’ rooftop hideout.

Hence, two crucial legal questions arise: First, were the soldiers a legitimate target for the FMLN? Almost certainly yes. (It could even be argued that the hospital lost its protected status because the soldiers chose to hide themselves there, but their flight onto the hospital roof seemed less calculated than a decision made amid the heat and panic of battle, with no cooperation from the hospital staff, and it would seem perverse to make the hospital pay for that.)

Second, were the FMLN troops within their rights to use an explosive to attack the soldiers, knowing that to detonate it would cause substantial damage to the wing of the hospital where civilian children were treated? I think that in this instance, the answer is also yes—especially in view of the fact that hospital personnel told us that the guerrillas gave them ample warning and permitted them to evacuate all the patients and medical personnel before they set off their bomb.

But it is a qualified yes. The answer, under international law, would ultimately hinge on the question of whether killing or capturing a handful of already fleeing enemy troops really warranted the eminently foreseeable damage to a hospital facility. And that damage was extensive; not total destruction of the entire building, to be sure, but serious enough to force dozens of sick and injured people into a makeshift outdoor clinic. It might reasonably be argued that this level of damage was unwarranted, notwithstanding the FMLN’s laudable effort to evacuate the building first. In fact, the FMLN never did capture or kill the soldiers. If humanitarian law was violated, the FMLN theoretically might be required to pay reparations for the damage caused. But there was no evidence of willfulness in the legal sense required to constitute individually culpable war crimes.

So I went back to San Salvador and incorporated the Zacatecoluca hospital incident into that week’s article. It was true, as I initially heard, that the guerrillas had blown up the hospital. But a close investigation of all the factors that led them to take that action, and of the manner in which they took it, showed that, tragic as it was, the assault may well have fallen into the category of a questionable but lawful military action, rather than that of a major violation of human rights or an individually culpable war crime.

Svartvit posted:

No, targeting a hospital is always a war crime. You are talking about the concept of proportionality, but hospitals are protected by the Geneva convention.

The Fourth Geneva Convention Article 19 posted:

The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy

Tezzor posted:

You keep using the word fact for what appears to be a poorly substantiated generalization

Chewbacca Defense posted:

The vast majority of the time that civilians are killed it's due to the fact that the US's enemies would rather sacrifice their families than fight according to the rules of war.

Chewbacca Defense posted:

A hospital can lose it's protected status if it is being used for a military purpose i.e. placing an anti-aircraft gun on top of it, etc.

And lol at anyone who thinks the US would knowingly target a protected civilian structure intentionally. The fact of the matter is the US does more to prevent civilian casualties than any other country. The vast majority of the time that civilians are killed it's due to the fact that the US's enemies would rather sacrifice their families than fight according to the rules of war.

Chewbacca Defense posted:

A hospital can lose it's protected status if it is being used for a military purpose i.e. placing an anti-aircraft gun on top of it, etc.

And lol at anyone who thinks the US would knowingly target a protected civilian structure intentionally. The fact of the matter is the US does more to prevent civilian casualties than any other country. The vast majority of the time that civilians are killed it's due to the fact that the US's enemies would rather sacrifice their families than fight according to the rules of war.

Greataval posted:

To be fair the U.S. has shown incredible retraint in iraq and Afghanistan.

Sinteres posted:

Does anybody else ever feel that abiding by rules to fight wars against non-state actors in the 21st century is about as absurd, and doomed to failure, as marching out in Napoleon-era shooting formations to fight a 20th century war? I mean I'm glad my country's military isn't indiscriminately murdering all the civilians it can, especially since the wars we fight today are wars of choice we arguably shouldn't be fighting in the first place, but I also can't help wondering if our moral horror at civilian casualties is a big part of why we don't win wars anymore. Again, I'm glad we're not actually doing this (I've been as socialized to think it's immoral as anyone else), but I can't help feeling if we'd carpet bombed Raqqa the moment we started bombing in Syria, and made it clear that any new stronghold they set up in is next, ISIS probably wouldn't be the center of international recruitment and emulation that it is today. Am I crazy for wondering if our squeamishness and sense of moral superiority leads to more casualties in the long run as these conflicts never end?

Sinteres posted:

Does anybody else ever feel that abiding by rules to fight wars against non-state actors in the 21st century is about as absurd, and doomed to failure, as marching out in Napoleon-era shooting formations to fight a 20th century war? I mean I'm glad my country's military isn't indiscriminately murdering all the civilians it can, especially since the wars we fight today are wars of choice we arguably shouldn't be fighting in the first place, but I also can't help wondering if our moral horror at civilian casualties is a big part of why we don't win wars anymore. Again, I'm glad we're not actually doing this (I've been as socialized to think it's immoral as anyone else), but I can't help feeling if we'd carpet bombed Raqqa the moment we started bombing in Syria, and made it clear that any new stronghold they set up in is next, ISIS probably wouldn't be the center of international recruitment and emulation that it is today. Am I crazy for wondering if our squeamishness and sense of moral superiority leads to more casualties in the long run as these conflicts never end?

Sinteres posted:

Does anybody else ever feel that abiding by rules to fight wars against non-state actors in the 21st century is about as absurd, and doomed to failure, as marching out in Napoleon-era shooting formations to fight a 20th century war? I mean I'm glad my country's military isn't indiscriminately murdering all the civilians it can, especially since the wars we fight today are wars of choice we arguably shouldn't be fighting in the first place, but I also can't help wondering if our moral horror at civilian casualties is a big part of why we don't win wars anymore. Again, I'm glad we're not actually doing this (I've been as socialized to think it's immoral as anyone else), but I can't help feeling if we'd carpet bombed Raqqa the moment we started bombing in Syria, and made it clear that any new stronghold they set up in is next, ISIS probably wouldn't be the center of international recruitment and emulation that it is today. Am I crazy for wondering if our squeamishness and sense of moral superiority leads to more casualties in the long run as these conflicts never end?

Dilkington posted:

I'm not familiar with every American airstrike over the past decade and a half, but I imagine there's at least one example of a civilian building, known to be occupied by civilians, destroyed because it also contained a high-ranking combatant.

McDowell posted:

Sinteres posted:

Does anybody else ever feel that abiding by rules to fight wars against non-state actors in the 21st century is about as absurd, and doomed to failure, as marching out in Napoleon-era shooting formations to fight a 20th century war? I mean I'm glad my country's military isn't indiscriminately murdering all the civilians it can, especially since the wars we fight today are wars of choice we arguably shouldn't be fighting in the first place, but I also can't help wondering if our moral horror at civilian casualties is a big part of why we don't win wars anymore. Again, I'm glad we're not actually doing this (I've been as socialized to think it's immoral as anyone else), but I can't help feeling if we'd carpet bombed Raqqa the moment we started bombing in Syria, and made it clear that any new stronghold they set up in is next, ISIS probably wouldn't be the center of international recruitment and emulation that it is today. Am I crazy for wondering if our squeamishness and sense of moral superiority leads to more casualties in the long run as these conflicts never end?

Sinteres posted:

Does anybody else ever feel that abiding by rules to fight wars against non-state actors in the 21st century is about as absurd, and doomed to failure, as marching out in Napoleon-era shooting formations to fight a 20th century war? I mean I'm glad my country's military isn't indiscriminately murdering all the civilians it can, especially since the wars we fight today are wars of choice we arguably shouldn't be fighting in the first place, but I also can't help wondering if our moral horror at civilian casualties is a big part of why we don't win wars anymore. Again, I'm glad we're not actually doing this (I've been as socialized to think it's immoral as anyone else), but I can't help feeling if we'd carpet bombed Raqqa the moment we started bombing in Syria, and made it clear that any new stronghold they set up in is next, ISIS probably wouldn't be the center of international recruitment and emulation that it is today. Am I crazy for wondering if our squeamishness and sense of moral superiority leads to more casualties in the long run as these conflicts never end?

TomViolence posted:

You will be Shocked and Awed by the absolutely brutal and unrelenting restraint shown by the world's largest and most expensive military force.

Dilkington posted:

^^^^^^
edit: what kustomkarkommando said.


COIN is a thing that's been studied a lot, especially over the past decade. If being ruthless was enough to end insurgencies, the US would have beaten the Viet Cong, and the Soviets would have beaten the Mujahedin, and the Wehrmacht would've secured their supply lines.

McDowell posted:

https://vimeo.com/70987407