|
The crew has an obligation to disobey an immoral and illegal order so they should be prosecuted as well. Just following orders hasn't cut it for awhile.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
euphronius posted:The crew has an obligation to disobey an immoral an illegal order so they should be prosecuted as well. Just following orders hasn't cut it for awhile. Only if you're a WWII German military though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The Do Not Strike list only applies to pre-planned targets, and that doesn't appear to be what happened in this case. No, that's what the Rules of Engagement are for. To prevent poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Boon posted:I did not hear that they were radioing their identity... Youd need to show me a link to that. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/05/asia/afghanistan-doctors-without-borders-hospital/ i swear i remember reading they were radioing their identity specifically, but this article does say quote:The bombardments continued even after U.S. and Afghan military officials were notified the hospital was being attacked, the charity said. the bombardment lasted for an hour, an hour 10 minutes, so i guess that's a quick bombing to some people? >.>
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Who are you going to charge, and with what? The officer that gave the green light, or the air crew that didn't verify the target. Also, I really loving doubt that the Afghani army can just call up the US forces in the area to give 100% no questions asked CAS. Special forces getting that, sure I buy that. But as it was shown with the tanker convoy indecent a non US force calling in an air strike using US troops doesn't just go "strike called in -> waste the fuckers". There are a few layers between those two and that's where the fault lies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I'm sorry but that is actually what happened. I don't have to think or believe it. euphronius posted:Of course the USA would never bomb a hospital. But our perfidious nominal "allies"? Yeah they would totally do that . Of course they feed us bad coordinates. Americans are too good. The Afghan however .... euphronius posted:The crew has an obligation to disobey an immoral and illegal order so they should be prosecuted as well. Just following orders hasn't cut it for awhile. So explain what you think happened. Everyone is clearly lying, you tell us what happened, exactly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The crew has an obligation to disobey an immoral and illegal order so they should be prosecuted as well. Just following orders hasn't cut it for awhile. They probably didn't even know what they shot at until they got back to base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Rereading the nyt article the pentagon even admits US forces were on the ground with or near the Afghan troops who so helpfully radioed on the attack allegedly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So explain what you think happened. Everyone is clearly lying, you tell us what happened, exactly. The U.S. blew up a hospital. I think everyone agrees with that as I have said a few times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Herein lies the problem. In fires, there is a concept of "owning the call." The services work together in a joint environment and with other nations in a coalition environment. Because the services bring different capabilities and limitations, because break downs in communications lead to gently caress ups and accidents, the DoD developed a framework for C2 that relies on supporting/supported commanders within an overall commander who provides direction on authorizations, allocations, and priorities that carry down through the seperate chains. So whoever is the supported commander can direct fires within their authority. In this case, that may be the Afghanis. When making a call, it is expected that they own the ordnance and results. This is the case because otherwise you have services at fault for gently caress ups for doing something another service was authorized to direct. Think a Navy ship launching a TLAM in support of an army or air force target. So who do you blame? It's possible someone at the CAOC may have identified the NSL target, but its also possible they missed it or didnt know anything about it before it happened. It all depends on how the call was made from the Afghanis. Direct? Probably not. Through a liasion? Possibly. The problem here is that things arent known but leople are raging for a court martial Boon fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
funkymonks posted:Bad news for NH. Our democratic governors have been the only thing keeping this state from looking like Wisconsin, Kansas, etc. Hopefully we get a good candidate for governor to replace her and the presidential election helps with turnout. I hear Scott Brown is looking for work (I lived in SW NH for a few years)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Of course the USA would never bomb a hospital. But our perfidious nominal "allies"? Yeah they would totally do that . Of course they feed us bad coordinates. Americans are too good. The Afghan however .... Dude, which private kicked you in the nuts this morning? Do you honestly think the Pentagon decided that morning, "gently caress it, just blow that hospital up because I'm Evil," while twirling a moustache? The military fucks up. It happens far more often than you realize. If you're going to allege this is a willful attack then you'd better have more proof to back it beyond just "we blew the drat thing up". Above poster probably had the right of it: a confluence of giving Afghan officers the ability to call in targets with limited oversight, feeding bad Intel to our guys, eventually had tragic consequences. To call for a court martial for the air crew, who was carrying out the strike where they were told, strikes me as the height of stupid responses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Who are you going to charge, and with what? you don't get to oops warcrimes medical personnel are off limits whether or not the "Do Not Strike" list is checked for non preplanned targets trying to pretend it's ok for the US to violate international law and murder non-combatant medical personnel just because their protocol sucks is some hosed up poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The U.S. blew up a hospital. I think everyone agrees with that as I have said a few times. What series of events do you think - broad strokes would suffice - led to said hospital blowing up.?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Boon what are you going to say when the Pentagon changes its story again. Just adapt your headcannon to the new line from Arlington?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Of course the USA would never bomb a hospital. But our perfidious nominal "allies"? Yeah they would totally do that . Of course they feed us bad coordinates. Americans are too good. The Afghan however .... a good comprador ruling class is so hard to find these days
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:What series of events do you think - broad strokes would suffice - led to said hospital blowing up.? “The reality is the U.S. dropped those bombs. The U.S. hit a huge hospital full of wounded patients and M.S.F. staff,” his statement continued, referring to the group by the initials of its French name, Médecins Sans Frontières. “The U.S. military remains responsible for the targets it hits, even though it is part of a coalition. There can be no justification for this horrible attack. With such constant discrepancies in the U.S. and Afghan accounts of what happened, the need for a full transparent independent investigation is ever more critical.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The U.S. blew up a hospital. I think everyone agrees with that as I have said a few times. I think it'd be pretty weird if any of us were debating if the hospital got blown up! The issue here is you're flat out denying the story in favor of a malicious version, and I'd like to be walked through what exactly was the intent and context around us blowing up a hospital just cuz and pinning it on the poor Afghans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you don't get to oops warcrimes I don't think the air crew should be charge unless they didn't verify the target. The officer that gave the target, and any officer that verified a target that was on a "don't loving target this" list, weather he was Afghani or US should abso-loving-lutely face charges though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:“The reality is the U.S. dropped those bombs. The U.S. hit a huge hospital full of wounded patients and M.S.F. staff,” his statement continued, referring to the group by the initials of its French name, Médecins Sans Frontières. “The U.S. military remains responsible for the targets it hits, even though it is part of a coalition. There can be no justification for this horrible attack. With such constant discrepancies in the U.S. and Afghan accounts of what happened, the need for a full transparent independent investigation is ever more critical.” Which part of that quote answered the question?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
euphronius posted:“The reality is the U.S. dropped those bombs. The U.S. hit a huge hospital full of wounded patients and M.S.F. staff,” his statement continued, referring to the group by the initials of its French name, Médecins Sans Frontières. “The U.S. military remains responsible for the targets it hits, even though it is part of a coalition. There can be no justification for this horrible attack. With such constant discrepancies in the U.S. and Afghan accounts of what happened, the need for a full transparent independent investigation is ever more critical.” You just said "the US blew up a hospital" in a lot more words 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
euphronius posted:“The reality is the U.S. dropped those bombs. The U.S. hit a huge hospital full of wounded patients and M.S.F. staff,” his statement continued, referring to the group by the initials of its French name, Médecins Sans Frontières. “The U.S. military remains responsible for the targets it hits, even though it is part of a coalition. There can be no justification for this horrible attack. With such constant discrepancies in the U.S. and Afghan accounts of what happened, the need for a full transparent independent investigation is ever more critical.” Yes, I don't think anyone thinks the Afghan air force blew anything up. But you do realize the huge gulf between 'there was a horrible gently caress up, we take responsibility for the damage our poo poo did, but it was a gently caress up' and 'yea we blew up your hospital, ragheads, eat poo poo, also we're gonna blame you', right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:I don't think the air crew should be charge unless they didn't verify the target. The officer that gave the target, and any officer that verified a target that was on a "don't loving target this" list, weather he was Afghani or US should abso-loving-lutely face charges though. so it would be better if they knew it was a hospital they weren't supposed to shoot at?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I think it'd be pretty weird if any of us were debating if the hospital got blown up! The issue here is you're flat out denying the story in favor of a malicious version, and I'd like to be walked through what exactly was the intent and context around us blowing up a hospital just cuz and pinning it on the poor Afghans. No I'm saying intent and context is not really important in view of the monstrous reality. Also the Pentagon is far far far from a trustworthy source of information and has already contradicted itself in less than a day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No I'm saying intent and context is not really important in view of the monstrous reality. Also the Pentagon is far far far from a trustworthy source of information and has already contradicted itself in less than a day. That's not how justice works in this case duder
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Euph, you do realize you're shouting your bloodthirst at Internet strangers and not the editorial staff of the NYT, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Dude, which private kicked you in the nuts this morning? Do you honestly think the Pentagon decided that morning, "gently caress it, just blow that hospital up because I'm Evil," while twirling a moustache? you do however agree someone should be court martialed for a gently caress up that lead to what can very easily be called a war crime right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No I'm saying intent and context is not really important in view of the monstrous reality. I sure hope that you apply this logic to everything and not just scenarios that make the US look bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:That's not how justice works in this case duder and if history has taught us anything it's certainly that justice applies to the empire
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yes, I don't think anyone thinks the Afghan air force blew anything up. But you do realize the huge gulf between 'there was a horrible gently caress up, we take responsibility for the damage our poo poo did, but it was a gently caress up' and 'yea we blew up your hospital, ragheads, eat poo poo, also we're gonna blame you', right? gently caress up like a bomb accidentally fell out of transport plane maybe that would sad. What kind of gently caress up leads to a hospital being blown up. Did an officer go rogue or something . It's not like they bombed the wrong hospital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I sure hope that you apply this logic to everything and not just scenarios that make the US look bad. lol this is a funny post
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No I'm saying intent and context is not really important... Actually it is. Just because you don't feel the need to actually learn the facts beyond "bad thing happened, gently caress anyone who remotely touched this" doesn't mean international law agrees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:lol this is a funny post I'd like to take "intent and context is not really important" and apply it to all sorts of things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Actually it is. Just because you don't feel the need to actually learn the facts beyond "bad thing happened, gently caress anyone who remotely touched this" doesn't mean international law agrees. this is the united states we're talking about international law is what we say it is
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:gently caress up like a bomb accidentally fell out of transport plane maybe that would sad. Faulty intelligence? In the beginning of the war a combat controller called in a bomb on his own location by mistake, so basically he blew himself up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No I'm saying intent and context is not really important in view of the monstrous reality. Then we must be misunderstanding, because I read this as the opposite of what you've been saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Also intent we know what the intent was that is trivial. Even the pentagon admits it meant to blow up the hospital. They story now is that those rascally Afghans are to Blame. No one is saying this is an accident. So intent is like . .. Obvious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No I'm saying intent and context is not really important in view of the monstrous reality. Also the Pentagon is far far far from a trustworthy source of information and has already contradicted itself in less than a day. Intent and context is the only loving thing that matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you do however agree someone should be court martialed for a gently caress up that lead to what can very easily be called a war crime right? If you can prove that sometime was fully aware of the target and aware of the likely outcome, and that there was no other overriding factor, sure. So far we can't even agree that the crew knew what they were hitting, so calling for court martials when we don't even know what happened is dumb. Sorry I don't make a habit of crucifying the nearest scapegoat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:so it would be better if they knew it was a hospital they weren't supposed to shoot at? I don't know how close the air crew was to the hospital, and if they could even see it due to clouds / dust / smoke/ altitude or whatever. The fact that MSF has told everyone operating in the area repeatedly that they are a hospital be they US/Afghan/Taliban forces means that somewhere in the chain of command someone didn't check what they were calling in the strike on, and the air crew is about the lowest rung on the ladder when it comes to verifying targets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:53
|
|