|
euphronius posted: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. Why is what the Pentagon "admits" acceptable evidence to you now when you've disregarded everything else that the Pentagon says up to this point?
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Intent is not important because it is obvious and manifest. Context is not important because what can excuse such a crime. Is anyone saying that there was some sort of justification? Hopefully this clears thing up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Why is what the Pentagon "admits" acceptable evidence to you now when you've disregarded everything else that the Pentagon says up to this point? Admissions against interest have high credibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
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? I don't think anybody's disagreeing that 1) This is totally a war crime, and 2) the US almost certainly did it. The main dispute seems to be the difference between "We need to figure out who hosed up and punish them for it" and "gently caress the US military, they aimed for doctors on purpose because they're evil and are blaming the poor innocent Afganhis, kill everyone who had anything to do with this".
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Admittedly, I dont know how targeting works within the plane and dont know what procedures they walk through internally. My experience is in TLAM and have worked at both MOCs and AOCs. I also dont know what authorizations are handed down or the C2 structure this occurred in, but no one here does. That's what needs to be discovered. The where/how the breakdown occurred. I guess Im saying that it's premature to leap to conclusions that ruin lives. It sounds harsh, because innocent and good people died, but their are things that need to be discovered prior to calling for someone's head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Admissions against interest have high credibility. So things the Pentagon says go up in credibility proportionate to how bad it makes them look?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:The person that authorized the bombing should have maybe checked the "don't loving target this" list before giving the green light. Air crew being in the middle is hosed up for them and all, but I really, really loving doubt the Afghani army had full control over what that gunship was targeting. Accountability is going to turn pretty heavily on who called for fires and what sort of control was being exercised. Even if a US JTAC ends up owning the bomb, it's going to come down to the immediacy of the threat and whether they should have known the building was a hospital. I'm waiting for the full report before I decide who to blame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So things the Pentagon says go up in credibility proportionate to how bad it makes them look? that is how the real world works yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:I don't think anybody's disagreeing that 1) This is totally a war crime, and 2) the US almost certainly did it. The main dispute seems to be the difference between "We need to figure out who hosed up and punish them for it" and "gently caress the US military, they aimed for doctors on purpose because they're evil and are blaming the poor innocent Afganhis, kill everyone who had anything to do with this". I think there's a lot of people in this thread who don't know what a war crime is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
After a certain point, incompetence becomes effectively equivalent to malice. This is far past that point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So things the Pentagon says go up in credibility proportionate to how bad it makes them look? I didn't make that idea up. It is venerable common law
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think there's a lot of people in this thread who don't know what a war crime is. if it's a legitimate war crime the international community has ways to shut the whole thing down
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
I don't think anyone here disagrees that it happened, that it was bad and that people should be held responsible. But if you think it was intentional you are living in a delusion
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think there's a lot of people in this thread who don't know what a war crime is. I'd like to have a dollar for every war crime we've committed. I'd be very rich.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Boon posted:Admittedly, I dont know how targeting works within the plane and dont know what procedures they walk through internally. My experience is in TLAM and have worked at both MOCs and AOCs. Yeah, I'm 100% for a full investigation on this. My point is that anyone who hosed up, either through ignorance or malice, gets charged, court-marshaled, and spends a very long time in Kansas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:I don't think anyone here disagrees that it happened, that it was bad and that people should be held responsible. But if you think it was intentional you are living in a delusion
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:I don't think anyone here disagrees that it happened, that it was bad and that people should be held responsible. But if you think it was intentional you are living in a delusion So was the attack plane just randomly firing rounds of something. Even the pentagon admits it was intentional come on now. The pilot or whoever fired the guns didn't stroke out and accidentally pull the trigger. It was an intentional act.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:After a certain point, incompetence becomes effectively equivalent to malice. This is far past that point. I think we might have different ideas of where that point is, because this one makes you sound like you're lining people up next to a ditch with a Luger in your hand, here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I'd like to have a dollar for every war crime we've committed. I'd be very rich. Do you mean actual war crimes or the imaginary definition that this thread is using?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:I don't think anybody's disagreeing that 1) This is totally a war crime, and 2) the US almost certainly did it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
euphronius posted:So was the attack plane just randomly firing rounds of something. are you being willfully dense for D&D cred or???
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you mean actual war crimes or the imaginary definition that this thread is using? Why not both. I like money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
euphronius posted:So was the attack plane just randomly firing rounds of something. Don't joke around like this, dude, people are loving dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think there's a lot of people in this thread who don't know what a war crime is. A quick Google seems to indicate that attacking humanitarian workers is indeed a war crime. However the fly in the ointment here is you have to prove that the people involved knew it was hospital, knew there were civilians, knew what they were aiming at, and still pulled the trigger. If they missed another target, or received bad Intel, or couldn't tell their fire was hitting the facility, that doesn't satisfy the criteria for a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I think we might have different ideas of where that point is, because this one makes you sound like you're lining people up next to a ditch with a Luger in your hand, here. Well someone's projecting pretty drat hard here. I don't support the death penalty even for war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:are you being willfully dense for D&D cred or??? What definition of intentional should I be using.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted: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. i'm not talking about just the crew. if the crew had no way of knowing due to lovely protocol, the people in charge of protocol should be court martialed. someone (or multiple people) in the chain of command did not take proper care to protect non combatants and medical personnel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Yeah, I'm 100% for a full investigation on this. Sending people to Kansas is an international human rights violation
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:So was the attack plane just randomly firing rounds of something. So you think that the pilot or the gunner or whoever should've looked out the window and determined if the target was a hospital or not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Don't joke around like this, dude, people are loving dead. oh no not jokes in poor taste on the home of tribute.avi
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Euph if the air crew was told the Taliban was firing from the hospital would that absolve them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:04
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
euphronius posted:What definition of intentional should I be using. Intentional: We shot at a place, because shooting makes things go boom. Oh gently caress that was a hospital Also, but not in this case, intentional: WATCH ME BLOW THIS HOSPITAL UP JOEY
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
given that there were likely no wedding parties or clusters of children on top of the hospital, we have no way of knowing if US Soldiers deliberately fired at the hospital knowing it was a hospital
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So you think that the pilot or the gunner or whoever should've looked out the window and determined if the target was a hospital or not? Maybe in the future this would help matter possibly yes. The current method doesn't seem to be working very well if you accept the Pentagon's third and second explanation. Not the first though. We shall see when we get the fourth explanation maybe tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm not talking about just the crew. if the crew had no way of knowing due to lovely protocol, the people in charge of protocol should be court martialed. someone (or multiple people) in the chain of command did not take proper care to protect non combatants and medical personnel. Again, if you can prove that the person in question knew full well that it was a hospital, and you can prove that enemy fire wasn't coming from the facility, and you can prove that knowing all this he gave the order, then you'd have a case. If any part of that chain breaks down though, you have nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:A quick Google seems to indicate that attacking humanitarian workers is indeed a war crime. However the fly in the ointment here is you have to prove that the people involved knew it was hospital, knew there were civilians, knew what they were aiming at, and still pulled the trigger. If they missed another target, or received bad Intel, or couldn't tell their fire was hitting the facility, that doesn't satisfy the criteria for a war crime. war crimes can also take place by negligence. this was a case of extreme negligence. the people guilty of the warcrimes are the negligent officers who allowed the attack, and the negligent officers who did not halt the attack after MSF contacted the US and afghani armies multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Obviously if U.S. forces were taking fire from the hospital that would mitigate the crime. MSF and the Pentagon both say US forces weren't taking fire from there however. (I am using the Pentagon's third story here for reference ).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Well someone's projecting pretty drat hard here. I don't support the death penalty even for war crimes. Neither do I, but the line I draw for when someone's incompetence is equivalent to malice is apparently farther out than yours so that's what you look like from over here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:war crimes can also take place by negligence. this was a case of extreme negligence. the people guilty of the warcrimes are the negligent officers who allowed the attack, and the negligent officers who did not halt the attack after MSF contacted the US and afghani armies multiple times. no no no, the aircrew and their man pads back at base were just following orders see
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
euphronius posted:What definition of intentional should I be using. "String him up for doing his job even though he wasn't aware he was attacking a hospital, and probably wouldn't have attacked if he had known!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:08
|
|