|
kustomkarkommando posted:Why are we assuming a medical group with years of experience managing facilities in active combat zones wouldn't have marked their facility with a distinguishing mark? Wouldn't have mattered. Gunships fire well beyond the range at which you'd see a red crescent. The gently caress-up happened somewhere on the controller level.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
zoux posted:The hospital was in a bomb free zone. If the MSF personnel had bombs this wouldn't have.... er, well...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Wouldn't have mattered. Gunships fire well beyond the range at which you'd see a red crescent. The gently caress-up happened somewhere on the controller level. Yup. This is what I was saying yesterday in that no one at the controller level checked the "don't loving bomb here" list before telling the gunship to fire. Those are the people that should be facing charges IMO, not the gunship crew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If the Pentagon is now saying that the request to bomb the site went through US command and control and not the Afghans talking to the AC 130 directly, that casts even more aspersions on the competence of the involved parties because that's exactly the sort of process you'd expect would prevent the US literally bombing a literal hospital. Who the hell designed this system. Seems like a rather major hole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Yeah this seems much more indicative of incompetence than some grand conspiracy for the US to incite a PR disaster by bombing Doctors Without Borders. I genuinely don't understand the US military's supposed motive when some people claim this was a deliberate act.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:It worked out great last time we tried it. Yeah I can't let that one go by. It's too good. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Apparently Lindsay Graham is asking for federal funds to help with the flooding in SC. I hope a precondition for the funds is that Graham has to shake hands and possibly hug Obama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Wait, the red mark is in the original? That was intended? Literally like a teacher does to mark something as incorrect? What were they thinking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Apparently Lindsay Graham is asking for federal funds to help with the flooding in SC. He also said Hillary is "risking the spectre of four dead ameruicans"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Taeke posted:Wait, the red mark is in the original? That was intended? Literally like a teacher does to mark something as incorrect? What were they thinking? I like to think it's a smear of blood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
See me after class
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:it is taking people ideologically committed to the goals and methods of AQ and giving them weapons, then hoping they turn them on those impeding our interests instead of on us. Yeah, that is arming AQ No, people ideologically committed to the goals and methods of al-Qaeda won't leave JaN to fight as part of a US-backed initiative for obvious reasons, and they are not the target. Petraeus' strategy is based around the belief that not everyone fighting for JaN has an ideological commitment to the group, and this is demonstrably true. People in Syria who have fought for and supported JaN have often been in positions where they did not have an alternative. JaN is not only one of the most effective fighting forces in Syria, a reality that has existed since 2012, but it's also one of the few groups able to bring stability and order to the places it administrates. When the FSA takes over an area, it does not take long for reports of rampant crime and abuse to come to the forefront. They bring no civilian infrastructure. Their local officials are corrupt and incompetent. They were unable to get support from their population bases. By contrast, JaN brought "police," courts, first responders, and stability. It's not necessarily a desire for sharia law that brings about support for the latter. If you can follow the rules, JaN is objectively a preferable choice for the Syrian people in several areas around the country. Because of that reality, it's actually groups like JaN who stand to gain the most from the continuation of war, and who stand to lose the most should the war end. They can provide stability in war, but can they maintain approval when the war is over, particularly when there's an internationally backed alternative that is gaining steam and support IAW Petraeus' plan? Absolutely not. So in the long run, it's absolutely the best strategy available if your goal is to defeat ISIS and JaN. And I really don't need to explain why it's in the United States interest for that to happen, and I think you know that. As far as connecting that strategy to the current situation in Iraq, you're barking up the wrong tree. Iraq was heading in a very positive direction after the surge and the efforts to build the Sahwat. It wasn't until 2013ish when Maliki's sectarianism disenfranchised the people we had spent so much time, effort, and money bringing into the fold. By the point, Obama had been President for 5 years, and it was his hands off policies that empowered that collapse. Had the US remained diplomatically engaged to ensure a continuing trend of positive developments when it comes to human rights, and fairness and equality in government, it would have continued in a positive direction. But instead we said "Those are Iraqi problems," and hosed off until ISIS was about to start pushing on Erbil. The strategy adopted in 2007 worked, and was working. Changing away from that was the gently caress up. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
troop SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURGE
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:troop SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURGE good points op
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:Yeah this seems much more indicative of incompetence than some grand conspiracy for the US to incite a PR disaster by bombing Doctors Without Borders. I genuinely don't understand the US military's supposed motive when some people claim this was a deliberate act. They were told and believed that there were enemy combatants in there, and they either didn't know it was a hospital (massive gently caress up) or they knew but decided they wouldn't let that stop them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Of course we already tried backing some moderate groups in Syria that ended up either joining or getting rolled by Nusra Front, but the much more difficult task of dividing that group now and making sure our new friends don't backslide into terrorism the second it becomes convenient will be different because
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Had the US remained diplomatically engaged to ensure a continuing trend of positive developments when it comes to human rights, and fairness and equality in government, it would have continued in a positive direction. Oh that's all? Darn we almost had it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:Yeah this seems much more indicative of incompetence than some grand conspiracy for the US to incite a PR disaster by bombing Doctors Without Borders. I genuinely don't understand the US military's supposed motive when some people claim this was a deliberate act. Literally nobody believes the US bombed a hospital to be evil dicks and this is the dumbest loving strawman. People are saying it was an accident and huge gently caress up and critical that they're trying to push varying stories between it being not a gently caress up at all and completely justified and trying to lay all the blame on Afghan forces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Literally nobody believes the US bombed a hospital to be evil dicks Actually I think euphronius does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Yeah, what I was trying to articulate earlier was that this incident showed levels of apathy and incompetence so irresponsible as to border on evil. Only a monster or a sociopath doesn't bother to avoid bombing a hospital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Actually I think euphronius does. Yeah that was the gist of what I was getting too. But the incompetence that might've allowed this is almost as horrifying of a thought. That much hardware and explosive ordinance shouldn't be handled by goddamn idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Artificer posted:Yeah that was the gist of what I was getting too. Clearly you've never met anyone that's in / been in the military.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
The US isn't trying to just dodge the responsibility for bombing a hospital, they're trying to hide that we've been bombing targets without oversight or regards to civilian safety for years, and this one just happened to be a hospital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Artificer posted:Yeah that was the gist of what I was getting too. Let me tell you about a book called Command and Control...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
It's not clear. The General said it was a mistake but that could mean many things. It is clear from the evidence we have in my opinion they knew -the military knew - it was bombing a hospital. What the mistake is - if it is not just after the fact PR- is an interesting question. Regardless they loving blew up a hospital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:Oh that's all? Darn we almost had it. "Hey guys don't beat up women who get raped." "Wait...DON'T do that? Ooooh gently caress, dude, sorry we had this all backwards. Jerry, Jerry stop man, this guy says DON'T do that!" Thanks, Obama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It is clear from the evidence we have in my opinion they knew -the military knew - it was bombing a hospital. I don't think you can actually draw that conclusion at all! Edit: Specifically that the evidence is "Clear" that they knew it was a hospital as it was being bombed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Regardless they loving blew up a hospital. Actually they didn't, they just bombed it. If they blew it up, the casualties would be higher. You think you'd have enough to be outraged about without having to exaggerate for effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I don't think you can actually draw that conclusion at all! I cite the communications from msf, the presence of American troops in the immediate area, and the well known status of the building and its long and continuous use as a hospital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually they didn't, they just bombed it. If they blew it up, the casualties would be higher. yeah take that atheists
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Specifically that the evidence is "Clear" that they knew it was a hospital as it was being bombed. That seems to be pretty clear, what they didn't know was that it was not actually occupied by the people they were trying to kill, and was instead still full of neutral doctors and patients.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I don't think you can actually draw that conclusion at all! Yeah I'm not seeing evidence that the military knew they were bombing a hospital while it was being bombed. The gently caress-up(s) I'm seeing is that C2 didn't cross check this against the list of "don't loving bomb this" sites and how long it took for them to relay to the gunship crew to stop after MSF contacted them that they're bombing a loving hospital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Literally nobody believes the US bombed a hospital to be evil dicks and this is the dumbest loving strawman. People are saying it was an accident and huge gently caress up and critical that they're trying to push varying stories between it being not a gently caress up at all and completely justified and trying to lay all the blame on Afghan forces. the literal front page of the huffington post was "Doctors Without Borders: We Were Deliberately Bombed" you moron. people ITT are saying the US deliberately did it. please read before posting, tia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the US would bomb this hospital knowing it had no strategic value and that there were no enemies inside of it that doesn't ultimately come down to "Well because they're evil and so they do evil things."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the US would bomb this hospital knowing it had no strategic value and that there were no enemies inside of it that doesn't ultimately come down to "Well because they're evil and so they do evil things." -Afghani's call it in -US chain takes request, night crew is usually less sharp and lazy -Protocol and checks aren't followed -Order given to go ahead anyway -Go back to sleep while MSF shouts to stop This isn't hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Slickdrac posted:-Afghani's call it in That sounds more negligent than deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Slickdrac posted:-Afghani's call it in yeah again, this sounds like pure incompetence, not malice or some IDF-esque situation. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That sounds more negligent than deliberate. Welcome to the military. I've watched as the entirety of the base on Al Taqqadum completely lost communication because they were digging in the comm compound and didn't check where wires were buried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That sounds more negligent than deliberate. Congrats on finally getting it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That sounds more negligent than deliberate. I don't think green lighting the use of deadly force understanding that you have not checked the civilian status of a target, knowing that possible civilian casualties are a likely outcome would be legally negligent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:49
|
|
