|
Negligent acts are deliberate. What makes it negligent is not observing some duty of care.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 20:49 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 02:34 |
|
i thought we'd agreed that it couldn't be negligent because that could still be a war crime and we don't do those by definition
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 20:50 |
|
kustomkarkommando posted: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. You've never read about OSHA cases have you?
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 20:51 |
|
I think you would have to argue that the person waving target confirmation reasonably believed that civilian deaths where not likely, considering the presumption of civilian status given to objects which are not confirmed to be of a military nature under protocol 1 (yes yes I know it's the us were talking about) I don't think that would be a reasonable assumption to make
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 20:52 |
|
euphronius posted: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. It's certainly possible one or more of the above did, but we don't loving know right now, it's your opinion that they knew, but that's not fact.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 20:54 |
|
Artificer posted: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. Let's Talk About Idiots
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 20:55 |
|
As I said inferences from evidence is a normal thing to do.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 20:56 |
|
Volkerball posted: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.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 20:57 |
|
euphronius posted:Negligent acts are deliberate. What makes it negligent is not observing some duty of care. Is that what this is about? You want to be able to say "The US deliberately bombed a hospital" instead of "US negligence caused a hospital to be bombed" and have the former contain a kernel of truth (in that someone deliberately pulled a trigger to drop a bomb on something) so that it isn't a total lie, and you're accomplishing this by being pedantic about the word "deliberate." Why do you care?
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:00 |
|
euphronius posted:As I said inferences from evidence is a normal thing to do.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:01 |
|
Bobby Jindal is the scum of the Earthquote:We fill Our Culture With Garbage, And We Reap The Result
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:03 |
|
i mean what even is the military?
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:07 |
|
euphronius posted:As I said inferences from evidence is a normal thing to do. Your inferences are not fact, nor supported by concrete evidence. Perhaps you should stop presenting them as concrete facts, and you might get serious discussion.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:10 |
|
Ernie Muppari posted:i mean what even is the military? Sometimes we give our men clubs and have them go take food and women from the tribe across the river.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:10 |
|
things we can say are the root cause of mass shootings: mental illness, abortion, divorce, lack of prayer in schools things which we cannot say are the root cause of mass shootings: guns, gunmen
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:11 |
|
Ernie Muppari posted:i thought we'd agreed that it couldn't be negligent because that could still be a war crime and we don't do those by definition No, that was because negligence has a specific legal definition that this probably doesn't meet. In the common usage, it was negligence. Ernie Muppari posted:i mean what even is the military? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh0Y2hVe_bw
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:11 |
|
DemeaninDemon posted:You've never read about OSHA cases have you? It all hinges on whether the acts where reckless, in knowingly green lighting the strikes without following proper procedures the individual in question was aware civilian casualties where a likely outcome but none the less took the risk, or if it was negligent, the individual should have known that failure to abide by certain standards of conduct could lead to civilian casualties but believed those negative consequences would not occur. They are two rather different things.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:13 |
|
I see Jindal apparently has lots of free time to write his scorching hot takes about bad parenting.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:14 |
|
Fried Chicken posted:Bobby Jindal is the scum of the Earth Hmmm if it was anyone else I'd not wonder this, but wonder if Bobby's trying to touch on old D&D panic too.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:15 |
|
Fojar38 posted:Sometimes we give our men clubs and have them go take food and women from the tribe across the river. but i mean, does that make them a ~military~? can one man with a club ever truly know that he and the man with a club next to him are working towards the same goal? can any of us?
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:15 |
|
this_is_hard posted: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. There is a big difference between believing they deliberately bombed it because they hosed up and believing they deliberately bombed it to purposely murder doctors and patients for ??? reasons which is what is being strawmanned and conflated a whole hell of a lot in this thread. Please work on your anger issues and general disingenuous twattiness.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:15 |
|
Raerlynn posted:Your inferences are not fact, nor supported by concrete evidence. Perhaps you should stop presenting them as concrete facts, and you might get serious discussion. Not concrete evidence: statements by the victims, admissions from the perpetrators, historical fact.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:19 |
|
euphronius posted:Not concrete evidence: statements by the victims, admissions from the perpetrators, historical fact. yeah we get that's how you see the world, doesn't mean its backed up by reality
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:20 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:yeah we get that's how you see the world, doesn't mean its backed up by reality These are thing reported in newspapers and said by generals in front of Congress. On Twitter even.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:22 |
|
Deliberately committing an action that results in negative unintended consequences does not retroactively make that action accidental.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:23 |
|
Artificer posted:Who the hell designed this system. Seems like a rather major hole. hahahahahahahahaha "designed" hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:23 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I see Jindal apparently has lots of free time to write his scorching hot takes about bad parenting. Well it's not like his donors are returning his calls at this point.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:25 |
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Deliberately committing an action that results in negative unintended consequences does not retroactively make that action accidental. Yeah and notice the pentagon os saying "mistake" now and not "accidental". You can label something a mistake in hindsight. Although it's 4:00 pm they might say something else by dinner.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:26 |
|
euphronius posted:These are thing reported in newspapers and said by generals in front of Congress. oh please, do tell me what is the "historical fact" that proves the US government wanted to bomb a hospital knowing it had no enemies there I eagerly await your response to see where the goal posts shift now
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:27 |
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:There is a big difference between believing they deliberately bombed it because they hosed up and believing they deliberately bombed it to purposely murder doctors and patients for ??? reasons which is what is being strawmanned and conflated a whole hell of a lot in this thread. that was my original point, so once again, please read before posting.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:27 |
|
this_is_hard posted:that was my original point, so once again, please read before posting. I'm sorry I didn't memorize the posts of every user in this thread forums poster this_is_hard. You called me a moron for saying that nobody is claiming the US bombed a hospital for supervillain motivations. Incompetence and deliberate action are not mutually exclusive concepts but some people can't seem to grasp that in this thread. If you say they deliberately bombed the building all you're saying is it wasn't stray fire and was their intended target, not that there is some conspiracy to destroy an Afghan hospital. Whether they knew it was a hospital or had any rational reason for doing bombing runs on it is inconclusive and largely irrelevant to the fact that someone should be culpable and right now they're passing the buck pretty hard.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:29 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:oh please, do tell me what is the "historical fact" that proves the US government wanted to bomb a hospital knowing it had no enemies there My position is that U.S. knowledge that the hospital is a hospital is a reasonable inference from evidence.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:31 |
|
euphronius posted:My position is that U.S. knowledge that the hospital is a hospital is a reasonable inference from evidence. Was a hospital.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:33 |
|
euphronius posted:These are thing reported in newspapers and said by generals in front of Congress. Huh that's odd. It's almost like you can't believe everything you read when it comes from one point of view! While we're on the subject, no those things are not concrete evidence. Concrete evidence is something that can prove a fact on its own with no other qualifying requirement. For example, a digital time stamp complete and a recording of the flight crew is concrete evidence, since it proves what was said when, without any other item required to prove the point. A piece of forensic evidence is concrete evidence (I. E. A literal smoking gun complete with fingerprints), because it concretely proves beyond a shadow of any doubt that the gun was discharged, and that the accused handled it. Testimony is at best circumstantial, because it relies on the circumstances that the witness's senses and recollections are to be trusted implicitly. Senses can be deceived or impaired. Recollections can be inaccurate on key details and subject to personal bias. This is why eyewitness accounts in criminal trials don't mean much, compared to a gun with the accused's fingerprints on it. So in other words, no you really don't have loving concrete evidence to draw your inferences from, you loving tin foil wearing dipshit.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:33 |
|
euphronius posted:My position is that U.S. knowledge that the hospital is a hospital is a reasonable inference from evidence. It's very obvious that someone somewhere involved in military operations there knew this. Whether the people involved in approving the bombing run knew or even made an effort to cross-check is unknowable, but if they didn't then something about protocol needs to be changed. This is what you're trying to say euphronius, yeah?
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:33 |
|
euphronius posted:My position is that U.S. knowledge that the hospital is a hospital is a reasonable inference from evidence. Please post this evidence. mr. mephistopheles posted:It's very obvious that someone somewhere involved in military operations there knew this. Whether the people involved in approving the bombing run knew or even made an effort to cross-check is unknowable, but if they didn't then something about protocol needs to be changed. No, he's saying that US bombed the hospital to appease the demon that lives in every soldier's heart, I think.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:34 |
|
Er, why are we giving the US Military the benefit of the doubt at this point?
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:34 |
|
zoux posted:Er, why are we giving the US Military the benefit of the doubt at this point? Because contrary to goon opinion they aren't a bunch of literal murderdrones powered by hatred and racism.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:35 |
|
It's really stupid and dumb that anyone is sticking up for the military here. Excusing or justifying the bombing of a hospital is pretty dumb; it's a stupid discussion to have, too, since we shouldn't even be blowing up buildings and wedding parties and everything else in the middle-east just to catch a minority of people who, justly or unjustly, bear us ill will. What if it wasn't a hospital? What if it was a storefront or an apartment building? It being a hospital just makes the bombing more egregious; the whole situation is wrong and hosed even if you don't look into the details. This is why it's easy for the right to win arguments, or look like they did - they get us stupid lefties arguing over the finer points of horror, like we're arguing over how hot the flames in hell are. Then again people still defend the ability of the average person to purchase a paramilitary arsenal, and how all these deaths are acceptable losses because real Americans can still buy their toys, so I'm not surprised.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:35 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 02:34 |
|
euphronius posted:My position is that U.S. knowledge that the hospital is a hospital is a reasonable inference from evidence. ah right, that was your "historical" data, a solid shifting of the goal posts mr. mephistopheles posted:It's very obvious that someone somewhere involved in military operations there knew this. Whether the people involved in approving the bombing run knew or even made an effort to cross-check is unknowable, but if they didn't then something about protocol needs to be changed. Of course this is completely that an ac-130 isn't targeted by coordinates, so there wouldn't be any coordinates to confirm...but whatever
|
# ? Oct 6, 2015 21:35 |