|
Spaceman Future! posted:yeah, we totes dont have any type of zero delay centralized communication infastructure that shares data instantaneously that can be used as an intermediary between military wings to pass data that has been provided to them between eachother. some sort of... net of communication. Wish it existed. What are you trying to say here? You might have a good point if it wasn't such a poo poo post
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Boon posted:What are you trying to say here? that trying to excuse the military for not being able to properly process the data that was shared with them in advance because the wings suck at internal communication does not change the fact that the information about this hospital had been provided to them. Trying to play semantic games about "broadcasting" or playing dumb and acting like recording and sharing basic information would require some sort of science fiction hive mind AI to sort it is transparently dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
What the MSF page actually says is:quote:MSF wishes to clarify that all parties to the conflict, including in Kabul and Washington, were clearly informed of the precise location (GPS Coordinates) of the MSF facilities – hospital, guest-house, office and an outreach stabilization unit in Chardara (to the north-west of Kunduz). As MSF does in all conflict contexts, these precise locations were communicated to all parties on multiple occasions over the past months, including most recently on 29 September. E: Kunduz Hospital Airstrike (Last update: Monday 5 October, 2015) FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
I feel like soldiers and airmen operating in a given theater should know where some important landmarks are. That is not an unreasonable presumption. Like, "oh hey, just watch out, cuz that's the school, that's town hall, and that's the hospital." Now I understand that with airmen its very different because they probably operate in a number of areas depending on the mission. But the people calling the strike in? They know where their base is, I'm sure they know the location of a few other local landmarks. You don't spend time occupying another country and not become a little familiar with the area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:39
|
|
considering your claim that "the US" knowing about a hospital's location is the same as every US military member knowing where a hospital is.
|
mlmp08 posted:
Hey if the US military didn't effectively make use of the information MSF provided so as to not bomb them, then it sounds like the US military hosed up and the people responsible for this should be held accountable  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
maybe "the US" knowing about a hospital's location should, in fact, translate to military members in charge of authorising air strikes knowing where a hospital is before they blow it the gently caress up??
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Hey if the US military didn't effectively make use of the information MSF provided so as to not bomb them, then it sounds like the US military hosed up and the people responsible for this should be held accountable Nice sentiment but everyone knows the military is full of complete fuckups from top to bottom and you can't hold any individual or group among a such gaggle of habitual clownshoes fuckups accountable for loving up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
We've already gotten past the part where people are claiming that the US military wanted to bomb a hospital and kill doctors and patients because they wanted to. Surely it's an uncontroversial statement to say that "The MSF was not lying when it said it had informed all parties of their location. It is possible that that information did not get passed on to whoever approved of the airstrike, for any number of reasons. There is a measure of fault attributable to the people whose responsibility it was to inform the person who approved of the airstrike. If the person who approved of the airstrike already had that information on hand, but did not use it (also for any number of reasons), then there is a measure of fault attributable to them as well"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:I feel like soldiers and airmen operating in a given theater should know where some important landmarks are. That is not an unreasonable presumption. Like, "oh hey, just watch out, cuz that's the school, that's town hall, and that's the hospital." Now I understand that with airmen its very different because they probably operate in a number of areas depending on the mission. But the people calling the strike in? They know where their base is, I'm sure they know the location of a few other local landmarks. You don't spend time occupying another country and not become a little familiar with the area. This is a pretty reasonable post and brings up one of the more common complaints that regular forces have with special forces. Sometimes a unit will spend a year or more in an area learning the geography, people, etc. Then a hot mission comes down, a special forces team shows up from far away, does some work, and potentially does unnecessary damage, then flies away in their fancy aircraft while the regular unit is left holding the bag. Or maybe SF either knowingly or unknowingly caused more collateral innocent damage than would be permitted on a regular unit mission. It loving sucks. Meanwhile sometimes SF knows it was worth it but isn't permitted to articulate why publicly. I'm not for a second claiming there was a good reason to shoot up the hospital in this case. This is more of a tangent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Hoo eee, this MSF conversation sure has been circular and tedious for days, what's up in US politics? Polls suggest Bernie might be competitive in a general election. Doesn't mean much at this stage but eat your hearts out, Bernouts! Also in unsurprising news, McCarthy is walking back his Benghazi Kinsley gaffe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:We've already gotten past the part where people are claiming that the US military wanted to bomb a hospital and kill doctors and patients because they wanted to. That's pretty reasonable. What's unreasonable is all the clowns in here pretending the only organization on Earth that fails to share information perfectly is the military. Granted, when PayPal repeatedly fucks up the most basic of things and lets scammers take my money while kicking back all charity donations, I don't die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Hoo eee, this MSF conversation sure has been circular and tedious for days, what's up in US politics? All good will for Bernie Sanders is going to go out the window the second someone posts a comparison video between him speaking and the Tony Clifton impersonation from Man in The Moon, its all people will be able to think about. Mark my words.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:We've already gotten past the part where people are claiming that the US military wanted to bomb a hospital and kill doctors and patients because they wanted to. A reasonable post. Something that I've been wondering this whole time is what will eventually happen at the end of 2016. We're supposed to pull out of Afghanistan by that point which will undoubtedly create an even worse situation in that country and lead to civilian deaths. However, we won't inevitably kill civilians (because that's what happens in war) but will still be blamed, rightfully/wrongfully for everything hosed up in that country. So what will Obama do? What has me slightly bemused in some of this conversation is that basically every civilian I've come across that has knowledge of both the military and non-military world has relayed to me some iteration of "Man, if you think the military is full of gently caress ups and inefficiencies, just wait until you get to the civilian sector." Boon fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That's pretty reasonable. What's unreasonable is all the clowns in here pretending the only organization on Earth that fails to share information perfectly is the military. Granted, when PayPal repeatedly fucks up the most basic of things and lets scammers take my money while kicking back all charity donations, I don't die. I don't think anyone said the military is the only organization on Earth that doesn't share information perfectly, they seem to be saying that the military is in the unique position where it blows up hospitals and kills dozens of innocent people when it fails to share information perfectly, and so it's incumbent upon them to be a wee bit better at it than other folks. You seem to understand this judging from the 2nd part of your post, so I don't know why you're being so defensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
sullat posted:I hate to criticize a clever thread title, but surely Henry Kissinger is the first to claim that honor? Doctor Henry Kissinger Pbuh was not in the chain of command. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:same as everything that gets pulled out of, completely hosed but with nothing left to make us feel like we have any responsibility to call the next day. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That's pretty reasonable. What's unreasonable is all the clowns in here pretending the only organization on Earth that fails to share information perfectly is the military. Granted, when PayPal repeatedly fucks up the most basic of things and lets scammers take my money while kicking back all charity donations, I don't die. Which is why so many of these clowns would like to see a magnitude of accountability beyond "well, stuff happens" and angry websites. It isn't exactly walking on eggshells but when you've got a humanitarian organization, who certainly is no stranger to dealing with belligerents and asking not to be bombed, stating unequivocally that they provided GPS coordinates to US military and civilian contacts (in Washington and Kabul) as a matter of routine, there's a question of why they got bombed this time. What is the mechanism for transmitting this information to the correct people? Was it followed? Assuming the GPS coordinates were in the possession of the correct people, what is the procedure for checking to ensure you aren't calling in an airstrike on a hospital? Was that followed? You can follow that line of questioning all the way down until someone either can't prove they stuck to protocol or they admit they didn't. That's why PayPal got fined something like 7 million bucks when it turned out the people tasked with running ID info against OFAC lists were just greenlighting a known SDN for years because it was faster just to verify the validity of their passport and claim it was a misunderstanding if anyone asked. (That type of clownshoes "fast and dirty" game is why I quit and took a better paying job doing AML at a proper bank  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Maybe I'm way off base here, but is it SOP to fire on an unidentified building of unknown occupancy simply because somebody thought they might have seen a gun? Or do we just screen a select few of our targets at random or something? I mean, yes, I already understand that war is random. There are levels of bureaucracy and incompetence and fog. No one is liable because no one really knows what happens when you fire live ordinance on a city center, who ordered it, or why. Granted. But how often do we fire on occupied structures? Is there a ratio of terrorists to civilians that must be achieved, or do we just bomb whomever we're told is a threat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
I propose that we put post-it notes in all military aircraft with the positions of local MSF facilities, so that whoever is responsible for "not blowing up doctors" can double check before they detonate a building.
I am not a book fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Maybe I'm way off base here, but is it SOP to fire on an unidentified building of unknown occupancy simply because somebody thought they might have seen a gun? No.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Doctor Henry Kissinger Pbuh was not in the chain of command. If you're okay with bombing future Nobel prize winners, you could count Begin bombing the PLO (and, by proxy, Arafat) during the Lebanon War.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Maybe I'm way off base here, but is it SOP to fire on an unidentified building of unknown occupancy simply because somebody thought they might have seen a gun? Or do we just screen a select few of our targets at random or something? The short answer is no. I very nearly posted a link to opensource material that would discuss how this is conducted then I realized something. It'd be one hell of an open can of worms considering some people here wouldn't understand the whole thing and just pick out what they thought was happening based on half-understood concepts and then I'd try to correct people who had already made up their mind. Boon fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:If you're okay with bombing future Nobel prize winners, you could count Begin bombing the PLO (and, by proxy, Arafat) during the Lebanon War. Sounds like a strong contender, but I might have to give the victory to Obama. Edit: and sir posting immediately above me, I'd totally read that open source material.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Boon posted:The short answer is no. I very nearly posted a link to opensource material that would discuss how this is conducted then I realized something. It'd be one hell of an open can of worms considering some people here wouldn't understand the whole thing and just pick out what they thought was happening based on half-understood concepts and then I'd try to correct people who had already made up their mind. That reads a lot like "I have an explanation, but I don't think you'd agree with my long-winded justification for bombing civilians."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Edit: and sir posting immediately above me, I'd totally read that open source material. A Terrible Person posted:That reads a lot like "I have an explanation, but I don't think you'd agree with my long-winded justification for bombing civilians."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
MSF has never struck me as a very spiteful organization and I'm wondering what motives folks assume they have for hypothetically lying about multiple aspects of the bombing attack on their hospital. e: Hey Toyota, why do 10 out of 10 Mujahideen fireteams ask for the Hilux by name? (Seriously Hiluxes have been right up there with hummers, blazers, and escalades as far as "vehicles invariably driven by dangerous pieces of garbage" for like 30 years because they're drat near indestructible) FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Were our guys with the Afghanis to verify if they were taking fire from the hospital? If not or if everyone on the ground agreed then C2 probably revoked the hospitals protected status based on available information. "Confirmation or not, gently caress 'em, they're expendable. We have a War on Terror™ to win, after all."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Hoo eee, this MSF conversation sure has been circular and tedious for days, what's up in US politics? It's going to keep on going it seems as MSF wants a war crimes probe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
I uh want to talk about guns again
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Gowdy on McCarthy's Benghazi commentsquote:“I heard from him at 6 a.m. the next morning,” said Gowdy, whose name was recently floated for House majority leader. “How many times can somebody apologize? Yes, he’s apologized as many times as a human can apologize. It doesn’t change it. It doesn’t fix it. The only thing you can say is, instead of listening to someone else’s words, why don’t you look at our actions?” He's also stopped taking McCarthy's calls, or calls from anyone else in the leadership. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:e: Hey Toyota, why do 10 out of 10 Mujahideen fireteams ask for the Hilux by name? This article is written in such a way that seems to imply that the author and "US officials" aren't aware that consumer pickups in general and the highlux in particular have been the vehicle of choice of irregular armies on multiple continents for, like, 40 years. I mean there's an African war named after them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Gowdy on McCarthy's Benghazi comments Huh. Do you think he's realized how stupid he is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Huh. Do you think he's realized how stupid he is? Well, he's realized that managing the majority is a fool's errand and has removed himself from a horse race that would ruin his relationship with half the caucus, so he's not that stupid. He isn't Chaffetz, doing whatever he can to get attention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:All good will for Bernie Sanders is going to go out the window the second someone posts a comparison video between him speaking and the Tony Clifton impersonation from Man in The Moon, its all people will be able to think about. Mark my words. Maybe Andy Kaufman never died but just moved to Vermont?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Boon posted:What has me slightly bemused in some of this conversation is that basically every civilian I've come across that has knowledge of both the military and non-military world has relayed to me some iteration of "Man, if you think the military is full of gently caress ups and inefficiencies, just wait until you get to the civilian sector." Probably just grass is greener chat. I've been a civilian for like 5 years now, and there's definitely gently caress ups. The thing is, they can get fired at a whim. In the military, they gain rank just for being in, and there's a very, very low floor for how lovely they can be at life. They reenlist because they don't know anything else, and the next thing you know, they're a first sergeant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Probably just grass is greener chat. I've been a civilian for like 5 years now, and there's definitely gently caress ups. The thing is, they can get fired at a whim. In the military, they gain rank just for being in, and there's a very, very low floor for how lovely they can be at life. They reenlist because they don't know anything else, and the next thing you know, they're a first sergeant. Then they retire after twenty years and join private security or your local police force.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Hoo eee, this MSF conversation sure has been circular and tedious for days, what's up in US politics? Pretty sure that McCarthy isn't going to be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube on that one, not with both Hillary and the Tortilla Coast Caucus bludgeoning him with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Just a note: it's misleading to act like the military can't or won't share joint fire doctrine publications or that'd be an OPSEC Nono. Anyone with Internet can go to dtic.mil/publications and get a bunch of pubs without CAC or login access. Obviously SF SOPs and theater/area ROE is a different story as well as the comms architecture which will be critical in determining whether this was a failure of systems/organization or a failure of individuals screwing up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
A lot of stuff is marked FOUO which means it shouldn't be further disseminated or commented on where found.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Boon posted:A lot of stuff is marked FOUO which means it shouldn't be further disseminated or commented on where found. Not the new JPs (mostly). 3-09 isn't tagged FOUO and is available without any kind of wall. Other manuals on dtic are not available from the main page and require a login. Those are FOUO or higher. 3-09.3 is one of those, though, so edit: "Per reference f: “Documents shall be marked ‘FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY’ at the bottom of the outside of the front cover (if there is one), the title page, the first page, and the outside of the back cover (if there is one). Optionally, for consistency with classified systems, the document may be marked ‘UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.’ Internal pages of the document that contain FOUO information shall be marked ‘FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY’ at the bottom. Optionally, for consistency with classified systems, internal pages may be marked ‘UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY’ or ‘UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO’; in such case internal pages shall be marked at both the top and bottom. Subjects, titles, and each section, part, paragraph, or similar portion of an FOUO document shall be marked to show that they contain information requiring protection. Use the parenthetical notation ‘(FOUO)’ (or optionally ‘U//FOUO)’) to identify information as FOUO for this purpose. Place this notation immediately before the text.” " Everything openly available on the dtic site I mentioned is not marked FOUO per pub writing guidance quoted above. I'm being pedantic, because I don't want some opsec ranger wasting an investigators time or my time. edit2: this is a pretty cool resource provided openly by dtic. A graphical representation of the doctrine hierarchy with clickable links. Those that require CAC/login access are highlighted so you don't waste your time clicking on them. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/status.pdf mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 13:49
|
|