US attack on Doctors without Borders was intentional

Having gained familiarity now with the broader culture of the ATS community, I'm surprised that I have yet to see any articles posted on here from The Intercept (sorry if articles from The Intercept have been posted on here in the past... I must have missed them).

Origin of The Intercept (Skip this if you're already familiar with the site/Glenn Greenwald):
In case you don't already know, The Intercept is an online news magazine created by journalist Glenn Greenwald. Glenn Greenwald originally broke the Edward Snowden story while working for The Guardian. He was the first journalist that Edward Snowden sought out to expose the truth about the US surveillance state. After that event, Glenn Greenwald left The Guardian in order to develop his own news site focused on issues related to privacy, security, government corruption and the corruption of the mainstream media.

The Recent Scoop:
This recent article by The Intercept and written by Glenn Greenwald himself aggressively attack's the mainstream media's patriotic blindness and its failure to scrutinize the American government with regard to the attack on the Doctors without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan by US forces last month. The article essentially claims that the idea that the attack was an accident is absurd. I've provided an excerpt below as well as a link to the full article. Enjoy, and if this is your first introduction to The Intercept, be sure to browse their other recent articles - especially The Drone Papers. Also please be aware that The Intercept cites all sources, cross-references all facts, and in my personal opinion is one of the only and best journalistic media outlets left in the world. This is the only media outlet I trust. They have yet to disappoint and they continue to impress.

Excerpt from "U.S. Journalists Who Instantly Exonerated Their Government of the Kunduz Hospital Attack, Declaring it an Accident," by Glenn Greenwald:

It is, of course, pleasing to view your own tribe as inherently superior. It feels nice to believe that your own side is so intrinsically moral, so Exceptional, that one needs no “evidence” or “investigation” to know immediately that any bad acts are unintended. It is a massive relief to know that things like “war crimes” and intentionally bombing structures protected by the Geneva Conventions can only be done by the countries declared by your government to be adversaries, but never by your own government.

But as comforting, uplifting and self-affirming as that worldview is, it is literally the exact antithesis of the skepticism that the most basic precepts of journalism require. Declaring your own government innocent when it repeatedly bombs a well-known, well-established hospital filled with doctors, nurses and patients — before you have the slightest idea what actually happened, and in the face of all kinds of evidence in conflict with such assurances of innocence — is inexcusable for all sorts of obvious reasons. Very unfortunately, this sort of hyper-nationalism and reflexively tribalistic self-love is pervasive in American journalism — Americans do not do such things — which is why the U.S. government knows that it can engage in such acts without any accountability or even pressure to allow an independent investigation.

Article Link

a reply to: Squidleepie

My internet is running slow today and clicking the link takes forever.

Could you tell me if the articled mentions why the US would knowingly bomb the hospital? What purpose it served?

I read the part of your post that states the absurdity of the US not knowing in was a hospital, I am just wondering how that would benefit the US.

If my internet picks up speed, I'll read the full story. I was just hoping you could shed some light.

a reply to: Squidleepie

The piece loving muslims would never hide out in a school, use children as a shield, store weapons in a mosque, nor would the ever congregate in a hospital, now would they?

Here are a couple quotes from the article that might shed some light:

Shortly after the news broke of the U.S. attack on a Doctors without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, there was abundant evidence suggesting (not proving, but suggesting) that the attack was no accident: (1) MSF repeatedly told the U.S. military about the precise coordinates of its hospital, which had been operating for years; (2) the Pentagon’s story about what happened kept changing, radically, literally on a daily basis; (3) the exact same MSF hospital had been invaded by Afghan security forces three months earlier, demonstrating hostility toward the facility; (4) the attack lasted more than 30 minutes and involved multiple AC-130 gunship flyovers, even as MSF officials frantically pleaded with the U.S. military to stop; and, most compellingly of all, (5) Afghan officials from the start said explicitly that the hospital was a valid and intended target due to the presence of Taliban fighters as patients.

(The claim that the hospital had been taken over by Taliban fighters has been repeatedly debunked, including by MSF just yesterday; they also quite rightly pronounced themselves “disgusted” at the suggestion that even if it were true that Taliban fighters were among the patients, razing their hospital would be justified.)

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

Yes those doctors where really terrorist, those evil muslim are not just taking away our land (lol), there taking our doctors too.

a reply to: Enochstask
Hah! You're trolling again, huh?

How are they our enemy again???

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

They would knowingly bomb the hospital if they thought they could take out a high value target as well.
Collateral Damage, that business like euphemism for murder is merely an exercise in Cost/Benefit Analysis.

The benefit is they believed they "got their man" but the cost was having to cover the PR fiasco of blowing a hospital & all of its innocent inhabitants to hell.

Yes the chain of command knew it was a hospital & they bombed it anyway in the real or imagined belief they could take their target.

Worked great, a week or two of bad press & boom back to business with no "real" repercussions other than some harsh words.

K~

a reply to: Enochstask

But this kind of activity is against Geneva Conventions. Based on your logic, the Geneva Conventions are wrong, not the activity of bombing a hospital. Thoughts?

originally posted by: Enochstask
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Wow, twice tonight I've used that word tonight, but wow.
Doctors without borders treat humans in dangerous places, first in, last out.
I would prefer you were bombed than them but hey, what do I know, I'm a LIBERAL bloke who cares about people who treat victims of warfare.

a reply to: Squidleepie

How many muslims abide by the Christian values of the Geneva Convention?

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
Could you tell me if the articled mentions why the US would knowingly bomb the hospital? What purpose it served?

I read the part of your post that states the absurdity of the US not knowing in was a hospital, I am just wondering how that would benefit the US.

In order to understand the answer to that question, one has to see what is hiding behind the facade...

The only way to see it is to set aside everything we have been told and forget everything that the MSM is saying.

Notice the highlighted quote below: “incredibly evil in intent”.

JFK also warned us as well about a “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy”.

Those words cost him his life BTW...

"Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand." ~ Benjamin Disraeli; Prime Minister of England

Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

According to six of our former presidents, one vice-president, and a myriad of other high profile political leaders, an invisible government that is “incredibly evil in intent” has been in control of the U.S. government “ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” (since at least 1836). They “virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties… It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”

“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President (1825-1832)

From Washington to JFK: Former Presidents Warn About Illuminati

By adopting this chameleon strategy, this satanic cult infiltrated and subverted most governments and religions, and established an invisible tyranny without drawing much attention. ~ Henry Makow Ph.D.

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

"Danny Casolaro called it "the Octopus". A vast, interlocking network of criminal conspiracy that reaches into every branch and agency of the U.S. government, many other national governments, and every sector of our societies."

a reply to: Violater1

Since when is debasing our own moral values in order to match our enemy's brutality a logical decision if our primary goal is to make a better, safer, more peaceful world for ourselves?

Also, you should not conflate terrorists with muslims. The vast majority of muslims are not terrorists.

Let's face it. We knew they knew and did it anyway.

The US PTB are scum as are their military and its commanders. (As are most PTB on every side but let's keep to the context of the US actions in this particular incident as outlined in the OP to prevent thread drift.)

After all 'just following orders' was never a defence even for the lowest ranking nazis at the Nuremburg trials so I say hang the douchebags that flew those gunships along with their chain of command and anyone that tries to defend their actions.

originally posted by: Violater1
a reply to: Squidleepie

How many muslims abide by the Christian values of the Geneva Convention?

How many Christians abide by Christian values? Bigots will always find excuses to do evil things!

a reply to: Squidleepie

Thanks squid.

a reply to: HumberWarrior

It's also important to note that after WWII, governments across the world (including the US) adopted a policy that allows military servicemen to reject orders they deem unethical or illegal. This policy adoption was intended to safeguard the world from experiencing another event like the holocaust.

a reply to: Squidleepie
Really?
Explain this then:
OOOppps, forgot, real video and photos of muslims mutilating people are not tolerated here. Video removed but you can go to Youtube and see it there. ( RwQzFuG9eBo ).
Infuriated anti-Christian intolerant Obamabots attacking in 4...3...2...

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

They would knowingly bomb the hospital if they thought they could take out a high value target as well.
Collateral Damage, that business like euphemism for murder is merely an exercise in Cost/Benefit Analysis.

The benefit is they believed they "got their man" but the cost was having to cover the PR fiasco of blowing a hospital & all of its innocent inhabitants to hell.

Yes the chain of command knew it was a hospital & they bombed it anyway in the real or imagined belief they could take their target.

Worked great, a week or two of bad press & boom back to business with no "real" repercussions other than some harsh words.

K~

That was my first thought... that there was a target inside.

A lot of collateral damage though if that is the case.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

As the article states, it has been suggested that there were Taliban members in the hospital, receiving treatment. The article also reminds us that US forces repeatedly attacked hospitals in Cambodia during conflict there, to the point where it was a recognisable modus operandi in the region. Not only that, but this hospital had already been assaulted by Afghan army personnel, backed up by Spooky gunships and God alone knows what else, in a previous incident.

Now, whether or not a persons opinion, is that any organisation or person offering medical treatment to Taliban forces is asking for whatever it gets, the law of war clearly prohibits this sort of behaviour, and the article goes on to say quite a bit about how utterly unwilling the media have been, to ask the hard questions, and more importantly, hunt for real answers.

Its a fair point. Historically, the US has performed air strikes on hospitals in other campaigns, in other wars, and therefore it would not be a total shocker if it turned out that a particular target becoming dead, was considered more important than the lives of the innocent persons inside the hospital.

Furthermore, it must be said that anyone who is prepared to bomb a hospital to take out a few injured terrorists, has lost their minds. This is the twenty first century, not the dark ages. We have the ability to take targets out using surgically precise, and low visibility methods, and those should be used in place of heavy shelling, artillery, and air strikes, especially when civilian collateral is a certainty if a bomb is dropped.

Any other attitude smacks of inhumanity.