It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US attack on Doctors without Borders was intentional

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Have you guys read "Dirty Wars" by Jeremy Scahill? There's a film, too.
I've only read the book, about three years ago. It's a big, thick book, and it scared the crap out of me.

This world is hideous.


edit on 11/7/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Offhand I don't know exactly what would happen if you refuse an order in the military that you believe to be illegal. I think you're probably right though that you'd at the very least end up in a military court where your fate then gets decided.

Also, just to clarify, Snowden and Manning did not simply refuse orders. They stole classified intel and exposed it to the world (don't get me wrong, I think it was quite noble of both of them, but "stole" is an accurate verb to use regardless). So having your passport revoked is what happens when you become a fugitive, even if you're a morally righteous fugitive.

And Rumseld and Cheney have not been tried for crimes against humanity because the United State refuses to join that sector of the UN international court system. If we did join, a good number of Americans would likely get indicted.

And finally, I commend you for leaving those corporate jobs you mentioned on ethical grounds. Sometimes the "right thing" requires self-sacrifice. The world, little by little, improves when people like you stand up for what you believe in and say "No, this is wrong." Thank you for making the world a little bit better.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Squidleepie


governments across the world (including the US) adopted a policy that allows military servicemen to reject orders they deem unethical or illegal.

That's very cool, in theory....

but, if they do, don't they get court-martialed and sent to the federal penn and/or exiled and tried for treason and have their passports revoked? (Like Snowden and Manning, you know?)

I was a young teen during the Vietnam war...I was terrified my younger brothers would be drafted. My classmates had older siblings who were coming back in wheelchairs and totally messed up in the head.

Fast forward twelve years: My husband is a National Guard (Army) MP (retired)....and he and I have talked often about conscientious objection....I have left corporate jobs because they insisted I do their bidding but I said "no, this is wrong." He has also made judgement calls as to whether a situation was worth pounding and prosecuting or not.

Why are Rumsfeld and Cheney (and GW) NOT on trial for crimes against humanity? And Obama and his drones also?

Please?






Why not indeed?

Society is in a perpetual decline.

I thought the days of GHW were bad....how naive was I?

It's only gotten worse because it's more covert.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Squidleepie

Thank YOU! For the acknowledgement.

I also passed up work opportunities so I could stay home and raise my kids.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Squidleepie


And Rumseld and Cheney have not been tried for crimes against humanity because the United State refuses to join that sector of the UN international court system. If we did join, a good number of Americans would likely get indicted.

A bit duplicitous, methinks? It really bothers me, the "Military/Industrial" thing going on here in the USA.

And people wonder why so many of our own citizens are homeless, hungry, helpless......or, well, maybe people know exactly why.....
but still endorse it.
Shameful. IMHO.



edit on 11/7/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Squidleepie


And Rumseld and Cheney have not been tried for crimes against humanity because the United State refuses to join that sector of the UN international court system. If we did join, a good number of Americans would likely get indicted.

A bit duplicitous, methinks? It really bothers me, the "Military/Industrial" thing going on here in the USA.

And people wonder why so many of our own citizens are homeless, hungry, helpless......or, well, maybe people know exactly why.....
but still endorse it.
Shameful. IMHO.





I would think more of the homeless and hunger comes from ill-equipped people making babies before they can afford to raise them. When you have babies making babies you create this mess.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Squidleepie
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?


Oh, the Taliban signed the convention?

That would be news to me.

So would the combatants wearing a uniform which affords them said protection.

Shrug.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel—whether civilian or military—are entitled to protection from hostile fire under the Geneva Conventions, PROVIDED THAT structures are marked with a red cross or red crescent and NOT USED IMPROPERLY OR NEAR MILITARY OBJECTIVES.

In other words the Doctors broke the COnventions stipulation because they used it improperly by treating ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who were MILITARY TARGETS themselves.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel—whether civilian or military—are entitled to protection from hostile fire under the Geneva Conventions, PROVIDED THAT structures are marked with a red cross or red crescent and NOT USED IMPROPERLY OR NEAR MILITARY OBJECTIVES.

In other words the Doctors broke the COnventions stipulation because they used it improperly by treating ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who were MILITARY TARGETS themselves.


They treat the wounded from both sides! They broke no conventions, that was done by the US military (once again) who are always above the law.
Deliberately hitting the wounded in a hospital has to be one of the most cowardly acts imaginable.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


In other words the Doctors broke the Conventions stipulation because they used it improperly by treating ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who were MILITARY TARGETS themselves.

Wounded soldiers are no longer combatants under the Geneva convention. Despite that the US occupation is illegal in the first place, I mean.

Defending such action is criminal.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
The USA is root to all evil - haven't we figured that out already? Stop arguing about x & y - thats what they want you to. Focus on the real enemy and stop playing their game.

And to all Americans who defend the actions of their government - stop lying to yourself.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Enochstask
This thread isn't about me it's about that criminal organization Doctors Without Borders. It might be a good time for you now to review the T&C's of the site.


Ok, let's assume you have a point ... now please give some proof of their criminal behavior.

First of all, I do concur that a war has no rules. If there are rules in a war, then this war isn't necessary it's just some "game" piece in a morons brain. Having said this, one also has to look at those who fight ... if the US is so desperate in getting a few combatants, that they have to bomb a hospital to get them. Then one has to check, weather the US isn't really losing this war. I'm not saying, that if it was me ... I wouldn't want them dead. I'm saying that if it was me, I'd hardly consider getting a few combatants was worth the life of the good people working at the hospital. I could always send an assassin or two, and pluck them in their bed if that was really necessary. However, and here is the most important part ... targetting individuals in a war ... is in reality a crime. War, is not about individuals ... it's about resources, and control of these, for the benefit of the people ... So targetting individuals, tells me, that the US is insane. It's lost the perspective of what the war is about, and is acting like Adolf Hitler, hating the Jews. Just replace "Adolf Hitler" with whoever you want in the US/British coalition and "Jews" with whatever they blame for their own incompetence at any specific moment.

The problem here, in my point of view ... is that the world has for 70 years, blamed Germans for killing Jews. This is wrong, as it has left the seed that "killing jews" is wrong. Killing arabs is ok, doing a genocide on Talibans is ok ... they treat women badly. Just as long as you don't "kill jews".

The crime, in both of these cases I mention ... is that the US, as well as Germany in WWII. Blamed their own incompetence on others, and then spent years in murdering those people ... instead of focusing on the real problem ... themselves.

That was, and still is, the true crime.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
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.


Could the "fog of war" have led to the attack? That's my guess. A war brought under fraud will usually bring all sorts of illegal and immoral actions.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Could the "fog of war" have led to the attack?
No, because Doctors without Borders have repeatedly stated that they informed US authorities they were there.
The US war machine just #ed them over, yeah Murika!



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Squidleepie

Actually, Bush & Co, about 8, were convicted by an international tribunal in Kuala Lampur, I think in April 2012.

Yes, in absentia. The effort was led by US law professor Francis Boyle, but you will never hear about it on NBC or CBS.

They were convicted of war crimes, with the main witnesses being those who had been rendered and held illegally.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Well the term, at least to me, covers all sorts of irrational actions.

I agree that it was targeted on purpose, therefore it was an intentional act and not a mistake.

Just as the Lucifer Effect manifests in certain conditions, as covered by Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiment, so too can such behavior manifest in an age of killing by drone.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I assume we agree then that it was an absolute disgrace and the US government/military should be ashamed of its actions in this case.
It is on a par with Assad bombing residential areas in my opinion, strange how so many US members don't condemn this attack on DWB for the state sponsored terrorism it actually was.
Frankly sickening.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Squidleepie

To see how things play out when a soldier refuses orders, familiarize yourself with the case of 1Lt. Ehren Watada. He fought the beast, and he won. A very rare story, but he won.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Yes, we agree completely. Having served the US Army myself decades ago, I am embarrassed by how criminal my government has become.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join