U.S. Plane Shot Victims Fleeing Doctors Without Borders Hospital.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Tyrion79

Rules in war only apply to those that are winning.

Much like principles only apply to those who are well fed.

You are right it is a very sad state of affairs....

a reply to: Zaphod58

It looks like this report just came out a few days ago. I hadn't heard anything more about this for a while, so I figured it was going to be swept under the rug.

Here are a few excerpts from your source:

...the aircraft launched without a mission briefing.

...lacking the information it otherwise would have received during a standard briefing, including the location of the nearby hospital and the fact that it was on a no-strike list.

The AC-130's onboard computer was malfunctioning, leaving the crew without the ability to transmit video, email or electronic messages. That led to insufficient communication between the aircraft crew and troops on the ground, the report found.

...when the flight crew input the coordinates it had been given, the gunship's computers inaccurately displayed an open field as the target,

As a result, the crew used a physical description of "a large building near an open field" to identify what they thought was the proper target — but which was in fact the MSF hospital.

... no gunfire that would indicate it was, as they believed, a hostile target. They continued firing anyway.

... took 17 minutes for commanders to realize it was the AC-130 firing on the wrong target

... no explanation why the gunship crew would continue to fire — for about half an hour, according to the Pentagon — at a target that was not firing back.

So this is a crude summary:

• Flight crew misses the mission briefing, no good idea of what the target is, or that there's a hospital next door.
  
• Onboard computer was malfunctioning leaving the crew with limited communication capabilities.
  
• Then the computer gave them inaccurate coordinates, and they guessed that the target was really the building next door.
  
• Even though there was no return fire, the gunship poured it on for over a half hour, or more. Even after the computer provided them with more accurate coordinates, they still attacked.
  
• Then MSF gets through to command and it takes 17 minutes before they realize it's their gunship.
  

Seems to me that the computer problems alone should have caused the AC-130 to return to base. But then the crew guesses at the target. The AC-130 Gunship is a vicious piece of machinery. And that is an obscene amount of firepower to throw at a guess!

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Somehow, I get the feeling that certain facts are conveniently distorted in the report, to let the incident look more like an accident, then what really happened.
Could be just me though...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
This was a case of a series of screw ups. The gunship was targeting an intelligence headquarters that had fallen, only couldn't find it using their sensors, so relied on a Special Forces team on the ground to identify the building, which wasn't far from the hospital.

The SF team failed to stop the attack whenthe shells started to land on the hospital, which led the crew of the gunship to believe they were hitting the right building, and anyone leaving it was an insurgent.

Do you really believe Pentagon reports? I don't because I can remember the Pentagon Papers and what they revealed--consistent deception by the generals.

This report is nothing more the CYA by the pentagon. Some low level enlisted men will take the fall, SOP for military brass. Some document will "explain" the "error", and the gullible will embrace it. SOP

Yes a series of easily avoidable screw ups
Firstly the AC apparently set off early as such didn't receive the latest target plot (so says an officer though!) and secondly a communications failure. The AC lost come ...again apparently, but no info regarding the nature, if it was the AC to base, or AC to SF team.
But then there is the claimed phone calls from the hospital to Regional command...
The SF team may have only called the strike in via laser sparkle?
Either way ....a massive f up
These actions are an embarrassment and below them ....and to the standards they claim to hold

a reply to: Zaphod58

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Tyrion79

Rules in war only apply to those that are winning.

Much like principles only apply to those who are well fed.

Still, it's ethically extremely wrong to harm or bombard any hospital, field hospital or medical transports even during wartimes.
Western "civilised" countries should know better and never resort to inhumane or terroristic acts, like they claim to fight against.
Right after the incident, it was said that there was believed to be insurgents inside.
If that was the case, then the hospital should have been cleared by groundtroops, instead of leveling the entire facility to catch a few terrorists. (which was denied to be true by survivors and DWB)
Now they claim in the new report, that it was due to communication malfunction and human error.
All the victims and families affected will probably be financially compensated and the whole thing will be sweeped under the carpet.
Another example of "collateral" damage.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
This was a case of a series of screw ups. The gunship was targeting an intelligence headquarters that had fallen, only couldn't find it using their sensors, so relied on a Special Forces team on the ground to identify the building, which wasn't far from the hospital.

The SF team failed to stop the attack whenthe shells started to land on the hospital, which led the crew of the gunship to believe they were hitting the right building, and anyone leaving it was an insurgent.

Oh, then that makes it all okay. As long as they just slaughtered and mutilated aid workers and innocents because of operational issues then; no harm, no foul?

No amount of excuses can undo what was done.

a reply to: metamagic

Who said a damn thing about excusing it? You have to understand what happened before you can do anything else.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The building had a sodding great big MSF logo on top of it.

Special Forces advice aside, the pilot and gunners should have been aware of where they were, and they damned well knew the hospitals location because the US military had already had Afghan army elements raid the place weeks previously, also without provocation or justification.

An error is made when someone pocket dials you, or your neighbour gets your mail. An air assault on a neutral hospital with international aid agency status is not an error, it is a bloody war crime, and ought to be treated as such.

a reply to: Metallicus

What about those who lived there, and were local to, or actually worked at that hospital from the local community?

What about the fact that with the MSF running the place, the hospital was considered neutral territory, where all sides had to check their weapons at the door, in order to even enter the building? What about the fact that the hospital had countless innocent civilians in it, who were being treated for injuries caused to them by wars they did not start, and had no hand in fighting even in the least?

None of that matters?

What about the fact that no one in that hospital that day, was a legitimate target for an attack by a gunship, or that the people who ran for their lives outside, and were gunned down, were not fighters but collateral damage before they even took the bullets that ended their lives?

Do you not understand compassion? Empathy?

I have a feeling their was a high valued target in that hospital.

That's a huge mistake ....

But then again who knows . we have seen trigger happy pilots before . i recall one by the name crazyhorse who was so eager to take out the Reuters reporters then continue to shoot up a van with kids in it that was trying to rescue the wounded. His aftermath reply ."they shouldn't bring their kids in the middle of a war zone"

Sick ,disgusting, brainwashed drones.

a reply to: TrueBrit

And that's the problem with fighting in that region. How many times have hospitals had insurgents firing on people in them, or using them as command centers. Yes, it had a big sign on it, but after years of fighting there, you get jaded to those things.

I'm not in any way excusing what happened, and there needs to be more than just a report, but I want to make sure the right people are the ones that hit for this, not the grunt in the field to cover up for someone else.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No, it should not be the grunts alone. It should be everyone from the fellow who put his finger on the fire control mechanism, to the person who ordered the flight to take off, the person who provided the intelligence which lead to the operation, every person who had a hand in this operation should be burnt, kicked out of the service for shoddy workmanship, and some of them should go to jail. Everyone involved who was between the trigger and the Pentagon ought to be investigated and have their lives made thoroughly horrible for a period of time. The ones who get fired should consider themselves the lucky ones, and do you know why?

Because nothing will change, there will be no impetus, no motivation for military organisations to GET THE SIMPLE STUFF RIGHT until it costs THEM either their ass, or their jobs if they fail.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I fully agree with you on this.
Is there even still a thorough investigation going on at the moment, or is the attention to this incident being diverted by other events as usual and we'll read about it in a couple of years written in some obscure lines on page 30 of a newspaper.

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: Miracula2

Art. 15. Any Party to the conflict may, either direct or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without
distinction:

(a) wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants;
(b) civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character.

Source:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

FYI, was also signed by the U.S.A.

You got a point EXCEPT when they are giving AID and COMFORT to the Illegal combatants/terrorist. Their helping treat their wounds IS providing a military function by patching up their attackers to fight again.

a reply to: yuppa

Agreed, however this was not the case in this incident or was it ever done in that particular hospital to my knowledge.
And even if they were aiding the enemy with healthcare, how would the public react if a hospital with wounded U.S. veterans was leveled by adversaries of the U.S.?
Would the same logic still apply?

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: yuppa

Agreed, however this was not the case in this incident or was it ever done in that particular hospital to my knowledge.
And even if they were aiding the enemy with healthcare, how would the public react if a hospital with wounded U.S. veterans was leveled by adversaries of the U.S.?
Would the same logic still apply?

Tha japanese did it. so did the germans. yes the same logic still applies. in a warzone expect to die suddenly.

a reply to: Tyrion79

People wearing turbans and robes aren't guaranteed protection under Geneva Conventions. Iraqi soldiers wearing a military uniform are guaranteed those rights.

Doesn't have anything to do with religious prejudice.

Civilians treating zealots not wearing a military uniform with a state flag I assume are not guaranteed protection.

But Doctors without Borders were treating terrorists who worship space rocks encased in silver at Mecca. ie. They are not even following the 10 Commandments which Islam endorses. Idolatry is forbidden.

originally posted by: Miracula2
a reply to: Tyrion79

People wearing turbans and robes aren't guaranteed protection under Geneva Conventions. Iraqi soldiers wearing a military uniform are guaranteed those rights.

Doesn't have anything to do with religious prejudice.

Civilians treating zealots not wearing a military uniform with a state flag I assume are not guaranteed protection.

But Doctors without Borders were treating terrorists who worship space rocks encased in silver at Mecca. ie. They are not even following the 10 Commandments which Islam endorses. Idolatry is forbidden.

Excuse me the ten commandments are not ISLAMIC my friend. And they do not endorse it either just for clarification.

a reply to: Miracula2
Ok, I'll bite...

People wearing turbans and robes aren't guaranteed protection under Geneva Conventions.

Would you be so kind as to educate me and quote that article from the Geneva Conventions, that state above claim of yours?
Not saying you're making anything up of course, however I would like to know where you found that part, because I'm having trouble locating it. To help you speed up on your answer, goto the following link:
www.icrc.org...#
Thanks in advance.