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

originally posted by: yuppa

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.

well then whats the point of even having the geneva conventions? let's just toss out the rule book because the end justifies the means (especially with our excellent success rate in the middle east). you know, since the u.s. is fighting this war it could also be considered a war zone. what if a hospital on our soil was attacked because it was treating US soldiers between tours?

Not signed by the Taliban, who also doesn't wear a uniform, and it therefore not entitled to it's protection.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Not signed by the Taliban, who also doesn't wear a uniform, and it therefore not entitled to it's protection.

What about the Doctors Without Borders or the local people of the community, that were present at that time?

originally posted by: anotheramethyst

originally posted by: yuppa

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.

well then whats the point of even having the geneva conventions? let's just toss out the rule book because the end justifies the means (especially with our excellent success rate in the middle east). you know, since the u.s. is fighting this war it could also be considered a war zone. what if a hospital on our soil was attacked because it was treating US soldiers between tours?

As i have stated before if the US was hit at a hospital treating wounded soldiers IF it was a warzone yes it would be fair.
BUT. the ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who DO NOT WEAR UNIFORMS are a diffrent story. Under the conventions they have no rights UNLESS CAPTURED and GIVEN RIGHTS. Normally they are not granted any rights at all but a quick death.

See yall ar e missing th e stipulation that Hospitals ar e not totally immune IF they are providing military support to illegal combatants/terrorist.

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Not signed by the Taliban, who also doesn't wear a uniform, and it therefore not entitled to it's protection.

What about the Doctors Without Borders or the local people of the community, that were present at that time?

They were in violation of their stipulation under the geneva conventions by supporting militaristic/terrorist activities by providing medical support to the insurgents/isis/terrorist(take your pick) No one to blame actually but themselves.

a reply to: yuppa

As a doctor, didn't they also take an oath to save lives?

They were in violation of their stipulation under the geneva conventions by supporting militaristic/terrorist activities by providing medical support to the insurgents/isis/terrorist(take your pick)

How can you be so sure they actually did provide aid to terrorists?
Any sources that can confirm this?

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: yuppa

As a doctor, didn't they also take an oath to save lives?

They were in violation of their stipulation under the geneva conventions by supporting militaristic/terrorist activities by providing medical support to the insurgents/isis/terrorist(take your pick)

How can you be so sure they actually did provide aid to terrorists?
Any sources that can confirm this?

They also took a oath to DO NO HARM which was done by the people they patched up and sent back out. See theres a reason its called a HIPOCRITICAL OATH. it allows them to NOT treat people as well.

And really they even the doctors admitted there were terrorist being treated there from time to time. They got what they deserved under the conventions stipulation about providing military support by patching up the terrorist wounded. the locals caught in the crossfire also are at fault for indirectly supporting the terrorist by tolerating their presence as well.

originally posted by: yuppa


They also took a oath to DO NO HARM which was done by the people they patched up and sent back out. See theres a reason its called a HIPOCRITICAL OATH. it allows them to NOT treat people as well. .

That's the right on man. You said it all.

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: yuppa


They also took a oath to DO NO HARM which was done by the people they patched up and sent back out. See theres a reason its called a HIPOCRITICAL OATH. it allows them to NOT treat people as well. .

That's the right on man. You said it all.

Thats why they call me sledge....cause i hammer the bluntness home playa.

Sure the situation sucked but really i dont get it when they can basically give aid to people who are going out to do such harm to others. Prolly because if they refuse they will be killed im guessing. which makes me question why be there in th efirst place? You cant save em all. some dont want to be saved.

The situation was as follows,

US spec ops was supporting Afghan spec ops. US spec ops take fire on on their way into Kunduz, therefore US have now been drawn into the fight, inherent right to self defense. Afghan spec ops tells US spec ops they're taking fire from the hospital or immediately around the hospital. Doctors Without Borders has acknowledged that they were treating many wounded Taliban(or fighters anyway) at that time.

So now you have DWB acknowledgment that Taliban were in the hospital and also now Afghan spec ops are reporting fire coming from the hospital. Here's the question. Would the Taliban just stick their wounded guys in a hospital and not post some kind of guard? Absolutely not! No military would do that.

Next question. Would DWB have the ability to prevent armed fighters from coming into the building or at least hanging out around the building? If yes, how? They are unarmed medical aid workers, they are helpless, untrained and in a foreign country. These are brave, noble people, but they're not warriors. The Taliban are warriors, and they're not playing games.

The Taliban are not cute and cuddly, they're not the poor skinny farmers the media shows. They are big, strong, professional fighters. They kill very well and are very comfortable doing it. They look like pirates close up. Long hair, voodoo looking stuff braided in their hair, extremely confident. How can DWB prevent the Taliban from being in or around the hospital? They can't.

So, DWB has admitted that there was wounded Taliban in the hospital, we can assume the Taliban posted guards. Guards shoot at Afghan spec ops, afghan spec ops call US spec ops. US spec ops call for gunship to attack the fighters at the hospital. Fighters scatter when they are fired on by the gunship. US and Afghan spec ops identify the scattering fighters to the gunship, thereby the gunship fires on people fleeing the hospital.

If you're a war veteran, or any kind of military man, this whole thing makes perfect sense. If your head is in the clouds and you think ISIS and the Taliban are cute, cuddly buffoons......they're not.

originally posted by: hammanderr
If you're a war veteran, or any kind of military man, this whole thing makes perfect sense.

You make some good points. If DWB is made up of Afghan doctors who have no choice but to render service.

a reply to: Tyrion79

You've got a good point. I also don't know how accurately this article reflects the actual contents of the report.

When I went back and read what I had written the other day, it occurred to me that they were making this flight crew look like a bunch of drunk hillbillies shooting up street signs.

There's a lot more blame to go around for this incident. I hope the crew of the gunship doesn't take the full brunt of the blame and serve as "fall guys."

A few posters in this thread have also made some good technical points questioning whether this incident was illegal at all. There may be more here than meets the eye.


-dex

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: yuppa

As a doctor, didn't they also take an oath to save lives?

They were in violation of their stipulation under the geneva conventions by supporting militaristic/terrorist activities by providing medical support to the insurgents/isis/terrorist(take your pick)

How can you be so sure they actually did provide aid to terrorists?
Any sources that can confirm this?

They also took a oath to DO NO HARM which was done by the people they patched up and sent back out. See theres a reason its called a HIPOCRITICAL OATH. it allows them to NOT treat people as well.

And really they even the doctors admitted there were terrorist being treated there from time to time. They got what they deserved under the conventions stipulation about providing military support by patching up the terrorist wounded. the locals caught in the crossfire also are at fault for indirectly supporting the terrorist by tolerating their presence as well.

Hipocritical Oath????? Seriously, please tell me you are just trolling now?????????

So the same people that are always talking about how the news lies to them, are the same people that believe the news now?

This didn't go down as it is being portrayed. Not even Zahpod has it right.

If you weren't there, you don't know how it happened.

a reply to: Tyrion79

Well, as FlyingFox has pointed out, if a person has not signed that piece of paper, he is not human and not entitled to humane treatment. If one snoozes and didn't get the memo to sign, one loses.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Not signed by the Taliban, who also doesn't wear a uniform, and it therefore not entitled to it's protection.

What about the Doctors Without Borders or the local people of the community, that were present at that time?

They were in violation of their stipulation under the geneva conventions by supporting militaristic/terrorist activities by providing medical support to the insurgents/isis/terrorist(take your pick) No one to blame actually but themselves.

Pure authoritarian propaganda.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Not signed by the Taliban, who also doesn't wear a uniform, and it therefore not entitled to it's protection.

What about the Doctors Without Borders or the local people of the community, that were present at that time?

They were in violation of their stipulation under the geneva conventions by supporting militaristic/terrorist activities by providing medical support to the insurgents/isis/terrorist(take your pick) No one to blame actually but themselves.

Pure authoritarian propaganda.

No it is the correct interpretation of the stipulations hospitals and doctors fall under in a warzone under the geneva conventions. I t applies to all warzones and locations. providing any support of enemy combatants constitutes aiding the enemy and negates their protection.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: gladtobehere

It is absolutely reprehensible that this has occurred.

Not only did they bomb the hospital they had the gunship sit outside of it and continue the assualt.

There is no excuse for this, those giving commands/pulling the triggers should be charged accordingly

Interesting that you should mention that.
Because in the Raelien Model, it would be those who pulled the trigger who would be charged.
Not Hitler, not Stalin, not the person or set of commands that certified the carnage and loss of life. Why?

Because each individual, is an individual.

Imagine that: the effin drone operator would get the wrap, or the cop who shoots you and your dogs, by mistake, instead of just chalking it up to a bad 'anonymous tip', or a glock.

Hmmmm

Now we have apologists for militarized terrorists, as well as for domestic ones (cops).

But of course.
'Cause they're the good guys!


# 551

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

I f the doctors would had followed the geneva conventions stipulations on not aiding enemy combatants there would not had been any deaths. they ignored it at their peril.

a reply to: yuppa

Really..you honestly think the Taliban would just bow and leave with their wounded if refused help?? I really really doubt it, and no different from any other army in that regard.