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

originally posted by: yuppa
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.

And we're back to square one.
What part don't you understand in article 15?

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.

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: yuppa
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.

And we're back to square one.
What part don't you understand in article 15?

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.

Article 4 states.Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Terrorist who have no national affiliation are not covered. ILLEGAL combatants ar e not covered. there s a distinction. the conventions consider standard militaries only as proper combatants. Also the parties involved have to be in a neutral location AGREED ON BY ALL.

civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character. Are protected BUT It can be argued that Patching up of ILLEGAL COMBATANTS instead of legal ones is a violation of the caluse of no military help of a military character.

In short helping the combatants get back into th e fight IS military character.

Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease UNLESS they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. This means that helping illegal combatants puts them OUTSIDE their duties since th e conventions do not apply to anyone who isnt in a nations military as a combatant.

If a British gunship had opened fire on a medical facility being operated by a US based charity, killing US nationals, the UK would already be under attack by US forces, of that, I have zero doubt. No matter the reason.

You need to answer for the errors. No matter the reason, the people behind this atrocity, need to be behind bars, not comfy desks.

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

What a great comment sir!

It has always amazed me how people can actually believe in the benevolence of our military. The elite have used our soldiers to commit the atrocities to further their agenda for far too long. They have funded our enemies and then send in our soldiers to destroy nations that stand against the incremental build to their NWO and yet in the face of all of this people will still stand and pledge the allegiance, while what little there was that made this country "great" has been destroyed from the inside out.

It truly is an upside down world!

a reply to: yuppa

The Geneva Conventions? Since when has the US ever cared about the Geneva Conventions?

Maybe you have not been keeping up with this story, but MSF did very much notify the US, several times and while the attack was going on. You didn't know that?

It would be way cool if you could actually cite chapter and verse of that requirement by the GC that you allege.

a reply to: Salander

read my above post on this page 4. i explained it to tyrion. ALso the doctors admitted to treating illegal combatants. even said there were a few present if i recall. maybe they should not had shot at someone passing by and laid low?

a reply to: yuppa

I did not think you would care to provide any part of the GC to corroborate your claims here. I guess I'm getting good at predicting the future, eh?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: yuppa

I did not think you would care to provide any part of the GC to corroborate your claims here. I guess I'm getting good at predicting the future, eh?

But sure keep trying to make it look like im not supporting my reasoning when everyone else who has been keeping up can see it as a obvious ploy to make it look like you are superior. Go back and read my reply above.

I see where you are confused. article 19 says what i said UP TILL a point. I forgot to add a space between sentences. Grammar nazi much?




ACTUALLY you know what? Here. Just to shut you up.

Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease UNLESS they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy.


THAT means that the terrorist enemys ARE being harmed by the doctors by providing military support in the way of patching up wounded and letting them operate from there.

a reply to: yuppa

Thank you for FINALLY providing some support for your tenuous position. Bravo!

So now it boils down to just whose story is true, the US story or the MSF story.

For me, having done my bit of time in the military and being a bit familiar with its story-telling, I'm going to go with the doctors being the truth-tellers in this case.

Truth-telling is the LAST thing the pentagon does.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: yuppa

Thank you for FINALLY providing some support for your tenuous position. Bravo!

So now it boils down to just whose story is true, the US story or the MSF story.

For me, having done my bit of time in the military and being a bit familiar with its story-telling, I'm going to go with the doctors being the truth-tellers in this case.

Truth-telling is the LAST thing the pentagon does.

Youre welcome. next time ill remember to SPACE it out so there isnt any confusion. And the doctors have admited they were treating terrorist. it was earlier in the thread. BOTH sides screwed up to be honest though but because there were terrorist operating from there as well.

a reply to: yuppa

There is a significant difference between terrorists operating from out of a hospital, and terrorists being treated in a hospital.

Who was receiving medical care in the venue is not in the least bit relevant. Unless someone can prove to me that there were guns being fired directly from the building, and toward anti-terror forces in the area (which has not even been suggested, let alone proven), then the attack is STILL unjustifiable.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Exactly it takes a special type of thinking to conclude that a hospital providing medical treatment is "aiding the enemy" . US & UK medical bases also treat wounded Taliban, are they fair game to be attacked?

a reply to: yuppa

Where did you exactly find the information, that terrorists were operating from that hospital?
As far as I know, the only people that were operating there, were the doctors who were bombarded by an AC-130.
Please provide your source to this and stop twisting the Geneva Conventions by your selective interpretation of it.

Food for thought: In the eyes of the Taliban, Americans are "the enemy", so in that same context, they're allowed to attack hospitals that treat wounded Americans, without consequence.

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: yuppa

Where did you exactly find the information, that terrorists were operating from that hospital?
As far as I know, the only people that were operating there, were the doctors who were bombarded by an AC-130.
Please provide your source to this and stop twisting the Geneva Conventions by your selective interpretation of it.

Food for thought: In the eyes of the Taliban, Americans are "the enemy", so in that same context, they're allowed to attack hospitals that treat wounded Americans, without consequence.

The hospital in Kunduz was bombed on Oct. 3 as Afghan government forces fought to regain control of the city from Taliban insurgents.
In short they called down fire from the Spooky gunship. a case of wrong place wrong time. NBC had a story on it as well as numerous other media sites.

I have also said a american hospital in afghanistan would be fair game too according to the geneva convention. Although the taliban are not members of it and not actually covered. ANYONE in a warzone is fair game IF they do not pay attention and play by the rules.

The convention States what i said about providing help to the enemy. Not twisting anything here. MEdical support IS material support for the taliban/insurgents. Arrogant doctors need to leave until a agreement is reached on neutral territory with taliban and coalition forces.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: yuppa

Thank you for FINALLY providing some support for your tenuous position. Bravo!

So now it boils down to just whose story is true, the US story or the MSF story.

For me, having done my bit of time in the military and being a bit familiar with its story-telling, I'm going to go with the doctors being the truth-tellers in this case.

Truth-telling is the LAST thing the pentagon does.

Youre welcome. next time ill remember to SPACE it out so there isnt any confusion. And the doctors have admited they were treating terrorist. it was earlier in the thread. BOTH sides screwed up to be honest though but because there were terrorist operating from there as well.

Good heavens, man, terrorists are everywhere, and they get treated at hospitals everywhere, including Israeli hospitals.

Crimes against humanity encompass bombing hospitals and killing doctors. I not proud of it, but our guys operating drones killing unknown people are also terrorists. They have every right to be treated in a hospital.

Several of them have begun speaking out about the terrorist acts they have been ordered to commit by their superiors.

It cuts both ways friend, and a C-130 circling over a hospital and destroying it is an act of terror. The claim that bad guys were inside cannot be proved by the US. It is a bluff, and I won't fall for it.

According to the geneva conventions terrorist are illegal combatants and are not protected. ANyone helping them can be considered to be in cahoots and or providing aid and comfort. there is no wiggle room here. the man running th ehospital there admitted to had treated some there as well. He helped the talibans enemy the coalition and it can be argued that made the hospital fair game.

originally posted by: yuppa
According to the geneva conventions terrorist are illegal combatants and are not protected. ANyone helping them can be considered to be in cahoots and or providing aid and comfort. there is no wiggle room here. the man running th ehospital there admitted to had treated some there as well. He helped the talibans enemy the coalition and it can be argued that made the hospital fair game.

Would you be able to cite that part of GC that references "terrorists"?

Or would you like to wiggle out on that one?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: yuppa
According to the geneva conventions terrorist are illegal combatants and are not protected. ANyone helping them can be considered to be in cahoots and or providing aid and comfort. there is no wiggle room here. the man running th ehospital there admitted to had treated some there as well. He helped the talibans enemy the coalition and it can be argued that made the hospital fair game.

Would you be able to cite that part of GC that references "terrorists"?

Or would you like to wiggle out on that one?

Question. Are illegal combatants/terrorist in uniforms? NO. The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 (GCIII) of 1949 defines the requirements for a captive to be eligible for treatment as a POW. A lawful combatant is a person who commits belligerent acts, and, when captured, is treated as a POW. An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5.

If you are trying to b e cute and want a specific mention of terrorist there isnt one,because they didnt think of it back then.

HEre the last time. and I will be saving this post to you for proof i told you about it previously.
the geneva conventions as they apply to illegal fighters

a reply to: yuppa

It is odd that the Geneva convention never considered rebel/terrorists when they penned the document, since the First World War was started by an assassination carried out by a man who was not wearing a uniform, and did not carry military identification, nor a serial number issued him by a military authority. Instead he was a member of The Black Hand, and of Young Bosnia. Given that it was one of the bloodiest wars in history at the time of the penning of that document, I highly doubt that the situation was not thought of during considerations during the period of the formulation of the document.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: yuppa

It is odd that the Geneva convention never considered rebel/terrorists when they penned the document, since the First World War was started by an assassination carried out by a man who was not wearing a uniform, and did not carry military identification, nor a serial number issued him by a military authority. Instead he was a member of The Black Hand, and of Young Bosnia. Given that it was one of the bloodiest wars in history at the time of the penning of that document, I highly doubt that the situation was not thought of during considerations during the period of the formulation of the document.

You got a great point. I think its time for a rewrite of th econventions in all honesty. they need to be updated an dnew countries brought under them to avoid confusion like w e have now.