Posted on Nov 29, 2015
Kunduz hospital bombing... What media version do we believe???
2.71K
11
11
1
1
0
Responses: 5
4
4
0
We certainly won't get the truth from our leftist media such as Salon, or from Najim Rahim who clearly has an ideological/ethnic axe to grind.
Having been a weapons controller I can say that hitting a mistakenly identified target is completely understandable - especially considering the chain of failures that led up to it.
Having been a weapons controller I can say that hitting a mistakenly identified target is completely understandable - especially considering the chain of failures that led up to it.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
This gentleman loses the high ground when he says that it is "just like Dresden, Hanoi, or Tokyo".
No guy, it is not the same. Precision munitions have eliminated the need to destroy area targets.
Bad stuff happens in war. Lefties like to point to the Iraqi civilian deaths during OIF to castigate policies. Even the most biased sources will clearly show that the insurgency elements were responsible for far more deaths than coalition forces. And it ain't close.
So back to the Konduz DWOB hospital. It was a known protected target, with lots of restrictions on engagement, requiring the commanding general of Afghanistan to authorize the strike. It is indisputable that that was a known hospital, as it had been built by the US in 2003 and is one of the dominant buildings in the city. It is very probable that FA and Tactical Air Controllers used it as a target reference point, as well as a protected target.
So, what is legal?
The law of land warfare, established internationally in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, prohibits an attack on a hospital. However, it makes exceptions for a hospital being used by combatants for military purposes beyond aid. This was allegedly the case when the strike was ordered. Next you have the issue of proportional force, which basically requires the "minimum force necessary to neutralize a target" and "refraining from destroying critical infrastructure except when absolutely necessary". There is a question here, but I think the strike is legally defensible. They worked the hospital over with the 40mm canon from an AC-130. The structure is intact, albeit damaged.
Where I start asking questions was in some of the explanations. The buck stops with the CG of Afghanistan, who had to make that call. If a subordinate commander made the call, they are wrong. The story at the time was that the Afghans called in the strike. I don't know that the Afghans have tactical air controllers, but that sounds mighty unlikely.
So who authorized the strike, and why don't they own it if the Taliban were in fact using the hospital as a military position? That is the answer I want to know.
No guy, it is not the same. Precision munitions have eliminated the need to destroy area targets.
Bad stuff happens in war. Lefties like to point to the Iraqi civilian deaths during OIF to castigate policies. Even the most biased sources will clearly show that the insurgency elements were responsible for far more deaths than coalition forces. And it ain't close.
So back to the Konduz DWOB hospital. It was a known protected target, with lots of restrictions on engagement, requiring the commanding general of Afghanistan to authorize the strike. It is indisputable that that was a known hospital, as it had been built by the US in 2003 and is one of the dominant buildings in the city. It is very probable that FA and Tactical Air Controllers used it as a target reference point, as well as a protected target.
So, what is legal?
The law of land warfare, established internationally in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, prohibits an attack on a hospital. However, it makes exceptions for a hospital being used by combatants for military purposes beyond aid. This was allegedly the case when the strike was ordered. Next you have the issue of proportional force, which basically requires the "minimum force necessary to neutralize a target" and "refraining from destroying critical infrastructure except when absolutely necessary". There is a question here, but I think the strike is legally defensible. They worked the hospital over with the 40mm canon from an AC-130. The structure is intact, albeit damaged.
Where I start asking questions was in some of the explanations. The buck stops with the CG of Afghanistan, who had to make that call. If a subordinate commander made the call, they are wrong. The story at the time was that the Afghans called in the strike. I don't know that the Afghans have tactical air controllers, but that sounds mighty unlikely.
So who authorized the strike, and why don't they own it if the Taliban were in fact using the hospital as a military position? That is the answer I want to know.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see), as a signatory of the treaty, we are obligated to follow the conventions. ISIS and the Taliban are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. We don't get to pick and choose when we do the right thing, just because the enemy is a turd.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
so boo hoo to the bleeding heart Cindy Loo Hoos (refence to the girl who liked or felt sorry for the Grinch. Our terrorists should not be given hugs like some apologists seem to do) to those who say we have tribunals in GITMO. We did the same thing to agents of Japan and Germany doing sabotage here at home. They do not follow law of war and dying is salvation or winning to them. I am so happy to them, ISIL, getting picked off by a Female Kurd means no paradise LOL. The enemy is a zealot turd.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Actually LTC (Join to see), the law of Land Warfare is pretty specific about spies and saboteurs. They are to be shot.
I would point out respectfully that WWII predated the 1949 Geneva Conventions establishing hospitals as protected targets.
I am all for killing terrorists wherever they live, but there are rules. I think in this case, they were followed, but for whatever reason someone felt the need to float cover stories. I would hazard a guess that there was significant JSOC involvement, and that for whatever reason some felt the need to obscure that.
I would point out respectfully that WWII predated the 1949 Geneva Conventions establishing hospitals as protected targets.
I am all for killing terrorists wherever they live, but there are rules. I think in this case, they were followed, but for whatever reason someone felt the need to float cover stories. I would hazard a guess that there was significant JSOC involvement, and that for whatever reason some felt the need to obscure that.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Yes, thanks for the refresher. I have been doing ILE instead of yearly mandatory training. I forget the 1949 update says spies are to be shot.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
They tell us that most American Media is liberal bias. Then an obviously liberal leaning media website publishes a story saying that the media is actually compliant to the military? The media is reporting that the bombing was an accident because they are told to? Really?
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google