General / Off-Topic World refugee crisis

I would say that the reason, not excuse, is because they are still using 'mobile phones' as target signals. The Afghans have already said there was high probability that 'enemy fighters' were at the hospital. Phone targeting has caused a similar issues in the past.
 
I would say that the reason, not excuse, is because they are still using 'mobile phones' as target signals. The Afghans have already said there was high probability that 'enemy fighters' were at the hospital. Phone targeting has caused a similar issues in the past.

That's interesting.

Do you have a source?
 
Sadly, the Americans have long abandoned any pretence of submitting themselves to the Geneva Convention. Putting so many in chains and imprisoning them, especially in Guantanamo Bay concentration camp will have long lasting repercussions.

Every American is now at personal risk because none can hope for nor claim protection under the Geneva Convention or any other international law. Their only hope in the US government will continue to offer them military protection.

A rather optimistic position given the US governments record.

I believe the Geneva convention(Rules of War) has to do with how countries behave themselves during times of war and the accounting for it in war courts afterwards. What country is the US at war with? Terrorist have no country, they have their religion. With terrorist there are no negotiations, treaties, cease fires, surrenders or Geneva convention. The Geneva convention has rules for the beheading of women and children because of religion. I bet ISIS is scared to death about braking the rules of the Geneva convention. The terrorist have now pitted the US and Russia against each other (Syria). The terrorist thrive in chaos. Europe is now seeing terrorist attacks on its own soil. How many terrorist are coming in with Syria's refugees? Will they use our humanitarian aid against us. I have no answers and do not pretend to. You have a civilized world trying to deal with an uncivilized situation. You can't wrestle with pigs and not get mud on you. I quote William Tecumseh Sherman "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. Yon know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave in till we are whipped or they are".
In the real world there are two superpowers but which one catches hell if they do not intervene for humanitarian purposes. When in trouble who do they turn to? I have yet to see a country turn down the US when they offer aid or troops to cure what ails then. During WW1-2 did anyone tell the US to stay home and mind their own business? I guess its "what have you done for me lately". Right or wrong the only thing that stands between ISIS and the world is the US. If not then tell me who. Most countries prefer not to get involved. Wake up and smell the coffee.
 
I believe the Geneva convention(Rules of War) has to do with how countries behave themselves during times of war <snipped for brevity>

When your enemy fails to follow the Geneva convention, you put him on trial at the Hague.

If you use his conduct or lack of a recognised national flag as an excuse to ignore the Geneva conventions you lose any chance at the moral high ground (history will judge this), you drive your allies and your civilian populations support away and you absolutely guarantee your troops will be mistreated in the event of capture. You also set a precedent of ignoring the Geneva convention as and when it suits, this is not a good thing for civilians.

The laws of war were introduced following atrocities in past wars and have been updated since, not because anyone lacks courage or will to fight, but to prevent massive scale repeats of historical atrocities (not always successfully).

True courage involves obeying the Geneva conventions no matter what your enemies conduct.
 
It is interesting to see as this thread deviates from the crisis of the refugees towards the bombardment in Afghanistan. Finally all these problems are well linked
 
True courage involves obeying the Geneva conventions no matter what your enemies conduct.

Having a fixed moral plan is comforting but it can't always "survive contact with the enemy".

If a major crime against humanity was unfolding for example, and you had the opportunity to stop it by striking at the enemy with the risk of some civilians being hurt too. The brave thing then would be to say, "I'll take the consequences in the Hague if I have to, but I'm going to stop this".

It's another version of the old chestnut about whether you let the train run into the train ahead killing many passengers, or you divert it onto the track where a lone workman will be killed.
 
Having a fixed moral plan is comforting but it can't always "survive contact with the enemy".

If a major crime against humanity was unfolding for example, and you had the opportunity to stop it by striking at the enemy with the risk of some civilians being hurt too. The brave thing then would be to say, "I'll take the consequences in the Hague if I have to, but I'm going to stop this".

It's another version of the old chestnut about whether you let the train run into the train ahead killing many passengers, or you divert it onto the track where a lone workman will be killed.

Striking at the enemy with the risk of some civilians being hurt and tragically hurting civilians happens. It's accounted for and allowed for under the Geneva conventions, the deliberate targeting of a hospital is a war crime.

Ground troops to clear enemy from an (allegedly) occupied hospital is the only way to approach it with any chance of not killing/maiming doctors, nurses, patients and families. Wounded enemy and the combat medics carrying them to hospital are "hors de combat" and again targeting them is a war crime.
 
Striking at the enemy with the risk of some civilians being hurt and tragically hurting civilians happens. It's accounted for and allowed for under the Geneva conventions, the deliberate targeting of a hospital is a war crime.

Ground troops to clear enemy from an (allegedly) occupied hospital is the only way to approach it with any chance of not killing/maiming doctors, nurses, patients and families. Wounded enemy and the combat medics carrying them to hospital are "hors de combat" and again targeting them is a war crime.

Would you be prepared to risk killing one medic to save 10 civilians from the equivalent risk? If not 10, how about 100? Is there any number where the decision becomes "risk the medic" for you?
 
Would you be prepared to risk killing one medic to save 10 civilians from the equivalent risk? If not 10, how about 100? Is there any number where the decision becomes "risk the medic" for you?

If you have the time to do a headcount there's no urgency and you can seek a short term diplomatic solution.

But in this specific instance the MSF personnel are reporting no Taliban present in the hospital, so in terms of numbers there can't have been more of them than medics or the medics would probably have noticed.

Basically it boils down to "never shoot at hospitals".
 
If you have the time to do a headcount there's no urgency and you can seek a short term diplomatic solution.

The idea that you'd expect a head count before making a decision made me chuckle; reality is messier than that. As for negotiating with the enemy, that requires an enemy amenable to negotiation in the first place, which is an idea that would have applied when the Rules of War were drawn up, but (unfortunatel) doesn't apply any more.

But in this specific instance the MSF personnel are reporting no Taliban present in the hospital, so in terms of numbers there can't have been more of them than medics or the medics would probably have noticed.

A particular instance tells us nothing about wider morality, note that I am not defending this specific attack since I have no information on the matter.

Basically it boils down to "never shoot at hospitals".

So your answer to my question boils down to, "No, there is no conceivable number of casualties that would make me risk a single medic".
 
Last edited:
The idea that you'd expect a head count before making a decision made me chuckle; reality is messier than that. As for negotiating with the enemy, that requires an enemy amenable to negotiation in the first place, which is an idea that would have applied when the Rules of War were drawn up, but (unfortunatel) doesn't apply any more.

Sarcasm on the headcount, as it's a nonsense question every situation is different you can't set a number threshold at which you suddenly shoot at medics. On the subject of lines of communication isn't it the western powers who are refusing to talk ?.

Short term diplomacy could involve yelling though a loudhailer "abandon the hospital or we return fire" then returning fire after a suitable delay, this would be acceptable under the Geneva convention if the hospital was in use as a fire position (and only if it was in use as a fire position and only if the demand had been made). Abandonment of the Geneva conventions is not a good thing for mankind and could have absolutely awful unforeseen consequences in the future, luckily most nations still respect them.

A particular instance tells us nothing about wider morality, not that I am not defending this specific attack since I have no information on the matter.

The Geneva conventions were written in response to a wider demand for morality. The MSF are not renowned for propaganda unlike every news source on every side.

So your answer to my question boils down to, "No, there is no conceivable number of casualties that would make me risk a single medic".

There are no circumstances where I would sanction specifically targeting (real) medics/hospitals with overwhelming damage from the air. There are alternatives they should be explored (ie contain the area and get ground forces in to confirm the situation, then deal in a way that minimizes the risk to medics/innocents).

If the Taliban were inside the hospital using the building as a fire position (and it's a really big if) I would support the use of ground troops to kill or capture them (following a demand to withdraw being given see above). I would expect those troops to be very cautious of shooting non-combatants.

It's not compulsory to flatten any building you think the enemy might be in then shrug and go "hey but we're the good guys" when it goes wrong. This dismissive approach and attitude to casualties among non-westerners goes a long way to explaining why western intervention has destabilized the middle east.
 
The MSF hospital in Kunduz, has been targeted "by mistake," has declared this Tuesday, the General John Campbell, head of the NATO mission in Afghanistan.
 
The Germany could welcome up to 1,5 million people in 2015. The German authorities consider that the country could welcome in the next three months, 920.000 new migrants. Each migrant who obtains the refugee's status in the Germany has the right to make come his family. Each refugee could make "on average" to come "between four to eight" person in the Germany, by the family reunification ...
 
The UK papers have started to report on the potential war crime implications of targeting hospitals : http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...irstrike-afghanistan-us-account-changes-again

Considering the inquiry into whether there were any mistakes in the conduct of the Iraq war are still being held up while those mentioned argue over punctuation, it seem more than highly unlikely anything will come of that.

So called war crimes are a nonsense. Bad things happen in war. The only way to avoid those is not to have wars in the first place.
 
Considering the inquiry into whether there were any mistakes in the conduct of the Iraq war are still being held up while those mentioned argue over punctuation, it seem more than highly unlikely anything will come of that.

So called war crimes are a nonsense. Bad things happen in war. The only way to avoid those is not to have wars in the first place.

The Chilcott inquiry will be delayed or classified until it's results pose no threat to current governments, they'll happily use it to score political points against each other given the opportunity though (Jeremy Corbyn opposed the Iraq war, before during and afterwards he personally has nothing to fear from the Chilcott inquiry).

The problem with war crimes is that only the losers get put on trial. There's a good chance Assad may wind up on trial for the chemical weapon use, the USA will never face trial for targeting a hospital (whether it was targeted through incompetence or malice).

Without the threat of war crime trials (and an equally horrific response or even nukes) poison gas/bio weapons would be the most efficient way of fighting. Imagine a world were the first military response was strikes of mustard gas on the troops and smallpox on the civilian area's instead of (attempted) precision strikes. Thank the Geneva conventions that this is not the case.
 
Quite.

Though I am under the impression that NATO used a number of chemical and radioactive weapons in Iraq.

Though those were, of course, tactical ordinance, not the same thing at all. ;)
 
Quite.

Though I am under the impression that NATO used a number of chemical and radioactive weapons in Iraq.

Though those were, of course, tactical ordinance, not the same thing at all. ;)
AFAIK the only "radioactive" weapons used by the Allied forces in either gulf war were the DU anti tank rounds. These are not primarily a radioactive weapon. The choice of DU as a penetrator material was based on it's density and propensity to catch fire on impact. Quite simply if you want to kinetically penetrate tank armour, the best material for the job is DU. Although there is some residual radiation from the DU penetrators the worst aspect is that uranium metal is highly chemically toxic, in much the same way as lead might be except worse.
.
Remember the DU tank rounds were designed to be used on European soil repelling a soviet tank horde, so some consideration went into the radioactive/toxic aftereffects as it would have been all over Germany and France. It's just the terrible logic of the cold war meant that was perceived to be the lesser of the two evils.
 
the best material for the job is DU.

Such perfectly stated perfect sense.

There was every intention of using them in the cold war after nuclear strikes had devastated the entire continent. That alone shows that we couldn't possibly have known that radio-active materials could be radio-active.

After all, it's only a bunch of I-rackies, not like its real people.

And we did liberate them for the terrible oppression of Saddam, who we put into power in the first place.

Then they go around moaning because a few hundred thousand of them die.

Honestly, some people are so ungrateful.
 
Back
Top Bottom