US forces bomb another hospital

Hmmm......playing devil's advocate here: if I were the Taliban I would want the exact location of the hospital to be in effect public information. Then I would move into that hospital and set up shop, knowing my enemies (the US and pals) wouldn't attack it. Until of course they realized I was using the hospital for military operations, then get the hell out of Dodge before the media/doctors without borders/etc. arrive just in time to see dead innocents. Sound about right kids?

Nope.

Yes. That's pretty standard.

Nah, I'm sure the Taliban kept their distance from the hospital out of respect for humanitarian concerns, whereupon the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said "Hey, you know what would be fun? Lobbing rockets at some injured people. How many kids do you think we can take out?"

If there were Taliban in the hospital, something which is denied by the medical staff who were attacked, then the US forces still had obligations, quoted above, which they were bound to follow and which they did not.

The moral evasion here is pathetic.

Something's pathetic all right.

Give him a break. Rick has openly admitted he will not complain about the bad guys and their ilk because he as a westerner has no influence over them.

Just like the anti nuclear weapons clowns in the 80s who said they only protested American and NATO nuclear weapons because the "Russians won't listen to us anyway".

Not what I said. The apparent requirement for people to create strawmen while attempting to debate this issue is revealing.

Moreover, "the bad guys" if they exist at all are those who murder hospital patients in their beds and then seek to evade accountability.

Military action is not murder Rick unless the attacking force had full knowledge that they were attacking non legitimate civilian targets.

Sounds a lot like it to me:

From Rick, up thread.

This is asked and answered on every occasion. We all agree that the Taliban are scumbags, so there's little debate to be had in it. And none of us elect the political bodies that control the Taliban.

They did have full knowledge. They were told repeatedly of the hospital.

Further, your protestations are not credible as you have stated in the past that you will argue the side of your country, whether it is right or wrong.

Then you need to learn how to read properly. That does not say that I won't complain, only that there's little point in start a thread on a debate forum about it.

A hospital can and often are legitimate military targets.

Read the third paragraph from the bottom.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/immunity-from-attack/

As already posted:

Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Was that condition met here? Do you care?

As stated, unless the U.S. had forces on the ground directing the bombing operation, it was not our responsibility to issue a warning.

They also were told by Afghan Forces the building was being used by the Taliban for military purposes. Fact.

This does not absolve them of responsibility for upholding the Geneva Convention. And until you stop ignoring my subsequent posts to your claims that that didn't apply, you will have as little credibility as Dayton.

http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...ime-legal-analysts-say-its-difficult-to-prove

Things are looking good for the US under international law despite Rick's claims.

I accidentally ran over a squirrel the other day. Shit happens.

Because a former adviser to the US government says so?

Who else would know better?

Holy shit. "looking good?"

At best we demonstrated contemptuous ineptitude.

This is... damning. Extremely damning.

From The Guardian:

It will obviously never happen, but the just thing would be to have the offending parties tried for war crimes in the Hague. Also note how the general in question now has admitted this was no "mistake", which means his initial reaction was to lie. He isn't exactly trustworthy.

Incorrect initial reactions are usually not lies. They only become lies when the statements are repeated after evidence demonstrates otherwise.

This, of course, is true, but would it not be easy enough to ascertain the truth in this case before making any statement? Especially when said statement is made at a press conference two days after the massacre?

So.....the Afghan military knew it wasn't a military target, but didn't tell the gunship pilot/crew. Do those Afghans in that vicinity have a direct communications link? If so, was it a matter of not trusting or believing the information from the ground? What are the procedures in such a situation? Guarantee by now too much time has past to get to the truth - by that I mean if high ranking people fucked up they have used their power to shut everyone up, cover everything up, shifted blame, or have started the process of stalling for time. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

Yeah, that's likely the way things will play out.