"Massacre At Kabul Military Hospital By Islamic State..." Topic

…Gunmen. 38 Killed. Over 60 Wounded

"Attackers dressed in medical uniforms stormed a military hospital in the heart of the Afghan capital of Kabul on Wednesday, killing more than 30 people and wounding at least 50, said Dawlat Waziri, spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Defense.

A suicide bomber set off an explosion at the south gate to the Sardar Mohammed Daud Khan hospital before three gunmen entered the building and made their way to the second and third floors, said Sediq Sediqqi, Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman.

The gunmen killed and wounded doctors and hospital employees and injured Afghan soldiers, according to an Afghan Defense Ministry statement…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

ing ers

The article says:

In the vacuum of a Taliban claim, Amaq said ISIS claimed responsibility. Though it is credible that ISIS planned and carried out the attack, CNN has not independently verified the claim.

The jury is still out.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Well ISIS have claimed it…

Terrorists Sans Frontières.

It's ISIS's MO. They're particularly good at infiltration and subterfuge.

If they claim it, they own it, IMO.

Interesting article about the Geneva Convention.

link

The basic premise is that if the Taliban or Isis break these basic rules of conduct, their fighters forego the treatment promised them in the Geneva Convention. Shooting wounded & medical staff is an appalling act & legally puts them beyond any consideration.

I respect the Rule of Law but I still think adopting this stance, as a general policy, would not be in the West's best interests.

I'm not sure that article is accurate, to say the least.

And the USA has also breached the Geneva Conventions – G'mo is a flagrant example of that.

Stu, yes, the article is very much from a right wing American perspective. I was not citing it for its truth or accuracy.

And yes, the American record is far from squeaky clean. My point, & apologies for not being clearer, is the high ground is always the place to be in moral was well as military matters.

Stu, thanks for my laugh for the day.

If you think alienating your allies, helping AS and ISIS and lowering your standards is funny, be my guest and laugh.

Those of us living in countries where such behaviour radicalizes our youth don't find it amusing.

Because pictures of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are wonderful recruiting tools. As I suspect is your current CinC.

I'm all in favor of dragging every captured DAESH fighter (however DAESH defines their fighters) in front of The Hage and trying them for War Crimes. Especially their senior leadership. And then we happily execute them.

I'd suggest execution by feeding them to pigs, but what did the poor pigs do to deserve that?

I'm all in favor of dragging every captured DAESH fighter (however DAESH defines their fighters) in front of The Hage and trying them for War Crimes. Especially their senior leadership. And then we happily execute them.

You have an odd idea of justice. Sounds like a Stalinist Show trial. Or an ISIS trial & execution.(when you start to resemble your inhuman enemies, I think they've won).

By all means "drag" captured enemies to a trial (at "The Hague" BTW) and *if* you find them guilty (ie you have evidence) then by all means punish them accordingly. We call that "due process". It's a vital part of our free, democratic way of life. You may have heard of it.

As for your distasteful "pig" scheme, please read what Stu wrote, above, about "wonderful recruiting tools". You'd be forgiven for thinking some want to deliberately lose the war against Islamic extremism.

Lion – but I'm going to guess you get very upset when Daesh extend that principle to Americans?

Of course he wouldn't – Because no American soldier has ever committed a war crime . Just ask him .
It will be interesting to see the comments here the first time a "private government contracter" is put on trial for war crimes and executed . They have been, and usually are , executed before ,but actually put on trial because they do not meet the standards for being a prisoner of war .

@Stu: Sadly, DAESH doesn't seem brave enough to attempt to arrest US servicemembers and drag them to The Hague for trial. They're welcome to try, though it won't go well for them.

Instead, DAESH deliberately attacks noncombatants, usually using non-uniformed combatants. Both of those actions are War Crimes. They have used chemical weapons (usually chlorine gas) to attack civilians, which is another pair of War Crimes.

@grtbrt: I know damn well that individual Americans have committed War Crimes. My Lai, to name the best-known example.

I would make a case that the firebombing of Dresden was a war crime as well, due to lack of even attempting to target the rail yards and war factories. Firebombing Japan is a little tougher to argue, since the Japanese war production was scattered throughout the entire city in thousands of small workshops instead of a half-dozen large factories. For the same reason, it's tough to argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, though I acknowledge that there are some who make that case.

But the US has made a very public policy to curbstomp those individuals caught committing War Crimes. When it's a US servicemember, we deal with that in-house, following the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The US has also make a public policy to grant AQ and DAESH fighters the protections of an actual uniformed combatant under the Geneva Conventions, when by all debates and definitions AQ and DAESH are non-uniformed combatants. War Criminals by definitions given in the Conventions themselves. Further, non-uniformed combatants have ZERO protections under the Conventions; you are within your rights to execute them upon capture.

Except the US has a long and sordid history of not punishing people.

The Marines who killed a bunch of people in Italy by flying deliberately down the wrong valley…

The USN Captain who shot down an airliner..

Whichever officer was responsible for the Afghan hospital to be shot up…

The U.S. armed forces are not at liberty to shoot anyone out of hand. For a start in Iraq and Afghanistan they're operating in support of an Allied government. It's their responsibility to punish criminals.

And I repeat,G'mo contravenes internationa law.

Accidents do not equal War Crimes, Stu.

Flying down wrong valley? navigational accident, unless you have access to the record of the courts-martial where it shows that their flight path was deliberately altered to fly down that valley?

Captain of the Vincennes was relieved of duty. 20+year career ENDED, no pension. Ruled an accident, due to recycling contact numbers and the airliner's contact number having previously been assigned to a military aircraft operating in an aggressive manner (on attack profile, with a radar lock, etc).

Not sure about the Afghan Hospital, though I seem to recall that there were Taliban fighters inside it's perimeter shooting at Americans shortly before the Americans shot back.

And of course US forces aren't at liberty to shoot people out of hand, it's stated policy to treat AQ and DAESH fighters as being uniformed combatants. Also, uniformed combatants are by definition not criminals.

Now, while I personally agree with you on Gitmo, I think that the US position is that since we're treating AQ and DAESH fighters as uniformed combatants on the battlefield, we're classing them as prisoners of war if/when we capture them.

Flying down wrong valley? navigational accident, unless you have access to the record of the courts-martial where it shows that their flight path was deliberately altered to fly down that valley?

I think he was referring to this, which appears to have been intentional:

link

Intentional as in not a navigation accident, not otherwise.

@Steve: *reads* Damn, I though that was a "wrong valley" accident. I stand corrected, those Marines should have been convicted of Manslaughter (if not murder) in the deaths of the people on the cable car.

And here's why:

ART. 118. MURDER
Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- -
(1) has a premeditated design to kill;
(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

Flying under the cables is an act inherently dangerous to others (which is why it is banned in peacetime).

Further, their speed made it near-impossible to avoid the cables if they were too close to them, which shows a wanton disregard for the lives of anyone that might be in those cable cars.

If the Court found that their flying did not rise to the level of wanton disregard for lives, that's still culpable negligence, which means Involuntary Manslaughter.

I cannot believe that the Court didn't find them culpably negligent!

Nor can the Italians….

They did of coruse also have a citizen shot dead at a checkpoint in Iraq by American soldiers in circumstances which doesn't reflect well.

Then there's the numerous obstrucitons the British have found in getting US servicemen to give evidence at Coroner's Courts… and evidence in such circumstance sis routinely 'missing' or tmapered with.

Then there's the promotion of a USAF officer who shot up a British armoured column…

And the awarding of a medal to the officer who shot down an Iranian airliner… even the Russians don't do that.