UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime

I am from the US, but hold no bias in such situation.

Regardless of whether or not the US intentionally hit the hospital, it was a case of bad Intel, miss shot, whatever, I think the US needs to receive some means "punishment" for the incident.

An example needs to be made so that we can show that no country can comity a world crime. The punishment doesn't necessarily need to be the extremely harsh, but enough to open the governments eyes and to show other countries that the need to be more weary.

Competent wrote: I am from the US, but hold no bias in such situation.

Regardless of whether or not the US intentionally hit the hospital, it was a case of bad Intel, miss shot, whatever, I think the US needs to receive some means "punishment" for the incident.

An example needs to be made so that we can show that no country can comity a world crime. The punishment doesn't necessarily need to be the extremely harsh, but enough to open the governments eyes and to show other countries that the need to be more weary.

A war crime would require knowledge and intent. This I guarantee had neither. Im sorry but I do not agree that this is a war crime in any respect of the word. To call it such waters down the meaning. Now should the US make amends to the Doctors without borders group, their families, and the families of any one being treated? Sure they should. But that doesn't change that this is not and should not be called a war crime. Criminal acts require intent. Civil misconduct such as negligence does not. This is the latter of the two.

I'm not sure I agree all criminal acts require intent... Manslaughter is a crime but covers killing another by accident.

Edan wrote: I'm not sure I agree all criminal acts require intent... Manslaughter is a crime but covers killing another by accident.

You are indeed correct. I should have said most or the bulk of. However in this case its still not a war crime. War crimes are willful violations of human rights and various convetionary rules. This case sounds like bad targeting data or bad intel.

Told my father today that his business was liable for a $500 error on a client's account today. I'm 100% correct. Didn't stop him and his staff getting all defensive and angry at me and providing pretty lame excuses. Basically, I, the messenger, was shot. The management decision moving forward was to basically tell the client 'tough shit, an error was made'.


Why am I saying this?

This is pretty much what it's like talking to Americans about their country's war crimes.

The evidence is there. Australia shares those crimes with the US in many ways.

On to the next drama.

Demnos wrote: Told my father today that his business was liable for a $500 error on a client's account today. I'm 100% correct. Didn't stop him and his staff getting all defensive and angry at me and providing pretty lame excuses. Basically, I, the messenger, was shot. The management decision moving forward was to basically tell the client 'tough shit, an error was made'.


Why am I saying this?

This is pretty much what it's like talking to Americans about their country's war crimes.

The evidence is there. Australia shares those crimes with the US in many ways.

On to the next drama.

Careful, friend. There is dissonance in your post. The operative word you used was 'error'. The client in your example may have a case in tort law - civil claims court for liability - but unless you or the client plan to charge your father and/or his business criminally with the intent of willfully stealing that 500$...not the same thing at all.

I take that back...it perhaps IS the same thing - an error for which the wrongdoer is liable for, albeit not criminally. Time and investigation will tell.

We do need to remember that a lot of times we are not qualified to make certain conclusions. We may think we know what the evidence and proof is for our view, but if we aren't an expert in that particular field it is quite possible we are simply wrong.

It should also be noted that not everyone in this conflict, or this conversation for that matter, may agree on the rules and definitions being thrown about. "War Crime", "intent", "willful violation" etc are all subjective. Just because the U.N. holds a piece of paper with words on it, that does not mean every country or organization in the world agrees or abides by what is written on it. ISIS does not show up to meetings to discuss how we should be allowed to kill each other. I'd be curious to hear North Korea's take on "war crimes" as well.

As Reacher pointed out earlier, warfare is not what it has been historically. We do not stand across a field from one another in straight lines and take turns shooting at each other. We also no longer drop atomic weapons onto civilian populations on purpose. Warfare changes as technology changes and the rules must constantly change with it. We may have missiles guided by satellites, but if you can't point them where your enemy is, it doesn't matter. The U.S. learned a very hard lesson about this in Vietnam. You will not defeat an enemy that is not bound by the same rules that you are.

And on a side note, isn't the idea of applying "rules" to warfare a bit contradictory anyway? We're not playing chess here. We are willfully seeking to kill people we perceive as an enemy. They are trying, in turn, to kill us. Civilians are being killed by both sides whether on purpose or not. War is ugly and people are going to die. Until the "rules" prohibit war altogether and all agree to abide by these "rules", incidents like this will continue to happen. All any military can do is try to minimize the risk.

Nah, war isn't about killing people, its about objectives... and usually one side wants to take something and the other side wants to stop them. Most often its about claiming territory for occupation, claiming territory to abuse resources, or intimidation, control or even oppression of populations to force capitulation and adherence to authoritarianism.

I just woke up and have not had my watery decaf yet, but they tend to be the political imperatives at work which define the strategies employed by military agencies who's units inact operational plans to achieve tactical outcomes.

The basis of laws of war is about what is in the charter of human rights, and seemingly written to try to afford protections for people to live peacefully, but failing that to protect the vulnerable as much as can be expected in war, and to try and minimize the capacity for warfighting to get out of control.

Yes its' subjective, but there are other issues at work when considering if those political imperatives are 'justified' or not, such as the populations extent of access to local and foreign information ie truth, as we've seen examples of how easily populations can be brainwashed (trained with emotions to hate and fight) like with the Nazi's and ISIL because they either did not have access to the truth and had misled beliefs or rejected truths to manufacture false belief, as ways to in effect be delusional.

The rules apply also in the execution of the political imperatives obviously, but rules are only as useful as they can be held to account later on... so there is always going to be a grey areas and darkspots where proof will never materialize and war crimes can be thought to occur without retribution, but generally speaking rules in war work because nations think they will continue to exist after the war and know that being caught breaking them will likely have some type of consequences for them even if they win. So when you see groups who think they will conquer the world, like the Nazi's and ISIL, they simply do not care for any rules of war because they want to keep fighting until they have no-one left to fight - and no-one left to punish them for their war crimes.

This opportunity probably extends down the individual warfighter, as they might believe they will survive and do not want to face penalties so follow the rules as much as possible... or if they think they are going to die anyway they might not care about following the rules, which is where suicide cults get some power and as seen recently with ISIL recruits saying they are happy to die fighting because they truely believe it will give them a better afterlife. They are following their own laws and rules, so to assess them you'd have to compare them and make your own decision.

So yea subjectivity is real, but it does not dilute IMO what is right and wrong for individuals and societies to live peacefully - and in very reals terms defines each political imperative, military strategy, operational plans and tactical execution as being justified, right, or correct versus an injustice, wrong, or failed.

In the past more could be gotten away with, but technology and media can help enforce the rules of war these days hopefully. Let the truth set us free
:pinch:

War is war and I thing there are few countries who actually go by the Geneva convention.... hence forth we are always in battle with solo groups or individual beliefs...not the collected. in other word usually during war the "other guy" doesn't play by the rules. always happens. That's part and mostly why we get involved... cuz its against humane ideas.