ADVERTISEMENT

I'll See Your Wedding Party and Raise You Doctors Without Borders

Nov 28, 2010
87,454
42,221
113
Maryland
[from CNN email]

Three staff members of medical aid charity Doctors Without Borders were killed and more than 30 people were unaccounted for after a trauma center was hit by aerial bombing early Saturday in Kunduz, Afghanistan, the charity said in a statement.

The medical facility was hit several times.

U.S. forces carried out a strike nearby "against individuals threatening the force" that "may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility," Army spokesman Col. Brian Tribus said in a statement.
 
Keeping us free has some pretty embarrassing days. I don't feel as free as I did before I read that.
 
It's really a shame that most Americans lack any kind of distress over this. Us vs. Them really works. Look at how well Left vs. Right, or Cons vs. Libs works right here at home. Why should anyone care about brown people in a country that sounds Muslim.
 
It's really a shame that most Americans lack any kind of distress over this. Us vs. Them really works. Look at how well Left vs. Right, or Cons vs. Libs works right here at home. Why should anyone care about brown people in a country that sounds Muslim.
Or doctors who put themselves at risk to help those in need. None of our concern. Oops. Sorry about that. Collateral damage.
 
Thanks a lot Obama. Not only has he murdered women and children in Pakistan, now he's murdered doctors attempting to do good.

Obama is a monster, a murdering monster!!!!!!!!!
 
...
there’s something significantly different about this incident that has caused this “mistake” claim to fail. Usually, the only voices protesting or challenging the claims of the U.S. military are the foreign, non-western victims who live in the cities and villages where the bombs fall. Those are easily ignored, or dismissed as either ignorant or dishonest. Those voices barely find their way into U.S. news stories, and when they do, they are stream-rolled by the official and/or anonymous claims of the U.S. military, which are typically treated by U.S. media outlets as unassailable authority.

In this case, though, the U.S. military bombed the hospital of an organization – Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)) – run by western-based physicians and other medical care professionals. They are not so easily ignored. Doctors who travel to dangerous war zones to treat injured human beings are regarded as noble and trustworthy. They’re difficult to marginalize and demonize. They give compelling, articulate interviews in English to U.S. media outlets. They are heard, and listened to.

MSF has used this platform, unapologetically and aggressively. They are clearly infuriated at the attack on their hospital and the deaths of their colleagues and patients. From the start, they have signaled an unwillingness to be shunted away with the usual “collateral damage” banalities and, more important, have refused to let the U.S. military and its allies get away with spouting obvious falsehoods. They want real answers. As the Guardian‘s Spencer Ackerman put it last night: “MSF’s been going incredibly hard, challenging every US/Afgh claim made about hospital bombing.”

In particular, MSF quickly publicized numerous facts that cast serious doubt on the original U.S. claim that the strike on the hospital was just an accident. To begin with, the organization had repeatedly advised the U.S. military of the exact GPS coordinates of the hospital. They did so most recently on September 29, just five days before the strike. Beyond that, MSF personnel at the facility “frantically” called U.S. military officials during the strike to advise them that the hospital was being hit and to plead with them to stop, but the strikes continued in a “sustained” manner for 30 more minutes. Finally, MSF yesterday said this:

The hospital was repeatedly & precisely hit during each aerial raid, while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched #Kunduz

— MSF International (@MSF) October 4, 2015

All of these facts make it extremely difficult – even for U.S. media outlets – to sell the “accident” story. At least as likely is that the hospital was deliberately targeted, chosen either by Afghan military officials who fed the coordinates to their U.S. military allies and/or by the U.S. military itself.

Even cynical critics of the U.S. have a hard time believing that the U.S. military would deliberately target a hospital with an airstrike (despite how many times the U.S. has destroyed hospitals with airstrikes). But in this case, there is long-standing tension between the Afghan military and this specific MSF hospital, grounded in the fact that the MSF – true to its name – treats all wounded human beings without first determining on which side they fight. That they provide medical treatment to wounded civilians and Taliban fighters alike has made them a target before.

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/05...fghan-hospital-from-mistake-to-justification/
 
Well . . . I did hear about it from CNN.

Not that you are wrong. But ask yourself why. Cons don't give a F and libs don't want to embarrass Obama.

The reason. . . Cons are *generally* behind a forceful military stance. They generally write off "collateral damage" as being a necessary evil or just give reasons not to care.

Liberals only care when the opposition is in charge and want to avoid embarrassing their own guys.

Like it or not at least on this issue the conservatives are consistent. For liberals it's all a political calculation.
 
The reason. . . Cons are *generally* behind a forceful military stance. They generally write off "collateral damage" as being a necessary evil or just give reasons not to care.

Liberals only care when the opposition is in charge and want to avoid embarrassing their own guys.

Like it or not at least on this issue the conservatives are consistent. For liberals it's all a political calculation.
Huh. I would say libs are more consistent in calling BS on either side. Cons cut our military or our allies slack for things they would demand aggressive retaliation on if someone else did it.

Our dead aid worker is a casus belli, theirs merely regrettable collateral action (or worse, hiding behind human shields, for example). Unless, of course, our aid worker died as a result of allied action, in which case they were of dubious loyalty and possible mentally ill.
 
Huh. I would say libs are more consistent in calling BS on either side. Cons cut our military or our allies slack for things they would demand aggressive retaliation on if someone else did it.

Our dead aid worker is a casus belli, theirs merely regrettable collateral action (or worse, hiding behind human shields, for example). Unless, of course, our aid worker died as a result of allied action, in which case they were of dubious loyalty and possible mentally ill.

I would agree with you but Libs all together ignore the issue when the president is their guy.

When the president is Bush they call them out for those things. When it's Obama then it's ignored.

Drone bombings that kill kids are the horrible actions of a war criminal when George W. Bush orders them.

Drone bombings that kill kids are something we just don't talk about when Barrack Obama orders them.

Libs may in words oppose drone bombings but for some reason that issue which was a front seat issue when Bush was president takes a back seat when Obama is the prez.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk in SEC Country
I would agree with you but Libs all together ignore the issue when the president is their guy.

When the president is Bush they call them out for those things. When it's Obama then it's ignored.

Drone bombings that kill kids are the horrible actions of a war criminal when George W. Bush orders them.

Drone bombings that kill kids are something we just don't talk about when Barrack Obama orders them.

Libs may in words oppose drone bombings but for some reason that issue which was a front seat issue when Bush was president takes a back seat when Obama is the prez.
While I agree that too many Dems cut Obama more slack than he deserves, that's much less true of liberals. And when you look at the criticisms Obama gets, the serious criticisms are more likely to come from the left than the right. Sure, the right jumps all over him, but often for stupid or phony reasons.

Basically, while the right is overwhelmingly partisan and wrong-headed, the left is only somewhat partisan and wrong-headed on these things - being much more likely to criticize both friend and foe for war crimes and other wrongs.
 
I thought we already determined that the POTUS can Drone U.S. citizens.

Prolly why it is getting no publicity; It's policy.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT