[dissident]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-1 ... -potential

A U.S. tank “destroyed potential evidence” by forcing its way onto the ruined site of a hospital bombed by American forces in Afghanistan, the charity said.

Disgusting.

[Cog]

Is there ever a day that you do not bash the United States and praise Russia?

Zerohedge is hardly a reliable source of news.

You do realize that the area that hospital is an active combat zone and the use of a tank(or more probably an MRAP) is expected when engaging enemy forces. So they pushed the gate open of a walled compound. That hardly rises to destroying evidence.

While I am on the subject of the bombed hospital. That is a legitimate target under the Geneva Accords and Laws of Land Warfare if it is being actively used by the enemy. Doctors without borders should have withdrawn before the bombing. They played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. The Taliban killed those doctors just as sure as they pulled the trigger themselves.

[Apneaman]

Poor, Cog your identity is so attached to some great American victory that is never going to happen. Cheer them on you fool, but as I told before it's the same people and the same tactics that are already being unleashed on you and yours. Notice how the public servants, formerly know as the police, are now armed like the military? Jade Helm? Get out of line and they will drone your ass, but in the meantime keep buying all those useless consumer product guns and bullshit talking freedom on your keyboard. You're a fucking slave owned by the corporate state like everyone else. You do what you're told, fines, fees, taxes whatever they tell you, you do it and they will attempt to milk everyone dry before the end. Clinging to your bullshit flag waving ideology doesn't change that and won't change the final outcome. The corporate state does not have a idealogy and is actually stateless. But they love their useful idiots, left or right, just tools.

[Apneaman]

Zerohedge is hardly a reliable source of news.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/msf-u ... al-n445736


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/16 ... ar-afghan/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/o ... ce-at-risk


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/msf ... 62a13ba11f

[Plantagenet]

While I am on the subject of the bombed hospital. That is a legitimate target under the Geneva Accords and Laws of Land Warfare if it is being actively used by the enemy. Doctors without borders should have withdrawn before the bombing. They played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. The Taliban killed those doctors just as sure as they pulled the trigger themselves.

Given the rapidity with which Obama apologized to Medicin sans Frontiers and the victims of the US attack on the hospital, it is likely the US is to blame for the attack.

obama-apologizes-for-bombing-of-afghanistan-hospital

Even so, an independent UN investigation is needed to see if this is a war crime. If US forces committed a war crime, then an apology from Obama isn't the end of the matter.

[ROCKMAN]

"That is a legitimate target under the Geneva Accords and Laws of Land Warfare if it is being actively used by the enemy." Not that I agree with the notion that the hospital was or wasn't a legitimate military target. But it focuses on a consistent irritating issue for me that comes up with our govt and the MSM: statements distinguishing between "terrorists", the "enemy", etc. vs civilians. Essentially almost everyone killed is a civilian. Some older enough here might remember how we could distinguish a civilian from a VC in Nam: if we killed them they were VC. And if they were unarmed they were dead VC who had their weapons hauled away by their comrades. Likewise a number of civilians being treated at the hospital were unarmed terrorists. How do we know this? Easy: we would not have targeted/killed them if they weren't, right? I mean hypothetically, of course, if we did intentionally target the hospital.

Look at all the battle zones there are today: Syria, Israel, Iraq, et al. When you see a report of the civilian body count were they all civilians or were some unarmed non-uniformed "enemy"? Easy answer in most cases: yes. IOW there's a damn good reason for the US to not interject ourselves into what is essentially civil war: because it doesn't matter which side we choose: we will have to target/kill civilians. It won't matter if we tag them as the "enemy". During WWII we didn't have a problem admitting we were intentionally targeting civilians...and that was done by the "greatest generation". What's changed? Last tine I checked dead was still dead. It's the same with the US govt saying it anyone doesn't assassinate anyone but we do have "targeted drone attacks" going after specifically identified individuals. If I say I going to kill plant and then I kill plant did I assassinate plant or was he just a specifically targeted mission? Nothing personal plant. I had to pick a name and yours came to mind first. LOL.

[Plantagenet]

If I say I going to kill plant and then I kill plant did I assassinate plant or was he just a specifically targeted mission? Nothing personal plant. I had to pick a name and yours came to mind first. LOL.

You are one sick puppy, rickman

[ROCKMAN]

Thanks plant: it's always nice to receive recognition for who you really are. LOL.

[Cog]

Poor, Cog your identity is so attached to some great American victory that is never going to happen. Cheer them on you fool, but as I told before it's the same people and the same tactics that are already being unleashed on you and yours. Notice how the public servants, formerly know as the police, are now armed like the military? Jade Helm? Get out of line and they will drone your ass, but in the meantime keep buying all those useless consumer product guns and bullshit talking freedom on your keyboard. You're a fucking slave owned by the corporate state like everyone else. You do what you're told, fines, fees, taxes whatever they tell you, you do it and they will attempt to milk everyone dry before the end. Clinging to your bullshit flag waving ideology doesn't change that and won't change the final outcome. The corporate state does not have a idealogy and is actually stateless. But they love their useful idiots, left or right, just tools.

I am suggesting that there is another side to the story that bash America first posters do not seem to grasp. Our pilots might have violated their ROE by bombing the hospital but that doesn't mean it wasn't a valid target if it was being used as a command center by the Taliban or Taliban forces were firing from it. Unlike you, I don't have a particular agenda. The Geneva Accords have specific rules regarding civilian hospitals and how they are treated by parties to the conflict. Violate those rules and you become a target.

[Apneaman]

U.S. Carrier Strike Groups Locations Map – Oct. 16, 2015 (IMPORTANT)


"Comment by the Saker: the big news here is that the USA has pulled the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) out of the Persian Gulf and that, for the first time in many years, no US aircraft carrier will be patrolling these waters. In fact, there are currently no US aircraft carriers anywhere near the Middle-East. Funny fact: Theodore Roosevelt was the 26th US President and Russia fired exactly 26 cruise missiles, after which the Theodore Roosevelt withdrew. Coincidence or the the Kremlin send a message to Uncle Sam?"

http://thesaker.is/u-s-carrier-strike-g ... t-16-2015/

[GregT]

Would someone care to explain why the US is in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban in the first place? Never mind why Americans are bombing civilian hospitals.

a) Is it because Osama Bin Laden's command centre still exists hidden somewhere in an intricate network of caves?

b) The Taliban were responsible for 9/11? (even though the official conspiracy theory says that the hijackers were all Saudi nationals)

c) Equal rights for Afghani women?

d) Pipeline-istan?

e) The 1 trillion US dollar a year opium trade?

f) The Taliban didn't formally thank the CIA for helping them collapse the former Soviet Union?

[Plantagenet]

Would someone care to explain why the US is in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban in the first place? ?

Sure---no problem.

This very subject was in the news all day yesterday. Did you miss it?

Yesterday Obama abandoned his pledge to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan, and instead said he would keep US "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan through the end of his presidency in Jan. 2017.

Here's the reason obama gave for his decision to keep US troops in the war in Afghanistan:

"It's the right thing to do," the president said about the policy change. "As commander in chief I will not allow Afghanistan to be used as safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again.


"It's the right thing to do," the president said

[GregT]

Sorry,

I guess I missed a couple of possibilities.

g) The Taliban are harbouring terrorists.

h) The Taliban is a brutal dictator.

i) The Taliban have weapons of mass destruction.

j) The Taliban, if left unchecked, will develop a nuclear bomb within 'X' number of months.

k) The Taliban are using/have used chemical weapons.

[Plantagenet]

Sorry,

I guess I missed a couple of possibilities.

g) The Taliban are harbouring terrorists.

h) The Taliban is a brutal dictator.

i) The Taliban have weapons of mass destruction.

j) The Taliban, if left unchecked, will develop a nuclear bomb within 'X' number of months.

k) The Taliban are using/have used chemical weapons.

Now you're getting it.

Dont forget to add:

l) Its the right thing to do


and you might even get a job in the White House.

Cheers!

[ROCKMAN]

So the POTUS doesn't want terrorists to attack our nation AGAIN. I assume he's referring to 9/11. Based on the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists were citizens of Saudi Arabia perhaps we should be having more targeted drone strikes on Saudis then Afghans.

[Sixstrings]

"As commander in chief I will not allow Afghanistan to be used as safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again.

Obama already screwed Iraq up, with total withdrawal of forces. Obviously not even Obama would make the same mistake twice, one right after another anyway.

The US can't leave Afghanistan because then ISIS will take over Afghanistan too.

How big do some on the left want this caliphate to get, Jesus.

[GregT]

The caliphate isn't going away. The more people that the US forces murder, the more 'terrorists' will be borne, and the stronger the call for a caliphate will become.

The war on terror is a self perpetuating, never ending, un-winnable war. The longer it is allowed to continue, the bigger the threat will be on the American 'homeland'.

[Cog]

The caliphate isn't going away. The more people that the US forces murder, the more 'terrorists' will be borne, and the stronger the call for a caliphate will become.

The war on terror is a self perpetuating, never ending, un-winnable war. The longer it is allowed to continue, the bigger the threat will be on the American 'homeland'.

So if we leave them alone they will leave us alone? Under this theory, Russia and Iran should leave Syria as they are only creating more terrorists. Or are the Russians immune to this theory in some way not apparent to me?

[ralfy]

Related:

"Rare Earth: Afghanistan Sits on $1 Trillion in Minerals"

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science- ... ls-n196861

[Cottager]

Pfff, one hospital? After russians with tanks and artillery destroyed Grozny in 2000 it was called "the most destroyed city in the Earth". Amerikans should learn a lot.