Accident

[MGoBrew11]

^ Agreed, but in pickle's defense, I think his response was just to point out that this thread is pretty useless and nothing will really be gained from discussing this tragedy. What did the OP really have in mind discussion wise on is topic? OPs subsequent posts validate pickles initial response.

 

[DesertRooster]

^ Agreed, but in pickle's defense, I think his response was just to point out that this thread is pretty useless and nothing will really be gained from discussing this tragedy. What did the OP really have in mind discussion wise on is topic? OPs subsequent posts validate pickles initial response.

My original idea for discussion for this was what happened and how it could happen, without speculation.
But, that didn't turn out how I wanted to as does most things in life

 

[AllYourBass]

My original idea for discussion for this was what happened and how it could happen, without speculation.
But, that didn't turn out how I wanted to as does most things in life

Haha. I know what you're trying to say. In aviation, as in many other fields, it is difficult to theorycraft and discuss possibilities without venturing into the realm of speculation. Even if the conversation is purely academic at heart, it's too easy to make implications and judgments.

I remember I was in the HTs last year when an Army helicopter went down around Eglin. It had been a pretty foggy night, but that's about all we knew. We had a brief safety pause in the ready room the following day to talk about the no-no that is speculating about these things with an investigation still pending (that was actually the first time I had heard that topic addressed in my Navy career). Not 24 hours later, I was sitting in my brief with an instructor talking about IMC stuff, and he used the Army helicopter incident as an example of poor flight planning in regard to weather. Just like that, the instructor implied that the Army pilots were at fault for planning a poor-weather flight and that the crash was a result of something related to the weather. It's just too easy for our minds to start formulating solutions to mysteries, especially when the answers seem so clear to us.

 

[Flash]

The only part hit was the ICU portion, and nothing else. Kind of ironic actually

At least we are accurate with our strikes, only hitting one portion of the hospital.

As I pointed out in the thread on Syrian activity in Russia, don't put too much credence into the earliest reports as they are much more often than not inaccurate and at best are only partially factual. One claim that is particularly egregious is from MSF, saying we deliberately targeted the hospital and it is a war crime. Doctors Without Borders as an organization are braver than almost any other NGO but they should know better than to ascribe motives mere hours after this incident.

 

[Uncle Fester]

As I pointed out in the thread on Syrian activity in Russia, don't put too much credence into the earliest reports as they are much more often than not inaccurate and at best are only partially factual. One claim that is particularly egregious is from MSF, saying we deliberately targeted the hospital and it is a war crime. Doctors Without Borders as an organization are braver than almost any other NGO but they should know better than to ascribe motives mere hours after this incident.

MSF is a fantastic organization and a brave group of people, but they're doctors, not lawyers. People throw around the 'war crime' phrase without really understanding what it means.

Good article about the issue.

Usually the misconception is that a war crime is literally that - a crime (i.e., something that would be a crime in civil society) that occurs during war. So MSF's argument seems to be that this was the equivalent of manslaughter - "killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder." But that's not what constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

From the article - "The mere fact that civilians are killed, that a hospital is damaged, doesn't automatically mean that there has been a war crime...It only becomes a war crime if it is shown that the target was intentionally attacked."

 

[DesertRooster]

MSF is a fantastic organization and a brave group of people, but they're doctors, not lawyers. People throw around the 'war crime' phrase without really understanding what it means.

Good article about the issue.

Usually the misconception is that a war crime is literally that - a crime (i.e., something that would be a crime in civil society) that occurs during war. So MSF's argument seems to be that this was the equivalent of manslaughter - "killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder." But that's not what constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

From the article - "The mere fact that civilians are killed, that a hospital is damaged, doesn't automatically mean that there has been a war crime...It only becomes a war crime if it is shown that the target was intentionally attacked."

I completely agree with what you're saying and accusing a county of a war crime is a very big accusation to make.

 

[A7Dave]

The MSF folks have some serious balls. No doubt. But for them to think the US purposely targeted their field hospital is ludicrous.

While I feel bad for those killed (MSF staff and Afghan friendlies), I feel worse for the AC-130 crew who believed and executed on the data that led them to fire on the hospital. I can think of several scenarios that may have caused this. But in the end, it is the fault of our government who puts us (our guys/gals) in combat with less than reliable allies against a ruthless enemy who has no ROE.

Not a huge fan of ViceTV, but this is instructive of the problem: http://www.vice.com/video/this-is-what-winning-looks-like-full-length