US Forces Have Bombed Doctors Without Borders Instead of Taliban

Bombs dropped by the US military have destroyed a Doctors Without Borders hospital, so far 3 are confirmed dead and 30 are missing with 19 doctors injured. The US instigated a bomb strike on the city of Kunduz and continued the bombing for 30 minutes after the facility informed them of their proximity. The US military has not officially responded other than filing it under "collateral damage."

Good fucking job, guys.

 

[DuskEngine]

Why would they do it intentionally? Are you thinking that they discovered some high value target was in the hospital and they just had to take him out? I guess it's possible but it seems like this is one of those situations were fuck up is more likely than conspiracy.

MSF have already said that the bombing was apparently targeted specifically and in a sustained manner at the hospital, and the Americans had already been informed about the hospital's location.

The hospital was allegedly treating an Al Qaeda member, which is why it had already been raided by Afghan security troops last month.

As you've said, we know nothing for certain, but I think there are non-tinfoil reasons to be suspicious about the incident.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

The British firebombed Dresden, not the Americans, and as much as people like to bitch and moan about Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, his handiwork was amateur compared to what the Americans did to Tokyo under Curtis LeMay.

Tokyo killed more people, but Tokyo contained munitions factories so it was at least marginally a military target (even if the vast majority killed had no role in weapons production). But Dresden was pure terror bombing, of a target with no role in Germany's military machine.

Wars are messy and inaccurate. I obviously can't say this argues any form of justification for something like this happening, but anyone who knows history knows this happens in war, it doesn't matter which combatants are involved or if there is a first-world military with a lot of technology involved.

All true, but I think it's important to remember that wars don't just spring up on their own like hurricanes or earthquakes. You can't treat this as just a random twist of fate, because even if it is just a sad, inevitable consequence of a state of war, a state of war is something that has to be created by deliberate human decision-making.

When political leaders decide to start wars, they are effectively deciding to kill uninvolved civilians. This is rarely acknowledged when war is discussed on a political level, though - when Bush talked about invading Afghanistan, he talked about the cost in terms of American lives, but he never said 'And I know that our forces will accidentally but inevitably kill civilians as collateral damage, but I think it's worth it'. That would have showed a level of honesty about what he was doing that's sadly absent from most pre-fact discussions about the costs of war.