ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

Brumby said:

Whether an agreement was made with the Taliban to swap places or not is is not the main point. I posted that article to refute your assertion below :

Click to expand...

If a very large accident happens near a hospital in any country it is normal to free as many beds as possible by releasing patients who can function outside or send them to a hospital further away in order to accept more casualties. In war it is medically correct to do the same in the expectation of a flood of casualties due to an expected battle.
These considerations by Dershowitz look like a defence of a committed war crime without abandoning the reasoning that no war crime was committed because the incident was caused by the making of a mistake by someone. Sickening.

dtulsa said:

The truth is, people and military forces can find a way to justify any action. The trouble is when your actions on the field run counter to your stated principles, or when the collateral damage reaches the eyes of the public and hard questions are asked.

These scenarios come up all the time, probably in Israel most of all. Do you risk soldiers lives to neutralize a HVT hold up in a residential area, or wait for a time when civilian presence is minimal and launch a precision strike? You may kill some civilians in the process but you mitigate the number of dead to an 'acceptable' level, and so justify the action. Who's lives are more valuable?

It's the same with these terrorists in Syria. They justify brutal acts as necessary to upholding their religious principles.

Accidents happen, but nations need to abide by the international conventions of warfare or it really becomes a jungle. Achieve mission objectives within the rules, or risk morally bankrupting your society. It's a slippery slope.

Click to expand...

Let's get you into a real world situation. If the enemy locates SCUD missiles next to a hospital full of innocents, do you bomb the missile and risk scores of innocent lives, or do you allow the enemy to operate the missiles and risk the lives of many more?

Wars are nasty business, and should be the last option. But once in, you fight to win as quickly as possible to impose your will on the enemy, while inflicting as little casualties and property damage as possible. But job one is win the war, and if you can't do what it demands of you, then don't start or accept them.

When I said Doctors Without Borders has never allowed combatants to operate from their hospitals, I meant combatants cannot fight their war from or store weapons in MSF compounds. Doctors Without Borders will treat anyone who needs care including Taliban fighters. This is standard practice for medical NGOs. Even the U.S. and Israeli militaries provide medical care to wounded enemies.

The SCUD missile scenario is a difficult one, but a few thoughts come to mind. It is possible that any strike on the SCUD missile will miss, and then you have the worst all outcomes: hospital destroyed + SCUD missile being launched. SCUDs are very inaccurate and may wind up hitting an open field if launched at a long range target. I realize that is little comfort to a country facing SCUD missiles, though, so an air strike might be justified. But that wasn't the case in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria where three MSF hospitals have all been bombed in the last year.

Zool makes a good point about justifying something. As the saying goes, if all men were angels there would be no need for laws. If armies always policed themselves and never committed heinous acts, there would be no need for the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war. Everyone always feels their acts are justified in the moment. ISIS fighters feel they are justified in beheading non-Muslims. The angry husband who catches his wife cheating feels justified in killing her. We cannot rely on an individual's sense of justice in order to prevent terrible acts, especially in war.

You cannot be a law unto yourself, there must an external, neutral arbiter. That arbiter is ex ante the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war. That arbiter ex post facto is the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, and to a much lesser extent, each nation's criminal courts. I think everyone on SDF agrees to the necessity of rules of war so our differences lie in how much discretion to grant each military commander and soldier.

Blackstone said:

If hospitals are used for military purposes other than treatment of injuries, then they're fair targets. What I mean is if enemies station soldiers and military hardware in those places, then it's bombs away. I'd do the same to churches, mosques, temples, and Moose Lodges too, because the strike decision on legitimate war targets is based on strategic and tactical needs, and not on if it's PC.

Click to expand...

if they are indeed being used for miliitary purposes then I agree ... if the hospital is TREATING combatants as well as civillians or even solely treating combatants it should be off limits ( whoever the troops may be or whoever is doing the targetting). That said the pace of war and movement of hospital/medical facilities can make targetting a challenging business and accidents - whilst all efforts should be taken to prevent them, will happen

I think all of you are taking something for granted when its not at all clear that it is indeed the case - specifically that it was indeed the Russians who struck the hospital and that they deliberately did it.

The Russians are denying that they hit the hospitals.

As the western press itself loves to stress repeatedly, the Russians don't use a lot of PGMs in their Syrian campaign, relying on dumb bombs for the overwhelming majority of their strikes.

As others have noted, that makes the accusations extra suspect since by all accounts, they were struck with precision weapons.

For Russia to hit those hospitals with PGMs would mean that it wasn't an accidental collateral damage scenario, and that they wanted to hit the hospital badly enough to justify using some of their small inventory of expensive PGMs, which they have been using very sparingly thus far.

If that was the case, the Russians wouldn't be denying it, but rather trying to justify why those hospitals were legitimate targets.

It just doesn't add up.

So all this discussion and theorising on why the Russians might want to hit the hospital all seems more than a little premature, and would be entirely redundant and irrelevant if the Russians were telling the truth that it wasn't them who hit the hospital in the first place.

More movement on the ground according to Almasdanews.com

The Kurds have taken the City of Mare and Shakya Isa without firing a shot, with the rebels falling back en-masse towards Aziz.

Further in Aleppo itself a major offensive by both Kurds and SAA is described as having started a massive offensive to (presumably) seal off the city

Meanwhile in Latakia - the offensive on Kinsabba is now in full swing.

Hope to have time to back up with more details and maps later today (unless someone wants to beat me to it?).

Brumby said:

Whether an agreement was made with the Taliban to swap places or not is is not the main point. I posted that article to refute your assertion below :

Click to expand...

the issue is the distinction beytween treating combatants and allowing them to operate. I think you will find little if any evidence of combatants operating from MSF hospitals - and the aricle you referenced provides no evidence of this - only that Taliban fighters were Treated. There is a very clear distinction between combatants being treated and them using the hospital for military purposes.

plawolf said:

I think all of you are taking something for granted when its not at all clear that it is indeed the case - specifically that it was indeed the Russians who struck the hospital and that they deliberately did it.

The Russians are denying that they hit the hospitals.

As the western press itself loves to stress repeatedly, the Russians don't use a lot of PGMs in their Syrian campaign, relying on dumb bombs for the overwhelming majority of their strikes.

As others have noted, that makes the accusations extra suspect since by all accounts, they were struck with precision weapons.

For Russia to hit those hospitals with PGMs would mean that it wasn't an accidental collateral damage scenario, and that they wanted to hit the hospital badly enough to justify using some of their small inventory of expensive PGMs, which they have been using very sparingly thus far.

If that was the case, the Russians wouldn't be denying it, but rather trying to justify why those hospitals were legitimate targets.

It just doesn't add up.

So all this discussion and theorising on why the Russians might want to hit the hospital all seems more than a little premature, and would be entirely redundant and irrelevant if the Russians were telling the truth that it wasn't them who hit the hospital in the first place.

Click to expand...

Personally I do not know who hit the hospital - the book is still open on that - I do not believe that either side (Russians or US coalition) would knowingly target a hospital - in this day and age the political fallout is just too great, and neither side would want to risk it's perceived moral high ground. It is far more likely that the damage/casualties caused was an unfortunate accident of war. Unfortunately the media ( for obvious reasons) jumps on situation like this.

bruceb1959 said:

Personally I do not know who hit the hospital - the book is still open on that - I do not believe that either side (Russians or US coalition) would knowingly target a hospital - in this day and age the political fallout is just too great, and neither side would want to risk it's perceived moral high ground. It is far more likely that the damage/casualties caused was an unfortunate accident of war. Unfortunately the media ( for obvious reasons) jumps on situation like this.

Click to expand...

I agree that neither Russia or the US has anything to gain and plenty to loose by deliberately targeting hospitals. But US and Russia are not the only players in this game, nor are they the only ones who have the means and opportunity to launch such attacks.

There are certainly one or two players in this game, for whom targeting hospitals would make perfect sense for, if they could pin the blame for it on the Russians/Syrians.

Its not as far fetched as some members here would love to insist, since there is pretty strong arguments and evidence to suggest this exact same tactic has already been attempted in this conflict before.

To hit one hospital might be unfortunate, to hit two sounds like carelessness, to hit three sounds like intentional targeting. Free after G. B. Shaw, "The Importance of Being Ernest".