Afghan lawmaker says US Helicopter Firing on Medical Clinic Violates Islamic, In

[Freeper]

tekisui  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Aug-28-09 07:54 AM
Original message
Afghan lawmaker says US Helicopter Firing on Medical Clinic Violates Islamic, Intl Law   Updated at 10:19 AM
   
Source: CP

KABUL — The U.S. military's decision to use a helicopter gunship to fire on a medical clinic where an injured Taliban commander had bunkered was a violation of Islamic and international law, a parliamentarian representing the region said Friday.

The U.S. military has said its troops only opened fire on the clinic after they were fired on and had ensured there were no civilians inside. The military also said both the provincial governor and the clinic's doctor gave them permission to open fire. After the fighting, Afghan and U.S. forces met with villagers and discussed rebuilding the clinic, a U.S. summary of the meeting said.

Wednesday's battle started after a wounded Taliban commander sought treatment at a clinic in the Sar Hawza district of eastern Paktika province. Afghan forces tipped off to his presence went to the centre and got in a five-hour firefight with militants, the governor's office has said. U.S. forces later provided backup, including the helicopter.

A lawmaker representing Paktika said other options should have been more seriously considered.

"There must have been another way or tactic to use to get to him without destroying the hospital," said Khalid Faroqi, who is also from Sar Hawza district. The targeted insurgent leader was injured in the attack.

"It is an offence to shoot on a hospital like that," he said. "The international forces should have higher standards than the insurgents."

Afghanistan's health minister, however, defended the troops' actions, saying the insurgents violated the sanctity of the clinic by bringing their guns inside. He said they hid the weapons under their clothes, and that they were the first to fire. The Taliban turned the clinic into a bunker, he said, and the U.S. forces were needed to rout them out.

more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6409114

If Boosh was still in office there would be 100 replies of war crimes, chimpeachment, etc et.

madokie  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Aug-28-09 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's hard for me to imagine the decision making here
   
What in the hell are we doing there and what the hell are we doing destroying one of their hospitals for one wounded bad guy?

Ask your president, your house, and your senate what we are doing there.
This is Obama's war now and I know it kills you that you cant say this is Bush's war crime.

tekisui  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Aug-28-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Bombing necessary social services, like hospitals,   Updated at 10:19 AM
   
(even with a bad guy in it) is not a way to win the trust and respect of the people.

madokie  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Aug-28-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Nor is destroying their infastructure
   
or killing the innocent. Hell, what the usa is doing there is in no way justified

so they just shrug their shoulders move on, and scream for free healthcare.
Not one call for impeachment or frog marches.

[USA4ME]

I see the tekisui primitive, who lives in the same area as I, has been noticing our documenting just how the anti-war movement has fallen off the radar screen at Skin's island now that war is OK since Dear Leader is in office.  He's posted around 3 or 4 various threads on the Afghan situation, and they're essentially sliding off the front page with little or no comment.

And then there's this:

leave iraq
 
Obama’s Road to War

On the Afghan front, the news is grim: a failed election fraught with fraud, a huge bombing in Kandahar that underscores the weakness of the American position, and growing voices of opposition being raised on the home front. As conservatives tentatively and hesitantly reassess the interventionism-run-amok of the Bush years, and liberals begin to wake from their dreams of a perfectly "progressive" president, the outlines of a new anti-interventionist coalition are taking shape.

Suddenly Afghanistan is in the news, and commentators on the right as well as the left are taking note. Tony Blankley, former chief aide to Newt Gingrich and editor of the Washington Times, joins Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuval and Pat Buchanan in comparing Obama to LBJ – a chief executive with an ambitious liberal domestic program dragged down by his commitment to a losing war.

The Democrats of today are even more fearful of Republican criticism of liberal "appeasers" than they were in LBJ’s time. Having become the antiwar party of the 1970s, with the triumph of McGovernism and the secession of the Scoop Jackson neocons, they have been cowering ever since, scared to death that the "kill ‘em-all-and-sort-it-out-later" wing of the GOP will go after them hammer and tongs. The result has been the promiscuous interventionism of the Clinton era, and, more recently, the rise of the "national security Democrats" — a school of foreign policy and military analysts dedicated to proving that Democrats can be just as bloodthirsty as their partisan opponents, albeit in a "pragmatic" and impeccably PC way.

Whether this gives the antiwar movement time and the chance to attract enough support from both sides of the political spectrum to make an attack on Iran impossible is a tantalizing — but still highly speculative — question. What is certain, however, is that by the time the Obama-ites get around to fulfilling their pledge to Netanyahu to take on Iran, Americans – left, right, and center – will be thoroughly war-sick.

The war is a lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6409318

It's been up almost 2 hours and has only 3 responses.  Three!!

As Freeper mentioned, were Bush still in office this thread would have received 50+ minimum.

They hypocrites!

.

[Freeper]

I see the tekisui primitive, who lives in the same area as I, has been noticing our documenting just how the anti-war movement has fallen off the radar screen at Skin's island now that war is OK since Dear Leader is in office.  He's posted around 3 or 4 various threads on the Afghan situation, and they're essentially sliding off the front page with little or no comment.

And then there's this:

It's been up almost 2 hours and has only 3 responses.  Three!!

As Freeper mentioned, were Bush still in office this thread would have received 50+ minimum.

They hypocrites!

.

Not to mention there would be 3 or 4 threads dealing with the same article.
For 6 years now I made the claim they didn't oppose the war they opposed Bush and I have been proven overwhelmingly right.

[dutch508]

Once hostile forces enter a 'safe building' and use it to hide or to attack it invalidates the rule of law protecting such a site, and the site becomes a legal target.

[diesel driver]

ekisui  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Aug-28-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Bombing necessary social services, like hospitals,   Updated at 10:19 AM
(even with a bad guy in it) is not a way to win the trust and respect of the people.

madokie  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Aug-28-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Nor is destroying their infastructure
or killing the innocent. Hell, what the usa is doing there is in no way justified

I guess you failed to mention that to Klintoon when he was bombing the bridges, power plants, and TV stations in Bosnia....

Maybe now that your hero, Zero, is in office, you'll forget again....

[diesel driver]

Once hostile forces enter a 'safe building' and use it to hide or to attack it invalidates the rule of law protecting such a site, and the site becomes a legal target.

EXACTLY!

Besides, when did bombing a synagog or a church dissuade a raghead....

[Freeper]

Once hostile forces enter a 'safe building' and use it to hide or to attack it invalidates the rule of law protecting such a site, and the site becomes a legal target.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying what our military did was wrong. I am just pointing out the deafening silence at the DUmp.

[Rebel]

By a show of hands, who's with me?

[Freeper]

By a show of hands, who's with me?

I'm with you in spirit. 

[GOBUCKS]

We should take out all their hospitals and clinics.
Why on earth would we want to allow muslims to recover from their wounds?
Guerrilla conflicts never follow the rules of war, at least the guerrillas don't.
We should kill every muslim who comes within range of our weapons.
There are no good guys.