At least 14 Doctors Without Borders staff, patients killed in Aleppo airstrikes (1 Viewer)

[Rogue Valley]

At least 14 Doctors Without Borders staff, patients killed in Aleppo airstrikes

Published April 28, 2016

A Syrian boy is comforted as he cries next to the body of a relative who died in a reported airstrike in the northern city of Aleppo
27 April 2016/Karam Al-Masri/AFP/Getty Images

A wave of nighttime airstrikes hit a hospital in Syria supported by Doctors Without Borders and nearby buildings in the rebel-held part of the contested city of Aleppo, killing as many as 27 people, including 14 doctors and patients — among them children and one of the last pediatricians in war-torn Syria, the international medical aid group reported. The strikes, blamed on the embattled government in Damascus, came shortly before midnight Wednesday and hit the well-known al-Quds field hospital in the Sukkari district in Aleppo, according to opposition activists and rescue workers.

Doctors Without Borders, also known by its French acronym MSF, said in a series of tweets also emailed to the AP that at least 14 patients and staff were among those killed, with the toll expected to rise. "Destroyed MSF-supported hospital in Aleppo was well known locally and hit by direct airstrike on Wednesday," it said.

The 60 day-old Syrian ceasefire hangs by a thread. The Assad regime is again dropping barrel-bombs and Russian forces are encircling Aleppo with artillery and MLRS.

 

[OrphanSlug]

So much for the "nationwide cessation of hostilities"... in other shocking news, gravity is still working today.

 

[PoS]

If you want to be a doctor in the middle of a war zone and you get bombed you cant really blame anyone but yourself, just saying...

 

[JasperL]

If you want to be a doctor in the middle of a war zone and you get bombed you cant really blame anyone but yourself, just saying...

That's bull****, just saying.

 

[jmotivator]

So much for the "nationwide cessation of hostilities"... in other shocking news, gravity is still working today.

I'm not sure how peaceful anyone expected a Russian/Syrian coalition to be. They still fight by the old rules.

 

[PoS]

That's bull****, just saying.

So if a man goes into a cage with a lion and gets eaten its not his fault either? Wonderful logic you have...

 

[radcen]

The 60 day-old Syrian ceasefire hangs by a thread. The Assad regime is again dropping barrel-bombs and Russian forces are encircling Aleppo with artillery and MLRS.

Hangs by a thread? :lol:

If you want to be a doctor in the middle of a war zone and you get bombed you cant really blame anyone but yourself, just saying...

That's bull****, just saying.

Why? It sucks, but it is reality. If you're going to put yourself in the middle of a war, no matter how altruistic your reasons, you run the real risk of being bombed.

 

[Lovebug]

If you want to be a doctor in the middle of a war zone and you get bombed you cant really blame anyone but yourself, just saying...

Are we blaming the victims now? How about just letting our soldiers rot in place. They don't need any help, for they are a volunteer force putting themselves in a place of combat.
Field hospitals of any sort should be a safe zone. War is hell, and some wars are more hellish than others.
What about rules of engagement?

 

[OrphanSlug]

If you want to be a doctor in the middle of a war zone and you get bombed you cant really blame anyone but yourself, just saying...

There is some truth to this. Going into a war zone under any condition and for any reason puts yourself at risk. The intentions may be for the most noble of reasons, but the risk means not being able to blame someone else for how things turn out.

Being on the right side of a cause, or doing the right thing, does not mean shielding from the danger.

 

[radcen]

Are we blaming the victims now? How about just letting our soldiers rot in place. They don't need any help, for they are a volunteer force putting themselves in a place of combat.
Field hospitals of any sort should be a safe zone. War is hell, and some wars are more hellish than others.
What about rules of engagement?

What about rainbows and unicorns?

:roll:

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'm not sure how peaceful anyone expected a Russian/Syrian coalition to be. They still fight by the old rules.

It is more than just the Russian/Syrian coalition, we also know that ISIS itself is a product of opportunity. If there is something that can be exploited we can expect plenty of parties in the region to take advantage irregardless of whatever "agreement" is installed.

 

[JasperL]

So if a man goes into a cage with a lion and gets eaten its not his fault either? Wonderful logic you have...

So if you volunteer for the armed forces and get killed/injured, it's your own damn fault. Got it. Same with cops who get shot and killed on the job - their fault. "Ma'am I'm sorry your husband and father of your children is dead, but it really is HIS fault, you know...."

Yes, there are risks doing what they're doing, and they knowingly assume those risks, but to blame them for getting killed is in fact bull****.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Are we blaming the victims now? How about just letting our soldiers rot in place. They don't need any help, for they are a volunteer force putting themselves in a place of combat.
Field hospitals of any sort should be a safe zone. War is hell, and some wars are more hellish than others.
What about rules of engagement?

Who said Russia, or al-Assad, or ISIS, or a dozen other factions over there fighting for whatever reason give a **** about "rules of engagement?"

What "should" be happening over there clearly is not happening. Anyone going over there for any reason should understand that, there is no rule book keeping people safe. Just another unfortunate truth about this long-term multiple way civil war with no end in sight.

 

[radcen]

So if you volunteer for the armed forces and get killed/injured, it's your own damn fault. Got it. Same with cops who get shot and killed on the job - their fault. "Ma'am I'm sorry your husband and father of your children is dead, but it really is HIS fault, you know...."

Yes, there are risks doing what they're doing, and they knowingly assume those risks, but to blame them for getting killed is in fact bull****.

Way to dramatize. :roll:

No, it's not "their fault". But they cannot blame others for what is obvious to anyone with open eyes and a rational mind, either.

 

[JasperL]

Why? It sucks, but it is reality. If you're going to put yourself in the middle of a war, no matter how altruistic your reasons, you run the real risk of being bombed.

That's not what he said - that there are risks in a war zone. PoS said, "they have no one to blame but themselves" so it's their fault they got killed.

No one would apply that standard to soldiers or police or firemen or any other walk of life where there are risks knowingly assumed. Hellfire, you assume a known risk driving your car on public roads. If some drunk asshole veers into your lane and kills you, are you to blame because you 1) know there are drunk assholes on the road, and 2) knowingly assume the risk of one of them killing you by driving? Of course not.

Besides, it's a helluva thought process to read a story about these people doing good work getting killed and your first thought is, "Well, it IS their fault they're dead..." F that.

 

[jmotivator]

It is more than just the Russian/Syrian coalition, we also know that ISIS itself is a product of opportunity. If there is something that can be exploited we can expect plenty of parties in the region to take advantage irregardless of whatever "agreement" is installed.

Well, yeah, ISIS is really just a death cult trying to spark war across the Middle East. So when facing Russia and Syria there is no better way to add heat to the war than sheltering in a populated city and waiting for the Russians and Syrians to bomb the crap out of you.

 

[apdst]

DWB isn't screaming about war crimes, interestingly enough.

 

[JasperL]

Way to dramatize. :roll:

No, it's not "their fault". But they cannot blame others for what is obvious to anyone with open eyes and a rational mind, either.

Of course they can blame others - the evil people who bombed a f'ing hospital. Some cop getting shot and killed blames the punk who shot him, as does society. We don't blame the cop, not ever. Same with soldiers. What kind of soulless asshole reads a story about soldiers back here injured or suffering PTSD and says, "Well, the soldier volunteered, he has no one to blame but himself for his problems."

 

[PoS]

So if you volunteer for the armed forces and get killed/injured, it's your own damn fault. Got it. Same with cops who get shot and killed on the job - their fault. "Ma'am I'm sorry your husband and father of your children is dead, but it really is HIS fault, you know...."

Yes, there are risks doing what they're doing, and they knowingly assume those risks, but to blame them for getting killed is in fact bull****.

False equivalency. Those doctors were not cops nor were they soldiers following orders. They voluntarily went into a war zone. Now many of them are dead. If they didnt want to die then they shouldnt have gone there.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Well, yeah, ISIS is really just a death cult trying to spark war across the Middle East. So when facing Russia and Syria there is no better way to add heat to the war than sheltering in a populated city and waiting for the Russians and Syrians to bomb the crap out of you.

Well, to continue that thought we can also argue well that Russian/Syrian forces would take less caution on where they strike. If ISIS has the intention of using civilian populated areas to hide, I doubt it will give them much protection.

This is not the first hospital struck in Syria by someone, and this is not the first loss of life by some peacekeeping, or humanitarian, or medical staff operating in Syria.

We are back to the same point. Going into Syria for whatever noble reason is not a bulletproof vest from all the dangers that exist in that nation today.

 

[radcen]

That's not what he said - that there are risks in a war zone. PoS said, "they have no one to blame but themselves" so it's their fault they got killed.

No one would apply that standard to soldiers or police or firemen or any other walk of life where there are risks knowingly assumed. Hellfire, you assume a known risk driving your car on public roads. If some drunk asshole veers into your lane and kills you, are you to blame because you 1) know there are drunk assholes on the road, and 2) knowingly assume the risk of one of them killing you by driving? Of course not.

Besides, it's a helluva thought process to read a story about these people doing good work getting killed and your first thought is, "Well, it IS their fault they're dead..." F that.

Not really a good analogy. There's a difference between being on an otherwise safe road, and acting/driving with caution, and still getting hit by a drunk driver, as the odds are still pretty low... and purposely "playing chicken" with other drivers on the road, because the odds increase immensely.

 

[Northern Light]

Saying that doctors in a war zone knew they could get blown up is stating the obvious.

Those doctors had more courage than anyone flapping their gums in this thread, including me.

RIP.

 

[JasperL]

False equivalency. Those doctors were not cops nor were they soldiers following orders. They voluntarily went into a war zone. Now many of them are dead. If they didnt want to die then they shouldnt have gone there.

What difference does being a cop or following orders make? They knowingly took a real risk of death or serious injury by taking a job where those things happen, regularly, and predictably. Our soldiers voluntarily went into a war zone - it IS a part of the job description. If our soldiers didn't want to die or come back with two legs missing, they shouldn't have volunteered for a job where that is a known risk.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Are we blaming the victims now?

I haven't read anyone here doing that. However, putting yourself in the middle of a war zone comes with potential consequences - death being one of them. That's not blame, but rather recognition of reality.

How about just letting our soldiers rot in place. They don't need any help, for they are a volunteer force putting themselves in a place of combat.

Not really sure what you mean by that, and given it's tone when I read it, I don't think I would want to know either. I feel like you were trying to make a point but in a way that is below your normal self here.

Field hospitals of any sort should be a safe zone.

In a war zone, no place is a real safe zone. By the Geneva Conventions, intentionally targeting a hospital is a war crime. However, hospitals, field or fixed, are hit unintentionally all the time. I was in a MASF (Mobile Aeromedical Staging Facility - like a field hospital) that was hit my a mortar. It had a big red cross on the sides, door and roof, but dumb bombs can hit anywhere, and it isn't the fault of the one doing the bombing or the one getting bombed.

War is hell, and some wars are more hellish than others.

The only correction I would make to that is, for the military, all are equally hellish; for civilians, you are correct, some are more hellish than others from the standpoint of the civilians involved. Civil wars and civil uprisings (as is happening in Syria) are more hellish by an order of magnitude than the standard war would be. However, that is only if modern technology is used with guided bombs and so on. In WWII England, and mainland Europe, millions of civilians were injured and/or killed by aerial bombing and strafing, artillery barrages, mortar and rifle fire. The US military, in particular, tries extremely hard to avoid civilian casualties.

What about rules of engagement?

I would doubt that the Syrian army has any rules of engagement other than try to kill the enemy the quickest and most efficient way possible at the time given the orders from the regime. Most countries do not issue rules of engagement. The US does, as do many first world nations - yet most armed conflicts around the world are not being undertaken by first world nations as the primary belligerents. In Syria, where this took place, the belligerents are loosely organized civilian insurgency groups, organized terrorist groups (like ISIS), and the nation of Syria (which could be argued is not a first world nation). The civil war in Syria has already seen chemical warfare by groups on either side, intentional targeting of civilians by the regime with barrel bombs dropped from helicopters (to be honest, it's mostly civilian that are fighting the regime so they have made the civilians a legitimate military target in doing so), the enslavement of civilians, the mass beheading of civilians, the use of civilians as human shields, and the use of hospitals and schools and mosques as places of refuge for fighters and military equipment and ammunition. All of which when done intentionally are war crimes. That hasn't stopped the continual use of these methods or the tacit approval and in many cases protection and material support by Russia, Iran, and other major nations of those taking these actions.

 

[JasperL]

Not really a good analogy. There's a difference between being on an otherwise safe road, and acting/driving with caution, and still getting hit by a drunk driver, as the odds are still pretty low... and purposely "playing chicken" with other drivers on the road, because the odds increase immensely.

So what kind of odds shift the blame from the person doing the killing to the person getting killed? Can you give me the number? According to wiki, about 30,000 people served with MSF in 2015 alone. Fourteen killed here. How does that fit into your objective definition of when we can blame the person dying?

And I KNOW you blame our soldiers for getting killed or injured. Right? If members of the armed forces don't want to lose both legs, get killed, come back with lifelong PTSD, maybe they should have been accountants and not volunteered to fight and risk death and injury. They have no one to blame but themselves!

Sorry, but that line of thought is obscene IMO.