• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Beaudreaux said:
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.
Click to expand...

PoS said, "if you...get bombed, you cant really blame anyone but yourself." So PoS is in fact blaming the victims, the MSF staff. :shrug:

We all recognize the risk the MSF staff, soldiers, cops, firemen, etc. knowingly assume but no one I know with a conscience blames them for dying or getting injured.
 
JasperL said:
PoS said, "if you...get bombed, you cant really blame anyone but yourself." So PoS is in fact blaming the victims, the MSF staff. :shrug:

We all recognize the risk the MSF staff, soldiers, cops, firemen, etc. knowingly assume but no one I know with a conscience blames them for dying or getting injured.
Click to expand...

Read what he said, and what you quoted. He didn't say that WE should blame them, but that if they were to try to blame someone, they should look to blaming themselves. That is true, when talking about self reflection.

Context matters.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...
1) Apparently my point about people choosing actions which increase risk, when I shot down your drunk driving analogy, is too much. Now you're trying to save face by demanding specific numbers, which I bet you know don't exist. And even if they did, you'd find a reason to not accept them.

2) No, you don't "KNOW" any such thing. I have already categorically put that to rest in a previous post. I sense you are resorting to playing sort of a "debating pinata" game where you're swinging a stick wildly in the air hoping you'll hit something and get a prize.

3) Your opinion, while I grant is well-intended, is fantasy and wishful thinking.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Read what he said, and what you quoted. He didn't say that WE should blame them, but that if they were to try to blame someone, they should look to blaming themselves. That is true, when talking about self reflection.

Context matters.
Click to expand...

OK, who should WE blame then? And why does the blame shift depending on whether the family of a dead victim does the blaming or you from where you sit?

I'd love to see one of you guys defending this go up to a soldier with both legs gone and say, "Well, if volunteer for the U.S. armed forces during war time, you have no one to blame but yourself for losing both legs." And then followed by a big :shrug:
 
JasperL said:
OK, who should WE blame then? And why does the blame shift depending on whether the family of a dead victim does the blaming or you from where you sit?

I'd love to see one of you guys defending this go up to a soldier with both legs gone and say, "Well, if volunteer for the U.S. armed forces during war time, you have no one to blame but yourself for losing both legs." And then followed by a big :shrug:
Click to expand...
You're hell-bent on assessing blame.
 
JasperL said:
OK, who should WE blame then? And why does the blame shift depending on whether the family of a dead victim does the blaming or you from where you sit?
Click to expand...

We can blame whomever WE wish to blame. I blame a combination of 1) the fog of war, 2) the insurgents use of hospitals, schools, and mosques as refuges for fighting personnel, ammunition storage, and equipment hiding making them legitimate and legal military targets, 3) the Syrian regime for creating an environment where this civil war would start in the first place, 4) the Russians for giving political and military cover and support to the Syrian regime allowing them to barrel bomb civilians on a regular basis, 5) the US for not intervening when Syria crossed the "red line" and used chemical weapons on its own civilians, 6) the entire region for fomenting the civil war in Syria by leaving their borders open so that foreign fighters can easily enter the war zone and allowing ISIS to grow and their caring more about a book/religion than they do their own living people, 7) the world turning a blind eye to genocide, once again, and 8) people in this world that consciously refuse see the truth and rather try to find one person or country or something ideologically different than them to blame rather than understanding that in war, bad things happen, and the only way to avoid them is to either not go to war, or stop the war as quickly as possible by doing whatever is required to end the war as quickly as possible even if that means short term increases in death and destruction to ensure long term peace, stability, and safety.

Being a wounded combat medic, I choose to not address the second part of your statement other than to explain why by saying that it is hyperbolic and not based in anyway on logic, or the topic.
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think ISIS wants the protection of civilians, they just want dead civilians to pin on Russia and Syria.
 
radcen said:
1) Apparently my point about people choosing actions which increase risk, when I shot down your drunk driving analogy, is too much. Now you're trying to save face by demanding specific numbers, which I bet you know don't exist. And even if they did, you'd find a reason to not accept them.
Click to expand...

No, what I was attempting to do was point out that you're trying to identify an objective standard that doesn't exist or that you can't coherently articulate in a way that it can be applied to different situations. If you can avoid blaming yourself for the paralysis suffered because someone crossed the center line and hit your car head on (this is a known risk of driving - 30,000 died last year on our roads, 2.5 million injured in crashes, 200,000 hospitalized), what objective standard are you using to blame these MSF staff?

The risk of serving in a war zone is higher than at the local hospital, but 14 dead of 30,000 who worked for MSF last year alone isn't a risk one can say is imminent - it's roughly 0.005%. It's a reasonable assumption given the history of MSF and the fatality rate that one serving for MSF in a war zone should EXPECT to get bombed and die? How do you figure that?

2) No, you don't "KNOW" any such thing. I have already categorically put that to rest in a previous post. I sense you are resorting to playing sort of a "debating pinata" game where you're swinging a stick wildly in the air hoping you'll hit something and get a prize.
Click to expand...

You said those in war zones assume a known risk. Of course - soldiers, support staff, doctors, nurses, all voluntarily assume a significant risk. The issue is who to blame, if anyone, for the deaths or injuries that might occur. You say the dead and injured.

3) Your opinion, while I grant is well-intended, is fantasy and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

And IMO the opinion I responded to is obscene, and simply isn't applied to soldiers, cops, etc. Not sure what makes the standard apply here to doctors and nurses.
 
Beaudreaux said:
We can blame whomever WE wish to blame...

Being a wounded combat medic, I choose to not address the second part of your statement other than to explain why by saying that it is hyperbolic and not based in anyway on logic, or the topic.
Click to expand...

I noticed the blame you assign doesn't include the dead and injured, even those who volunteer for duty, and so we agree on that.

Second, I wasn't being personal in posing my question, and I apologize if that was how you read it. And I'll end by simply saying it would never occur to me to think that those injured in a war zone, "have no one to blame but themselves."
 
War is Hell.

I am assuming whoever bombed the place did not know what it was or is mentally retarded.


As for a cease fire? Anyone who thought it would hold is pretty naive, imo.

That place is a mess.

There will be a ceasefire when it is advantageous to both sides for there to be a cease fire - or both sides are forced to - probably not before.

Right now, Assad seems to have the edge and he is - rightly or wrongly - grabbing all the land he can before the ceasefire takes hold. I imagine if the roles were reversed, the other 'side(s)' would be doing the same thing.

Frankly, as much as I despise Assad, I would much rather he was in control of most of Syria rather then Muslim extremists.
 
JasperL said:
No, what I was attempting to do was point out that you're trying to identify an objective standard that doesn't exist or that you can't coherently articulate in a way that it can be applied to different situations. If you can avoid blaming yourself for the paralysis suffered because someone crossed the center line and hit your car head on (this is a known risk of driving - 30,000 died last year on our roads, 2.5 million injured in crashes, 200,000 hospitalized), what objective standard are you using to blame these MSF staff?

The risk of serving in a war zone is higher than at the local hospital, but 14 dead of 30,000 who worked for MSF last year alone isn't a risk one can say is imminent - it's roughly 0.005%. It's a reasonable assumption given the history of MSF and the fatality rate that one serving for MSF in a war zone should EXPECT to get bombed and die? How do you figure that?



You said those in war zones assume a known risk. Of course - soldiers, support staff, doctors, nurses, all voluntarily assume a significant risk. The issue is who to blame, if anyone, for the deaths or injuries that might occur. You say the dead and injured.



And IMO the opinion I responded to is obscene, and simply isn't applied to soldiers, cops, etc. Not sure what makes the standard apply here to doctors and nurses.
Click to expand...
You're confusing risk and blame. You're also misusing words like "objective", when you are emotionalizing* the incident by insisting somebody has to be blamed. And if the percentage of increased is really as low as you claim, then that lessens the likelihood there is any blame, and that it's more random chance.

*- You're emotionalizing by wanting to absolve the 'good guys', and pass all the blame onto the 'evil bad guys'.
 
Simpleχity;1065812086 said:
At least 14 Doctors Without Borders staff, patients killed in Aleppo airstrikes




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.
Click to expand...

We didn't arrange elimination of the dictatorship, before revolt escalated to civil war. Now there is no point in pointing fingers. Assad and a good number of others have committed crimes against humanity. That much is certain. But he and his farther before him have been doing that for many decades.
 
Lovebug said:
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?
Click to expand...

Great question, write Putin about it and get back to us.
 
Everyone knows if you really want to take down a hospital you don't just attack it...

You bomb it and then have your troops open fire on the fleeing doctors and patients as they try to escape. That's how the U.S. does it. Friggin' amateurs.
 
Whatever the cause, this is a tragedy for the world--a tremendous loss.
 
nota bene said:
Whatever the cause, this is a tragedy for the world--a tremendous loss.
Click to expand...
A moment of silence for the people of Aleppo and the doctors who died.
 
Casper said:
Ummm, this bombing was in Syria and not done by Americans. Yes the Americans have made mistakes in the past, this was no mistake but a deliberate act. Nice Try
Click to expand...

How do you know it wasn't a mistake?
 
Casper said:
Ummm, this bombing was in Syria and not done by Americans. Yes the Americans have made mistakes in the past, this was no mistake but a deliberate act. Nice Try
Click to expand...

The one in October was a deliberate act, a war crime.

Likely this one is too.
 
Casper said:
If anyone wanted to really grasp how evil Assad and his henchmen are we have another example to show them, as if dropping barrel bombs indiscriminately on neighborhoods wasn't enough.
Click to expand...

If anyone wanted to really grasp how evil Obama and his henchmen are, all he need do is examine the record of US drone strikes over the last 8 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom