• ISIS creating its own version of the National Health Service- the ISHS
    51 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ewitwins;47596059]There's an important point to be made with this video: We [b]HAVE[/b] to stick to the rules and regulations that we have ratified internationally and leave these facilities be. We can't bomb them. We can't raid them. We can't shoot at them. They are medical facilities in their entirety and, despite belonging to an unconventional force, must be treated as if they were the medical facilities of any other standing military force. We didn't sink German hospital-ships or bomb Korean medical camps (on-record, anyways), and we shouldn't start now.[/QUOTE] This is why Hamas fires missiles from hospitals and uses ambulances as getaway.
So they ban science yet have a NHS How does that work
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47596783]So they ban science yet have a NHS How does that work[/QUOTE] If they manage to last that long (I sure as hell hope not), they'll probably do what Nazi Germany did and turn everything into their agenda; science will return but it will be centred around weapons manufacturing. I imagine that ISIS aren't going to be doing much medical research. [editline]25th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MuffinZerg;47596514]This is why Hamas fires missiles from hospitals and uses ambulances as getaway.[/QUOTE] So the alternative is blow up the hospitals full of sick civilians? We can't commit war crimes just because "these guys are [I]really[/I] bad though!"
[QUOTE=usaokay;47595767]But can ISIS cure head decapitation?[/QUOTE] How do you think they cure most problems?
[QUOTE=usaokay;47595767]But can ISIS cure head decapitation?[/QUOTE] Death cures all ailments.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47596512]"We" (the "west") doesn't have to do (or not do) anything; who exactly is going to bring say the US to court over bombing ISIS hospitals?[/QUOTE] ...The International Criminal Court in The Hague, since bombing hospitals is a war crime?
[QUOTE=ewitwins;47596059]There's an important point to be made with this video: We [b]HAVE[/b] to stick to the rules and regulations that we have ratified internationally and leave these facilities be. We can't bomb them. We can't raid them. We can't shoot at them. They are medical facilities in their entirety and, despite belonging to an unconventional force, must be treated as if they were the medical facilities of any other standing military force. We didn't sink German hospital-ships or bomb Korean medical camps (on-record, anyways), and we shouldn't start now.[/QUOTE] No shit, you think we haven't been following the Geneva convention for the most part when it comes to terrorist organizations (Taliban) already?
Hard for them to stock said medical facilities when they keep [URL="http://nypost.com/2015/04/10/10-doctors-shot-dead-after-refusing-to-treat-isis-militants/"]murdering the doctors[/URL] who refuse to treat their injured.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47596512]"We" (the "west") doesn't have to do (or not do) anything; who exactly is going to bring say the US to court over bombing ISIS hospitals?[/QUOTE] Well presumably the US itself, because the military does have civilian oversight and if generals were knowingly targeting hospitals they could face serious consequences, and that's before you get to the international level of diplomacy. Its not perfect though
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;47596514]This is why Hamas fires missiles from hospitals and uses ambulances as getaway.[/QUOTE] you don't have to blow up hospitals and ambulances to fight hamas, you need to address the reasons that people join and support hamas. [URL="http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741-1.html"]in 2008[/URL], the RAND corporation examined the timelines of over 200 terrorist groups over the past 4 decades, and found that military action only killed about 7% of the groups in the sample. by comparison, over 80% of terrorist groups in that same sample either ended by joining the political process or by being effectively snuffed out by police activity. an [URL="http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/aabadie/povterr.pdf"]analysis[/URL] done in 2004 by alberto abadie, professor of public policy at harvard university, similarly found that one of the root causes and risk factors for terrorism is a low level of political rights. hence, the lack of political efficacy held by the people of gaza is likely a major factor in explaining the popularity of groups such as hamas. if you want to stop terrorism, you'd do best to correct the maladies that lead people to become terrorists in the first place, rather than trying to blow them up after the fact.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;47596059]There's an important point to be made with this video: We [b]HAVE[/b] to stick to the rules and regulations that we have ratified internationally and leave these facilities be. We can't bomb them. We can't raid them. We can't shoot at them. They are medical facilities in their entirety and, despite belonging to an unconventional force, must be treated as if they were the medical facilities of any other standing military force. We didn't sink German hospital-ships or bomb Korean medical camps (on-record, anyways), and we shouldn't start now.[/QUOTE] Strategically you don't attack hospitals because they are resource drains on the enemy. Wounded soldiers have to be replaced and still consume man hours and resources. It is why so many weapons are designed to maim, not kill.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47599257]It is why so many weapons are designed to maim, not kill.[/QUOTE] I thought you'd be smarter than this myth. What exactly are you referring to?
[QUOTE=joes33431;47598111]you don't have to blow up hospitals and ambulances to fight hamas, you need to address the reasons that people join and support hamas. [URL="http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741-1.html"]in 2008[/URL], the RAND corporation examined the timelines of over 200 terrorist groups over the past 4 decades, and found that military action only killed about 7% of the groups in the sample. by comparison, over 80% of terrorist groups in that same sample either ended by joining the political process or by being effectively snuffed out by police activity. an [URL="http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/aabadie/povterr.pdf"]analysis[/URL] done in 2004 by alberto abadie, professor of public policy at harvard university, similarly found that one of the root causes and risk factors for terrorism is a low level of political rights. hence, the lack of political efficacy held by the people of gaza is likely a major factor in explaining the popularity of groups such as hamas. if you want to stop terrorism, you'd do best to correct the maladies that lead people to become terrorists in the first place, rather than trying to blow them up after the fact.[/QUOTE] Yours sincerely, RHODESIA.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47597093]...The International Criminal Court in The Hague, since bombing hospitals is a war crime?[/QUOTE] The US is not a participant in the ICC.
[QUOTE=DeEz;47603049]The US is not a participant in the ICC.[/QUOTE] Time to make a sarcastic response that casually brushes off my own ignorance of this fact.
Killing children and then imitating saving their lives as a back drop for a video, what a time to be alive.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47599257]Strategically you don't attack hospitals because they are resource drains on the enemy. Wounded soldiers have to be replaced and still consume man hours and resources. It is why so many weapons are designed to maim, not kill.[/QUOTE] No weapons are more deadlier than ever, its just our medical treatments are very good. If the opposite was true how come the drone program which usually uses only single strikes is so effective at killing people, because the terrorists don't have the same level of protection and medical system we do * the drone program doesn't always hit terrorists
[QUOTE=Aman;47600311]I thought you'd be smarter than this myth. What exactly are you referring to?[/QUOTE] AP Landmines and chemical weapons are the big ones. Modern combat doesn't see us attempting to intentionally maim people very often, but the strategic reasoning for leaving hospitals alone remains the same. Not a myth, just how logistics works. Wounded soldiers are expensive to care for and place a strain on enemy resources. =/
[QUOTE=GunFox;47599257]Strategically you don't attack hospitals because they are resource drains on the enemy. Wounded soldiers have to be replaced and still consume man hours and resources. It is why so many weapons are designed to maim, not kill.[/QUOTE] This isn't true, weapons are made to be deadly. The US doesn't want to maim enemy combatants because then we're required to treat them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.