Both attacks on a hospital are reprehensible.

Maybe we can even get them to make a habit of it. It would do much to restore our credibility if we got our act in line with our rhetoric.

something with such grave consequences, there needs to be accountability

We are losing Kunduz, they were pissed.

1.) Afghans/Special ops called the strike.
2.) It was reviewed by command.
2.a) Command knows it is a hospital.
3.) Command says go ahead.

The only real thing pushing me to suspect mistake is that this is such a huge f@ck-up/atrocity which would obviously blow up into a global story, that it would be career suicide for someone to say "yeah, massacre everyone in that hospital. totally worth it."

Did the pilots/air crew know it was a hospital? If they didn't, can't imagine how they're feeling. If they did, well then they belong in a supermax prison.

I find it hard to explain too without a healthy dose of irrationality, but war is just the place for that, isn't it?

This is why you don't start stupid wars, they don't go well.

question is where the mistake happened and why it happened--heat of the moment "let god sort them out" or someone just having a horrifically tragic brainfart.

Hopefully there'll be a legit investigation.

But, I suspect MSF is going to do more than hope there is one.

Which is certainly not out of the question.

Hopefully facts will be revealed, and those facts will turn out to be true

There are plenty of good men and women in our military, but there are plenty of assholes too.

I don't believe the Israeli's "Purity of Arms" bullshit, and I don't believe our moral posturing either.

mass murder involved here.

I'm less convinced anyone could be stupid enough to think they'd get away with it.

But, maybe I'm the stupid one.

I don't think I am, but I know I could be.

This stuff annoys me, these atrocities that get ignored (we all pay for that), and it has annoyed me for a long time, and the confirmation bias starts to creep in.

You think that means we should get down on their level, and then overlook it when we do?

it also seems to be selectively applied and covers a lot of things, and doesn't seem to require an investigation. a very fluid concept, apparently. it is certainly bad when civilians die. the u.s. should investigate and then take steps to make such incidents less likely. but i will wait to see the facts. also wondering what good law of war would be if it allows, for example, taliban to flout it by firing from hospitals and take advantage of a more accountable adversary's reluctance to fire back.

To avoid conviction? If you look at what war crimes trials have occurred, it is pretty clear this is not going to be tried. The trials are for huge atrocities and horrifically cruel acts done by the losing side. A huge amount of other really bad stuff never gets there. There will
be no trial, let alone conviction, for war crimes on this incident.

Wait, is US even a member of ICC?