Insurgents Attack Medevac Helicopters. AFGN STH.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Jul 31, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/pressreleases/2009/07/pr090729-540.html
     
  2. A disturbing development, but not an altogether suprising one. Since when have the insurgents worried about the niceties of international law? Hope the injured guys are okay.
     
  3. Are they even bound by such conventions?
     
  4. Hmm, what if a drone stuck a Hellfire up a Tali-Medi wagon, they'd point out the rules then!
     
  5. There are some interesting questions.

    1. What international convention is meant?
    2. Do NATO forces and American ones recognize that Taliban fighters are under protection of the international conventions as well.
    3. Do captured Talibs enjoy status of POWs or are they merely 'illegal' combatants'?
     
  6. Military necessity and proportionality ? Get your own house in order first ISAF!

    Pasted from <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8177935.stm>
     
  7. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/geneva05.asp

     
  8. Does the Geneva convention and all that it entails cover Asia?

    I would guess, that given the fact they are known to cut the heads of prisoners, the answer is no.

    So why is this such a surprise?



    Any enemy that executes kids for being gay, or women for killing husbands that rape their own kids, isnt really likely to worry about a medivac chopper are they?
     
  9. You raise some good questions.....answers from the coal-face...
    1. The prevalence of an international convention governing the en forces is absent, the operate under a neblous quasi-religous code that is as contradictory/hypocritical as it is changing. Nothing is OOB and even the Quran is mis-interpreted to try and add justification to the en actions.

    2. Yes, we do recognise them to be under the protection of LOAC, we apply ROE judiciously mindful of the safety of the civillian populus as main effort

    3. Injured en forces are treated in the same way as our forces. Moreover, the status of the Talibs (your description) is as whatever the Afghan authorities deem to class them for prosecution by the Afghan judicial , system. This will range to a combatant to criminal to enemy of Afghanistan, delete as appropriate.

    The bigger question is should WE discriminate between CAEVAC/MEDIVAC ac and our tactical ac. If the en fails to observe the conventions (of morality - ours I know) then should we remove the big red and white aiming mark on our soldiers/sailors and airman and vehicles?
     
  10. WAH?
     
  11. WAH? not at all, I know what it covers, but given the way most Asian countries and their forces??? for want of a better term act, then hence the question.

    Read what the GC covers and then ask me.
     
  12. One reason why we dont have the red cross on our MERT,makes a real price for the twats.
     
  13. Not the first time they've done it - It wont be the last!
     
  14. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    Well if you were in their place wouldn't you?
     
  15. The key here is "clearly marked... aircraft", if any vehicle, building or person has the red cross/crescent marked on it then it is not a legal target in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

    1. I'll wager that we do not have the ability to mark up every helicopter before it undertakes a medevac, particularly if it is diverted mid-flight from another task.

    2. It is unlikely that the Taliban mark their medevac equipment (if they have any!) appropriately. If they did then we would not engage.

    In any case the majority of Taliban do not know of the Geneva Convention and none of them care about it - why should they?