U.S. Airstrikes Hit Afghan Hospital—Bombardment Lasted Nearly an Hour

Last week President Obama asked us to compare terrorism to gun violence. Maybe we should.



The U.S. war in Afghanistan may have officially ended in 2014 (insofar as a "war" can officially "end" while military assets are still deployed in the battlespace), but U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan continues, albeit with far less media coverage than it has historically received.

Until something particularly awful happens. Reuters reports:

An airstrike hit a hospital run by Medecins Sans Frontieres in the Afghan city of Kunduz on Saturday, killing several people in what the U.S. military called possible "collateral damage" in the battle to oust Taliban insurgents. At least 19 people died in the strike, according to Medecins Sans Frontieres, including 12 staff, four adult patients, and three children.

Frantic MSF staff phoned military officials at NATO in Kabul and Washington after the attack, and bombs continued to rain down near the medical facility for nearly an hour, one official from the aid group said.

At least 37 people were wounded and many patients and staff still missing, it added.

Last week, after the shooting at a community college in Oregon, President Obama asked news organizations to compare the number of fatalities due to terrorism in the last 10 years versus the number of fatalities due to gun violence in the last 10 years. He argued:

We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?

There's a logical fallacy here—maybe even the elusive "begging the question." That we've spent trillions of dollars, passed countless laws, and created brand new bureaucracies as a response to 9/11 doesn't necessarily make that a "rightful" response.

Once upon a time, when he was just a candidate, Barack Obama (at least pretended he) understood that. As a senator, Obama was a critic of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terror before he got within spitting distance of the White House and changed his tune.

Terror warriors dream of a counterterrorism regime where civil liberties take a back seat to national security. After all, they argue, you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide. Police procedural television shows like Law & Order elicit a similar attitude about crimefighting. "If only it weren't for all those pesky constitutional rights that protect criminals." But that's what those constitutional rights are for, to protect criminals because only when criminals get protections can all the rest of us. Otherwise all the government would have to do is deem us a criminal, or a terrorist, to strip us of our rights. It tries to do this anyway.

The idea of "balancing" civil liberties and safety is a false one. So arguments about tactics like "stop and frisk" being ineffective are a red herring. Some apologists for the tactics can argue it is effective. But that's not relevant. "Stop and frisk" systematically violates people's Fourth Amendment right. By that measure alone the policy, and any policy that is unconstitutional, should be rejected, effective or not.

It's similar with gun violence. Violent crime, with or without the use of a gun, has seen a dramatic drop over the last twenty years even as some old gun control laws have expired. Hard cases make bad law—it was the case with 9/11 and the war on terror, something many Democrats said they understood, until Barack Obama won the presidency and took charge of the war on terror. And it's the same case with gun violence. Violent crime rates are down. Giving in to policies wrought of emotion can only lead to bad laws and systemic violations of constitutional rights, just as giving in to emotion after 9/11 did.

It's a good lesson Obama tried to impart, even if he was trying to apply it the wrong way.

NEXT: For Some Sensible Talk on Firearms, Watch Reason TV's Gun Rights Playlist

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Something must be done. Oh, it’s something we actually can control.

    1. Al,

      We can, but the article dismisses one controversial hugely successful technique as unconstitutional, even though it was so ruled by a very controversially lefty, activist member. She was over-ruled, and the city had a chance to prevail ( – appeals – court – blocks – nypd – stop – and – frisk – ruling – removes – judge – case). Timing is everything, though, and the voters kicked Bloomy and the new guy, DiBlasio liked the lefty ruling and accepts it!

      So, since stop and frisk is only constitutional because the lefty DiBlasio dropped Bloomberg’s appeal, and until a more conservo mayor restarts it, the question is-do we accept hugely upsetting profiling that in fact directly correlates with thousands less gun deaths, or do we accept thousands more gun deaths so as to spare many from hugely upsetting profiling? This is not a question I hear anyone asking Obama, but if our Libertarian commentators (who I truly consider among the smartest) don’t see it, it shows too strong a focus on Libertarian core beliefs, and less on reality (like this controversial and highly contested technique surviving litigation). If one falls with saving lives, you favor restarting the case and trying to win. That is, if black lives do in fact matter, because the thousands of dead are overwhelmingly black.

      1. Stop just stop.

        1) Stop n Frisk is not ‘hugely successful’. There’s been no outbreak of crime since it was curtailed.

        2) It’s not the profiling that makes it a no-no (regardless of effectivity), it’s the systematic 4A violations. Stop & Frisk has no place in a civil society. It’s disgusting enough that TO only recently ended carding.

        1. Stop and frisk in NY wasn’t truly random. It was based on suspect description and other information.

          1. Bullshit.

      2. “do we accept hugely upsetting profiling that in fact directly correlates with thousands less gun deaths’

        Stop & frisk wasn’t “Profiling” for violent criminals.

        it was randomly searching young black people on the street, primarily netting pot busts.

        NYC doesn’t have a lot of gun violence and stop & frisk was never intended to have any effect at all on it. Stop & frisk didn’t even begin until the violent crime rate in NYC had fallen to 1960’s levels. The practice did net illegal guns, but not necessarily anything used in a crime. Having a gun on your person is de-facto a crime in NYC.

        I really can’t tell WTF you’re trying to say, its such a mess.

      3. Umm….I was talking about bombing hospitals

  2. “And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?”

    Um, maybe it’s because he and his party aren’t interested in reducing gun deaths. They’re interested in confiscating guns, and use mass shootings as an excuse to do it.

    If you lie enough times, people stop believing you. How can that be?!?!?

    1. If you lie enough times, people stop believing you.

      I don’t know that I’ve ever experienced this with regards to politicians.

      1. Nixon?


        Sad, that over a period of 40 years, I can come up with only two (2) politicians who comprehensively lost their trust and credibility.

          1. He was a prosecutor, and we all know prosecutors are Olympian figures, renowned for their insight, sagacity, knowledge, and total disinterest in politics.

        1. And to think that the Queen of them all, who has dodged sniper fire, who was a cattle futures trading genius, is able to get by with her current email situation and trading Sec of State favors for cash and still leads ALL Democrats in the primaries for President.

          How can anyone still hold her in high enough regard that they would even elect her dogcatcher is beyond me. I understand team politics and social signaling but this is simply unfathomable.

          1. They don’t hold her personally in high regard. They think she can win, because she’s a prominent figure. You hitch your wagon to the mule that looks capable of moving, even if that mule is a nasty beast.

            1. It’s an extremely path-dependent process. Had people been paying att’n to those details before her husband was either prez or governor, no way she’d have a political career today. But now they’ve gone too far down the road to turn back.

          2. Don’t know if your news feed showed you the fawning Shrillary article in HuffPo today? I’d give a link, but I just now stopped puking.

            1. Here it is.. Ulp.

          1. I mean. “who is Hillary Clinton?”

            1. I mean “you know who else was an untrustworthy politician?”

              1. Mussolini?

                1. What part of the Rockies, SM?

                  1. Northern CO

  3. Make sure to read the comments in the Reuters article if you want to see full retard in its natural habitat.

    We invaded Afghanistan for its natural resources.

        1. Opium!!!!

          Oh, wait. We destroy that whenever we find it. Never mind.

          1. DAMN YOU

            1. Get in line.

              No, not the one waiting for your mother. The other one, wanting to send me to Hell.

        2. Speaking of Goats, there is a hilariously bad mobile game: Goat Simulator I think its called. They are actually selling a lot of them at $5 a copy, and have an MMO Goat Simulator, a zombie goat version, maybe others.

          1. Is it as good as Baby Foot Doctor?

    1. We invaded Afghanistan for its natural resources.

      (thinks deeply derply)There’s a lot of brown people in Afghanistan…there’s a lot of oil in Brown People Countries…W used to invade Brown People Countries for oil…got it:

      Oil. Afghanistan used to have oil, and now it’s all in Dick Cheney’s basement.

    2. Heroin?

    3. “We invaded Afghanistan for its natural resources”

      Not just for their resources but for their geographic location that allows for us to get access to others resources.

      For two or three decades there has been a push for a pipeline through Afghanistan to get oil from the “stan ” countries to the west while avoiding Iran or Russia or any anti Western countries or countries where the crazies would blow it up on a regular basis.

      Controlling/subdueing Afghanistan is a cost effective way to do this since the costs to control are public monies and the profits made will be private monies.

      I’m not a tin foil hat guy normally but sometimes I have fleeting thoughts that maybe someone other than Osama might have nudged 9/11 along.

      1. “sometimes I have fleeting thoughts that maybe someone other than Osama might have nudged 9/11 along.”

        Then you’re a tin foil hat kind of guy.

        There is no evidence the US invaded Afghanistan to build a pipeline. Has this pipeline even been built?

        1. This pipeline idea has been in the works since the 1970s. Its never been built because its not even remotely “cost effective”.

          OneOut’s knowledge of Afghanistan seems to rely heavily on “Charlie Wilson’s War”

          1. OneOut’s knowlege of this particular issue is based primarily upon looking at an atlas and being well read.

            It’s has been thought cost effective to several different groups at different times. Don’t think that quite a few people haven’t already made fortunes off of the idea. Just look at the ones who are doing it this time.

            You shouldn’t be so naive.

            1. “well read”

              Pipeline in Afstan as “cause for war” is 9/11-troofer-website bullshit.

              try “Ghost Wars”, Steve Coll… Unocal abandoned the project, and had no interest in trying to resuscitate it post-invasion

              this idea that Afghanistan is a cost-effective place to “control” is absurd in the extreme. they can’t even build a fucking road there in a straight line which wont be torn to pieces by warlords every 100 miles trying to collect tolls.

              1. One Out has obviously not been to said shithole. Anyone who has understands the impossibility of building anything long lasting in Afghanistan – and particularly making it secure enough to traverse the length of that mountainous, tribal controlled moonscape.

                One Out – I know it makes for interesting reading, but we did not invade for a pipeline. I was there for the better part of two years. When I got there the entire country had less than a couple hundred miles of paved roads. It isn’t all that much better 9 years after I left.

                Look elsewhere for more plausible tin foil hat conspiracies. That’s the wrong place to make a claim that the US invaded for resources.

                FWIW, I have also been to two of Bin Laden’s camps. The one that Clinton hit with cruise missiles (and missed Bin Laden) near the border and the one in Qandahar. I have pictures of both. They were very real. And at the Qandahar one, they were clearly working on chem weapons. Primitive facilities, but they had the good ol’ poison, skull and crossbones on the wall outside. I shit you not. I have a picture in front of that one, too.

                1. I believe you and I sincerely thank you for what you did because I know that you volunteered to do it.

                  However none of that matters one bit toward my point.

                  The fucking pipeline doesn’t have to get built for people to make money, sometimes big money from it.

                  How much money do you think the arms manufacturers have made since we went into Afghanistan ?

                  Do you think the guys who came up with the idea of Solyndra made money while the taxpayers lost ?

                  I’m not saying that Bin Laden wasn’t real and that 9/11 wasn’t real. You and Gilmore are making too much of my light hearted joke about the tin foil hat. But small groups with power often act in their own self interest against what might be called the common good. Is that not how the neo-cons pushed the US into Iraq ?

              2. Unocal abandoned the project, and had no interest in trying to resuscitate it post-invasion

                So they did once have an interest but abandoned it ?

                Does that preclude some other group from having an interest and must they publish their names in the news for you to accept that might be the case once again ?

                You are making too much of my attempt at a light hearted joke about tin foil hats. I don’t believe that a pipeline is the reason that 9/11 happened but small groups acting behind the scenes fequrently effect events, no ?

                Is that not how the neo-cons got us into Iraq ?

                Bin Laden is dead and we are still in Afghanistan spending billions trying to pacify the crazies and make a stable country out of it. I’m sure no one is making billions because we are still there trying to bring control and damn the costs.

                The costs are public. The profits are private Gilmore. I though you would know that. Most of your posts are more reality based.

                1. Dude – a pipeline has to be secure for resources to flow. No one, NO ONE, who goes to Afghanistan and sees the terrain could possibly believe (or convince anyone else) that they could secure a pipeline through that place. At least not in its current state. It’s a few millennia of civilization away from pipelines. That’s all I’m saying.

    4. ” read the comments in the Reuters article”

      That’s Huffpo. But yes. its more embarrassing than the HILLARY IS WINNING piece.

      Someone mentioned “rare earths”. They didn’t actually discover that afghanistan had any of those until ~ 2008 or so.

      The entire interest the West has in Afghanistan’s potential for being a source of mining-resources, is simply so that the fucking country can generate some kind of productive economy that involves something OTHER than kiddy-fucking, opium, and Jihad.

      We don’t want to *steal* their goddamn resources, we want them to sell them to someone so that their economic self-interest starts to wean them away from perpetual internecine tribal warfare.

      1. While destroying their other major nonviolent resource, the poppies.

        1. +1 Emerald CIty

        2. One of the stupidest things we ever did in the long list of stupid things in the War on Terror was let the DEA join in and fuck with the people who’s very ‘Hearts and Minds’ we were trying to win.

          I read stories of Marine units that went to a village and helped dig a well and build a school, and they come back the next month and the place is abandoned because some dumb motherfucker flew over and sprayed herbicide all over their crops.

          The ISAF never even figured out what their ‘coordinated opium policy‘ was until like 2010-2011. One side was actually sending troops out trying to help them with irrigation and stuff, and some other program was giving the Afghan government hundreds of millions that was supposed to be for “anti-drug” programs, which usually meant warlords bulldozing through the fields of their rivals.

          1. Hitchens had some great columns on that. One of his arguments was that there was a shortage of certain pain killers globally (I have no idea if that was true) and the US/west should actually help the Afghans produce opium and then sell it to pharmaceutical companies.

          2. The DEA kind of is a terrorist organization, so maybe they’re just out to help the Taliban. Kindred spirits that both hate American freedoms.

      2. ‘Rare Earths’ aren’t even that rare for at least most of them. America has them but many potential mines are held up by asinine regulations and bureaucracy.

  4. That we’ve spent trillions of dollars, passed countless laws, and created brand new bureaucracies as a response to 9/11 doesn’t necessarily make that a “rightful” response.

    That money was not wasted, though.

    A lot of people like Michael Chertoff stimulated the fuck out of the economy with it.

  5. Did a youngish, white male have anything to do with this? If so, I say we begin to engage in “common sense” war policy.

    1. What’s funny is, the Oregon shooter is half-black.

      Funny how the half-black Obama is African-American, but the half-black shooter is . . . awfully white-looking,don’t you think?

      I look forward the Narrative Media characterizing him as “White African American”, like GEorge Zimmerman is a “White Hispanic”.

      1. “”‘ the Oregon shooter is half-black.””

        They’re making much ado over the fact that he apparently ‘disliked blacks’, regardless.

        The only issues anyone wants to talk about re: the shooter is Race & Guns… as though ‘racial problems’ in America were really responsible *(a la Dylan Roof & the gay black TV news killer)… or mere existence of firearms provokes innocent people to go on killing rampages.

        1. I heard original reports that he was a conservative and/or a Republican. Then I heard later reports saying that he was not. I assume at some point he will be someone who commented on conservative & and libertarian websites and belongs to the Tea Party.

          1. From what little i’ve gathered, they’re trying to piece together a psychographic profile of the guy from his online accounts and assorted dating-site chats…

            (because who would ever misrepresent themselves on a *dating site*??)

            ..which i’ve noted before – is sort of bullshit. The detritus of one’s internet life is not necessarily an accurate the best source of evidence of Who you Actually Are.

            *(note = I am of course the exception and i am exactly as awesome as i appear)

            As Playa noted below, the kid graduated from a Special Needs school with a graduating class of 4 people.

            Yet still no one seems to offer much psychological-red-meat.

            “At first, I could not recall who he was whatsover,” Breckheimer said Friday.

            But as she looked at his photograph on the Internet on Thursday, hours after he opened fire at an Oregon community college, killing nine people and wounding 10, she recognized him as a student in her English 1A class in 2010.

            “I stared at him for a little bit,” Breckheimer said. “The only thing I can recall was, ‘Yes, he was a quiet kid,’ but he was really respectful and pretty nice. He was a hard worker.”‘

            1. So, in other words, the original reports were the normal media self-delusion wherein they write what they hope to be true.

              Thanks for the info.

    2. Hey it’s all good. I’m sure none of the relatives or friends of the people that were killed or hurt will hold any grudge against us whatsoever. The Taliban and their allies could never use something like this for recruitment or propaganda purposes. I’ve been assured by commenters here that blowback is a silly idea that never happens in the real world and that people just hate us for our freedoms. Thank God for that. Otherwise this would look like a public relations bonanza like Abu Ghraib.

      1. “blowback is a silly idea that never happens in the real world”

        It’s rare enough to ignore. Like negative side effects of vaccination.

        1. Uh huh. Just keep telling yourself that. I suppose simply dismissing out of hand any idea that conflicts with your world view is comforting because it means never having to confront problems with your thinking. The idea that having your countrymen killed or maimed wouldn’t generate a desire for revenge or at least a sympathy for those fighting the ones responsible flies in the face of human nature. The United States has engaged in a almost two trillion dollar war on terror with almost seven thousand killed in the past 14 years to avenge the deaths of less than three thousand people and the 9/11 attacks will likely be cited the same way Munich is talked about by those determined to learn “the lessons of history”. I fail to understand why it is so incomprehensible that similar attacks which kill civilians would engender the same desire to strike back.

          As for vaccines, I have no idea why on earth you even brought them up.

          1. Blah blah blah blah Munich blah blah blah. Sorry to dissapoint you, but the blowback boogeyman has yet to show up for all Ron Paul’s hyperventilating. It’s truly the CAGW of libertarians.

            ” I suppose simply dismissing out of hand any idea that conflicts with your world view is comforting because it means never having to confront problems with your thinking. ”

            Well there’s the fact that there’s been no increase in terror and actually large attacks on American soil/embassies has not happened. The ‘blowback’ theory doesn’t predict anything but I guess you’ll simply dismiss out of hand any fact that conflicts with your narrative because the narrative is so beautiful. Just like the CAGW doomsters and Malthusians.

            1. Yep. As I predicted. No argument whatsoever. Just a bunch of denial. And no refutation of anything I said.

              There’s been no increase in terror and we haven’t had attacks on American soil/embassies. Hmm. What was Benghazi? Oh, let me guess. That one doesn’t meet your definition of large so you’ll just dismiss it. And increase in terror relative to what? 9/11? Or some arbitrarily selected period? What’s motivating the continued inflow of ISIS fighters? Or do they just teleport in from another dimension?

              Sorry, but you’ll have to come up with some conceivable reason that the inhabitants of the Middle East wouldn’t react exactly as we would (and have) when our people have been killed by a foreign power. Again, it’s contrary to human nature. And I’d submit that they’ll keep producing killers who we will have to keep fighting.

      2. “Frantic MSF staff phoned military officials at NATO in Kabul and Washington after the attack, and bombs continued to rain down near the medical facility for nearly an hour, one official from the aid group said.”

        The way this is written makes it hard for me to understand if the bombing continued after his phone call.

        I find it strange that it happened so soon after the Russians were accussed of killing 36 civilians in their first bombing runs. They laughed it off saying it was preposterous. A Russian spokesman said the reports had been written before the bombs were dropped.

        Something about this doesn’t pass the smell test for me.

      3. I wish I had a buck for every time since 9/11 I’ve heard an American ask “why do those people hate us so much?”

  6. Wait a minute. There were 200 people in that building, and after an hour of continuous NATO airstrikes, only 19 people died?

    What the fuck?

    1. Helps explain why our ‘efforts’ against ISIS have gone so swimmingly.

      1. I wonder if Obama is planning these missions himself, just like the SEAL mission to kill Bin Laden.

        1. The White House did insist that SEAL’s use the untested stealth Blackhawks

          The SEALs wanted to use the large, heavily modified and well armed MH-47 Chinooks that the 160th SOAR is so well known for and has flown into some of the most hostile places around the globe. In fact, the book claims they tested the Chinooks against Area 51’s radars that mimicked those used by Pakistan’s air defense system and the data showed they would have a good chance of survival by using traditional infiltration techniques like nap-of-the-earth flying. Even still, their protest was flat-out denied by the CIA and Admiral William McRaven, the commander of Joint Special Operations Command, himself.

          That sort of thing actually happened multiple times over, including right before the mission was executed. The White House was sold that the stealth Black Hawks were invisible to radar, and as such, the SEALs would infiltrate their way into Abbottabad, Pakistan using them. The fact that they were totally unproven in combat and nearly experimental nature was just a factored risk.

          1. That’s incredibly irresponsible.

              1. FdA, normally I would agree with you, but Naylor seems to be pretty well-respected in the Special Operations world (based upon what and where I have read about his book), so I lean toward believing him, or at least I doubt he would get that much access if he was writing about rumors.

                1. While I’m jeering at conspiratorial thinking above re: Afganistan..

                  …, re: Osama – i’m actually of the mind that he was in fact a prisoner of the pakistanis, and that the SEALs didn’t know/were not supposed to know this.. and the white house wanted to actually keep the mission 100% under wraps until well after it was over, but the blackhawk crash forced their hand

                  *( that doesn’t necessarily support or undermine the point about forcing those choppers on them; I suppose the white house might have preferred them if they thought it would make the story more plausible)

                  basically, I buy the Seymour Hersh version that made news for about 5 seconds before everyone went back to ignoring it.

                  I read Manhunt when it came out, and there’s just huge gaps in it that no one even tries to explain. The book spends more time dishing out effusive praise for the Women in the CIA’s Bin Laden group rather than making any effort to investigate where OBL was in the years between Tora Bora & ‘discovering’ him parked in a prison-like villa next door to the West Point of Pakistan.

                  1. I assue you your jeering is unwarranted.

                    If you believe everything the government tells you and take it for face value then that is your problem and not mine.

                    After all the Gulf of Tonken really happened as Johnson said it did and Benghazi was the result of a movie.

      2. Yes , and earliy reports about the Russian efforts say that the Russians “destroyed the ISIS command and control center yesterday during one of their bombing runs.

        So we have been bombing them for months but didn’t take out their Command and Control Center / Don’t remember whre the article about this was but I do remember it wasn’t Pravda oor something like that.

        This whole thing stinks more and more.

        Something very fishy is going on in the world.

        None of this makes sense.

    2. Bombing with explosives is a notoriously low efficiency way to kill. Makes me wonder why we so frequently choose that method.

      1. One properly placed 250lb JDAM should be able to bring down an entire building, especially one made in Afghanistan. I’m really curious to know what the fuck was going on there.

        1. My first thought is that the people actually dropping the bombs realized it was a hospital, and tried to miss it by a little bit, anyway.

          1. It was a Doctors Without Borders hospital

            At least 12 Doctors Without Borders medical staff were killed, as well as seven patients – three of them children. Thirty more are unaccounted for and 37 were wounded.

            The aid organization – also known by its French name M?decins Sans Fronti?res (MSF) insists the bombardment continued for half an hour after the U.S. military was informed the hospital was hit.

            1. Screw the four non-western adults.

              (Yes, I know you’re only quoting the article.)

        2. the U.S. military called possible “collateral damage”

        3. In the linked article, they claimed the hospital was under attack for half an hour. Not by bombs. First of all, even with 250 lb bombs the hospital would be ruble and the death total much higher. Secondly, we probably haven’t bombed anything for half an hour straight for years. We would have used a bigger bomb instead.

          There were reports of a C-130 gunship operating in the area. That makes sense, with the hospital adsorbing multiple cannon hits. Some people might think that is bombing.

          The other interesting line in the article is local residents saying hospital buildings were used by the Taliban for cover. If I remember right, that makes the hospital a lawful target. Sad, but maybe not illegal

          Not saying we should be there or not but there is some stretching of the truth going on.

          1. It’s just dawned on me that with Russia joining the party Obama may now be on the receiving end of press stories like the Republicans are vs. The democrats with the liberal media here at home.

            Does anyone think that if a Republican had done what Hillary has done with the Sec of State bridery and the private email situation he/she would still be in the running for Prez if not under inditment ?

            Obam amight be getting a taste of his own medicine with the world wide media.

          2. Looking at the footage that is available so far, I find it far more credible that the hospital was hit by ordnance from an AC-130 than by an ‘air strike’. As noted elsewhere, a “bombing raid” just doesn’t last 30 minutes with the kind of payload carried in theater. And that building was mostly intact, but burned out.

            Unless there was a compelling reason to do it, aircraft ain’t going to be circling around looking for targets of opportunity to bomb – whereas a “Spooky” – which is designed to do that stuff has a 105mm cannon mounted in it. Coming under fire from one would seem awfully like being on the receiving end of an artillery barrage.

            So, sitting here in my armchair, pretending to be a General, I think one plausible interpretation would be an AC-130 attack on a hostile formation that may or may not have known that the attack box included a hospital facility.

        4. Bruh – no offense meant, but a JDAM is at least 1000lb. 250lb bombs are not used in our combat loads… or much even in training, either. I’ve never even heard of or seen anything less than 500lb in combat. Wikipedia lists them as ranging from 500-2000, but I’m here to tell you we don’t use GBU-31 kits on anything less than 1000lb. Just too expensive to justify on anything that small. Yes, small. 500 pounders are standard.

          If we were dropping 1000lb bombs on that place, it would be gone in a heartbeat.

    3. According to reason summary, hospital got hit, they got on the phone to NATO,

      , and bombs continued to rain down near the medical facility for nearly an hour, one official from the aid group said.

      So, no, it was not bombed for an hour. And if it was an aircraft bomb, probably didn’t do a direct hit either.

      Remember when Israelis totally bombed that school in Gaza, and then it turned out they hit next to school? It’s gonna end up something like that.

      1. ” bombs continued to rain down near the medical facility for nearly an hour, one official from the aid group said.”



        Ed isn’t going to let the truth get in the way of (badly written) narratives. That’s for ‘neocons’.

        1. Representatives of the hospital stated the building was struck several times. We will have to see the results of investigations, but there are multiple reports and photos showing destruction of the hospital’s emergency center and operating suite. I don’t think that squares with nearby bombs. At least some ordinance hit the facility.

    4. “Duck & cover” is more effective than its critics imply it to be. I never figured out the ridicule about that; it’s common sense that, yet, might not be common enough.

      1. Look up one of the original “duck and cover” PSAs on youtube. Some of them make the case that, if you’re close enough to see the flash of an atomic bomb going off & you duck up against the exterior wall of a building and cover your head with your hands, you’ll be OK. In another case, covering your head with a newspaper offers protection against a nuclear blast.

        1. I always take a shower after sex, which is how i’ve never gotten AIDS.

          Its also why my hair is wet most of the time.

        2. That’s ridiculous. Everyone knows you’re supposed to cram yourself into a fridge.

          1. +1 crappy reboot

    5. Presumably they evacuated the bldg after the first one hit.

  7. We invaded Afghanistan for its natural resources.

    You can’t have too many rocks.

    1. That’s why I live in the Rockies.

        1. Northern CO

  8. So the Oregon shooter grew up around here:…..-south-bay

    The kid had emotional problems from day one, and was enrolled in “special” school as early as 3rd grade. That didn’t stop his mom from taking him shooting and buying him guns. It’s like Adam Lanza all over again. I hope some of the families sue his mom.

    1. Should have gotten him into pot and surfing.

      1. No can do. Racism, or so I’m told.

      2. I read that initially as, “[They] Should have gotten him into the pot and stuffing.” As in, they should’ve cooked & eaten him.

        1. Where’s the baby? Where’s the baby?!

    2. If you search for any information related to the @#(*@ Oregon shooter, you will encounter 100 fucking stories like this one =

      What Kind Of Guns Did The Oregon Shooter Use?

      ….which actually doesn’t say a single fucking thing about what “kind” of weapons they were, besides, ‘handguns and a rifle’

      Everyone in the media is rushing to publish 100 different shooter stories (regardless of zero actual new information) because CLICKBAIT

      I blame myself for not noticing it was “bustle”

      1. Bustle is where ENB honed her chops.

        Writing sponsored content for feminine hygiene products.

      2. “Assault Rifles” and “Glocks”. What else? Duh.

  9. Really find the president asking media to write/run particular stories, and the media doing it, quite distasteful.

    1. You don’t read much MSM do you.

    2. Did that happen?

      (I’m not being incredulous; I’m just curious)

  10. Could an article be less focused and more bizarre? Starts off with hospital bombing…goes into guns….civil liberties…no more discussion of hospital bombing. Just fire Ed already.

    1. And didn’t mention Trump. Not even once.

    2. I thought it was one of his better articles. But word outside the US has the Russians bombing Afghanistan (again), and not “us,” (for a change). The place hasn’t changed much since 1850, and still foreigners take turns coming from miles away to bomb an shoot people. For some reason, those shootings and bombings merit no change of laws or repeal of the Bill of Rights.
      Why isn’t Congress a weapons free area? What about courts, if putting up signs is so effective?

      1. Honestly this comment is as disjointed and difficult to follow as Ed’s damned article.

  11. But the important question is whether they got Doctors Without Borders #2 man.

  12. We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so.

    Wasn’t he originally against the PATRIOT Act? Maybe he’d have been for it if it was called The Common Sense Safety Against Terrorism Act.

    1. He’d go for an End Terrorism Right Here At Home Act.

      It would feature SWAT raids of suspected gun owners.

      We can’t have people getting hurt now, can we?

  13. But the important question is whether they got Doctors Without Borders #2 man.


    1. You are Number 6….

      1. Where’s that tricky comma? Where is it, number 2?

  14. “There’s a logical fallacy here?maybe even the elusive ‘begging the question.'”

    What the hell is Obama on about? Did he just find his own first inconsistency with the law?

    Yeah, the laws is inconsistent. We have a constitutional right to such things like speech and bearing arms. However, the government is given the arbitrary power to wage war and tax us to oblivion. Thus, we can say whatever we like and own guns, but we can’t avoid paying for the military adventures of stupid presidents because they need to sound tough on international affairs.

    Maybe if the president wants all the people to put down their ins, he should lead by example? And Google the definition of question begging? Because he doesn’t seem to know what fallacies are.

    1. I think that second paragraph about logical fallacy is Ed writing, not an Obama quote. The quote bracket is just done wrong.

  15. But that’s not relevant. “Stop and frisk” systematically violates people’s Fourth Amendment right. By that measure alone the policy, and any policy that is unconstitutional, should be rejected, effective or not.

    You don’t get to decide what criteria your readers judge by.

  16. how we could potentially reduce gun deaths

    Jeebus, I hate how partisans will pretend to be consistent. Hey, I can “potentially reduce” AIDS deaths: let’s have a national registry of people who are HIV-positive, so that their partners will be sure to know.

    What’s that? A “violation of privacy” you say? “Unconstitutional” you say? OK, then, what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

    How is it that the explicit right in the Constitution to own firearms is somehow something we have to get around to “save lives,” and yet the right to secretly have a fatal contagious disease, which kills 10,000+ people a year, is somehow more sacrosanct?

    (Note: I am not seriously arguing for an HIV registry.)

    1. The only (sort-of) fact in that piece is that the link for the UN report… has changed from being at the Broadband Commission, to being at the site

      I found the report the first place i clicked

  17. Father of Oregon Shooter = It wasn’t my crazy son, but lack of regulations that killed those people

    “ROSEBURG, Ore. ? The father of the gunman who killed nine people at a community college here called on the nation to change its gun laws on Saturday, saying the massacre “would not have happened” if his son had not been able to buy more than a dozen handguns and rifles”

    That the shooter carried only 3 guns into the school (and had more in his car) and AFAIK, used only one in the killings (a handgun – leaving the “assault weapon” he brought in a different room, unused), is irrelevant

    = what is important is that if you own a dozen weapons, you’re a ticking time-bomb of mass-murder.

    *note – they claim this guy had “body armor” on as well. In the past, the media has confused things like ‘tactical vests’ with actual armor. I find it sort of odd, since he also shot himself rather than face-off with cops

    1. Did lack of regulations firebomb the hospital too?

      1. A French socialist group were giving succor to the enemy! Legitimate target!

        I do not believe incendiary munitions were used.

    2. Ive seen other stories today that continue to say he was killed by cops. I guess they clarified otherwise only recently

      “‘The medical examiner identified the shooter as 26-year-old Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer and determined the cause of death to be suicide after officers engaged him in gunfire, the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office confirmed Saturday”

      Also confusing (*noted above) is the “body armor”. They say they found a “Flak vest” with “Steel plates”.. but he was not wearing it? It was found next to the Assault Weapon Military-Warfare Platform Death-System which he also did not use at all in the shooting

  18. Isn’t that twice as many people as died in the ghastly, horrible, unjustified, violent Oregon spree that mandates ditching the Bill of Rights? Maybe the government should leave those mohammendans alone? Stop killing them? Disarm or bring back the troops? Require a declaration of war before invading other countries?

    1. Or at the very least be required to pass a background check before invading other countries.

    2. “Maybe the government should leave those mohammendans alone?”

      They started it.

  19. The President on October 1: “But as I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these [mass killings of innocent people], our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It’s not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel. And it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else…”

    The President on October 3: “Michelle and I offer our thoughts and prayers to all of the civilians affected by this incident, their families, and loved ones.”

    Fuck. You.

  20. We bombed a hospital. Practically every day is a new embarrassment. If the President has any hope of saving his legacy, he should just give it up and bring everybody home. It would probably be a nice thing to warn the Israeli commandos in Syria first. But the longer we participate in the insanity in the ME the worse things get. No, Mr. President, Putin didn’t outsmart you, but what he did do can’t be spoken of in polite company.

    1. “We bombed a hospital. Practically every day is a new embarrassment.”

      At least we can be thankful that bombing a hospital is only an embarrassment. Most other societies it would be a crime.

  21. This wouldn’t happen if we had common sense gun control.

  22. the point is to approve a law to avoid to sell guns to mentally ill and convicted people. What’s wrong with that guys? Please explain. Seriously.

    1. Do you plan on repealing HIPAA first?

      Because you can’t search people’s health records without first rescinding that particular federal law.

      They *already have* records of people who have been flagged during criminal /bureaucratic proceedings as being ‘mentally unfit’. There is no “New Law” needed to get those data.

      They’ve already expanded what they request from states

      “Records of individuals falling into the mental health prohibitor category generally originate in the criminal justice system or via court order and not from entities subject to HIPAA. ‘

      All the institutions that “get” the information they want re: mental health are already obligated to report them.

      However, they CAN NOT, under the existing laws, demand the mental health records of people be provided by treatment providers.

      So basically they only get a tiny fraction of the ‘actually mentally ill’.

      If you want to try and repeal HIPAA, be my guest.

      The current system already covers people convicted of crimes.

    2. Because shit like this is not a model to emulate?

  23. Almost 35 years of screwing around in the middle east, bombing hospitals, arming terrorists, and doing fuck all.

    It’s almost like the state does not want the middle east to ever grow.

    1. …while your point is still valid (see:Yemen, Syria)….

      ..Afghanistan is not the Middle East

  24. At his core, Obama is a left wing ideologue / demagogue with a silver tongue. Imagine if a nutty lefty professor or a street activist became president and had 8 years to enact the stuff he would usually write about in blogs, and that’s Obama.

    Obama’s perception of this sort of fallacy is common among the left. Even here, you’ll hear the trolls point out to alleged inconsistency like “how come you say your pro life but against food stamps for kids” or “You guys hate the government but want the police to protect your private property”

    It’s common for the left to lack perspective and fail to discern proper context. Obama might as well have blabbed “We spent all this money to defeat the Nazis, but we do nothing to stop childhood hunger, which kills more people than the holocaust”.

    It’s breathtaking demagoguery from a lame duck president who sent untracked guns to Mexico and bombed his former allies in the middle east. 50 plus people were shot in Chicago in the last few months or so, and he doesn’t blink. When an Islamist shot 4 army recruiters the guy hemmed and hawed boilerplate tribute to “those who serve” without a trace of emotion on his face.

    Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon with actual skills and accomplishment. If a catastrophe hit he nation, he could save lives while Obama distributes helpful fliers in the corner. It boggles he mind that the media would send love calls to empty suits like Obama and Al Sharpton. And Trump, for that matter.

  25. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……


  26. Third core technique of experts of MPO-Bangalore is Unloading of your material with in a purchase that all material will achieve place harmlessly and this purchase depends up on the infrastructural conditions of final place.
    Packers and Movers Bangalore @…..bangalore/

  27. When you have to deal with the worst scenario on your way regarding your shifting so, that period you should always go with the best and reliable Packers and Movers Chennai @…..s-chennai/

  28. When you have to shift all of sudden then you have to move quickly and instantly even, you must have to move at your new place.
    Packers and Movers Pune @

  29. Keep in thoughts to be able to demand moving companies in regards to the preceding customers moreover to customers using whole provides with such as speak to volumes.
    Packers and Movers Mumbai @

  30. Shifting services in Pune at
    Shifting services in Hyderabad at…..hyderabad/

  31. Shifting services in Bangalore at…..bangalore/

    Shifting services in Gurgaon at…..s-gurgaon/

  32. Shifting services in Noida at
    Shifting services in Chennai at…..s-chennai/

  33. Shifting services in Thane at
    Shifting services in Navi Mumbai at…..avimumbai/

  34. Shifting services in Faridabad at…..faridabad/
    Shifting services in Ghaziabad at…..ghaziabad/

  35. For magnificent Packers and Movers Bangalore services:-…..bangalore/

  36. For impressive Packers and Movers Pune services:-

  37. This is really a nice and informative, containing all information and also has a great impact on the new technology. Thanks for sharing it. satta market

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.