US Forces that Repeatedly Bombed Afghan Hospital, Knew it was a Hospital All AlongBy Mike Sawyer The bombardment left more than 20 members of staff and patients dead and dozens more injured. Almost immediately, the play on semantics began withCol Brian Tribus, spokesman for international forces in Afghanistan releasing the following statementnoting the collateral damage. US forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am [local time] on 3 October against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility. This incident is under investigation. Since the raid, the American government has been backpedaling. They changed the official story at least four times and have been scrambling to distract you from the truth. One consistent part of the official narrative has been that the US did not know that they were bombing a hospital. However, a breaking report by the AP suggests that this was a lie. New information suggests the US deliberately targeted the Kunduz hospital, killing 22 patients and staff, despite knowing it was a protected medical site. US special operations analysts investigated the hospital for days prior to the deadly October 3 attack, describing the hospital as a base of operations for a Pakistani agent coordinating Taliban activities, AP has learned from a former intelligence official familiar with the documents. The site, operated by Doctors Without Borders (Medecins sans frontieres, MSF), was attacked five times in the span of an hour by a C-130 gunship, despite repeated please by the MSF to US forces. MSF official described repeated strafing runs against the main hospital building, which housed the emergency room and the intensive care unit. No surrounding buildings were hit, they say. How many innocent men, women, and children must die before the United States can declare a victory on the war on terror? A hundred, a thousand, a million, ten million? What number will be enough to satisfy the bloodthirsty politicians in their perpetual expansion of the military industrial complex? Mike Sawyer writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com Mark Sawyers posit (the author) of How many children have to die before a victory can be declared on the War On Terror.is oxymoronic ironic moronic..Im sure he means well but its couched in politically correct propaganda speak (imo)The dual-citizens that hijacked the federal government during 9-11.ARE the terrorists Yes, it is quite a ruthless, remorseless bunch of lunatic terrorists who will order and execute an operation such as continuously hitting a hospital with a C130 gun ship. Bingo.? terrorism is a mind thing, a creation or drama if you like. We had better be looking at all the isims. the more deceptive is the religion-ism. all of it. Terrorism like the Antichrist is an ideal/idea belief about something based mostly in fear and control. The former Republic of the United states of North America is gone. The ideals and beliefs stated in the constitution have been ignored and violated. The wars are a creation of these false gods hiding in Zionism the catholic church, the Muslims, the bankers and on and on. To face this evil takes a great deal of inner strength and resolve and the willingness to step away from all old beliefs- religious and cultural- and find the deeper truth. Truth is an ever changing subjective perspective so even the idea of truth may be changing. Then again maybe it is all not what it appears???? think on this. The hospital wasnt bombed. If it had been bombed, it wouldnt be standing. The question we should seek answers for are who initiated the call for an airstrike and why was it approved. The aircrew hit the designated target as ordered, with precision and IAW the SOP for such missions. If hostile forces had used the facility as safe haven, the Afghan troops on the ground likely initiated the request for airsupport. Command control in a multi-national military operation is often difficult and is compounded when the enemy is not wearing a distinguishable uniform. The tragic results of this airstrike are readily apparent. Inciting outrage by using inaccurate and misleading terms like repeatedly bombed do not contribute to fact-finding or determining responsibility. 