That makes sense - paratroopers are on their way to attack, parachuting air crew have evacuated from the aircraft you hit.Seems like there’s some armchair generals among the ranks of journalists. I would have thought that if the SAS/SBS were involved with a specific set of targets, there was good reason for that. I don’t imagine they went on patrol, found an old bloke at a cafe and riddled him with fire, so much as found where Terry hangs out and slotted them.
Another thing - there’s some odd rules of warfare. You can (and really should) shoot descending paratroopers. But you can’t shoot parachute-descending downed aircrew.
They are to be captured as a prisoner, unless they fight back
I’m not up on rules of engagement, but you can shoot at enemy combatants.You can’t randomly shoot enemy combatants,
The difference might be the ROE and what threat they are, particularly in countries where the locals may just carry an AK47. You then cannot confirm a combatant or an armed local, but if they start pointing their gun at you they begin to look like a
Fast jet being a combatantbut you can target fast jet aircrew or senior officers and assassinate them.
Seniors being suitable and ‘random’ combatants might be ROE
Chlorine gas being on the nasty weapons list, and artillery, bombing etc being ‘standard’ weapons of warYou can’t use chlorine gas against dug-in troops, but you can subject them to artillery barrage, strafing from aircraft, carpet bombing from aircraft and mortar or tank fire.
Part of the rules there to be around the escalation id
Correct - but it will happenIt’s pretty unfair to have a post-mortem from the coffee shops of London regarding the actions on the ground in war.
Holding to account should be in the context of the situation and not hindsight or in the peace of home
Not necessarily just at the time - it can only happen if it’s know about.If something’s gone wrong and an individual or group of individuals crossed the line, then perhaps it should be a field Court Martial at the time, or file it under “NFA - exigencies of war”.
There shouldn’t be carte Blanche just for having got away with it for long enigh
They are ‘better’ and the elite, so should be able to make a better disciplined decision ..... in line with the ROEIt’s also unfair to train your Special Forces to go in hard and kill the enemy with overwhelming force, but then hamstring them with “but only if they’re carrying a weapon”.
They shot the ones who were armed and didn’t shoot the unarmed ones - otherwise there would have been less hostages coming outHow were the blokes storming the Embassy supposed to deal with those? The situation was out of control, the enemy were slotting hostages, so the SAS went in and killed them all but one - the intended solution. Were they supposed to ask if the kidnappers were armed? No of course not. Have some 9mm aspirins.
In every encounter they made a decision based on what they could see
If they had been going into a terrorist hideout then there would have been more shooting of those found inside, whereas the mission was to rescue hostages, so they had to think about every person they saw[/QUOTE]