The army had no reason to foresee death of innocents.

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by KGB_resident, Jun 18, 2007.

?
  1. Yes with some exceptions

    10.0%
  2. Yes

    10.0%
  3. In many cases it should be done

    10.0%
  4. Why not if the innocents are foreigners

    5.0%
  5. Only in some special cases

    45.0%
  6. Never

    20.0%

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.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/872178.html

    I don't blame brave IDF and IAF. And I don't intend to discuss this particular story. Was the killed a terrorist or not, it doeasn't matter. But there is an interesting question in this context.

    Is it right to kill a terrorist along with many innocents?
     
  2. Well, they kill innocents all the time!
     
  3. Our American friends made a lot of similar operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would you say that they kill innocents all the time?
     
  4. Its usually our boys they shoot at?

    I could not comment on wether Americans kill innocents all the time, your asking me to make a broad judgement on the basis of one case
     
  5. TBH those people deliberately choose to hide in buildings/area's etc were there are innocent civilians etc. Kill one by accident and it's propaganda all over and as Sparky Steve says Hamas have no qualms about firing rockets into Israel or supporting bombers on buses
     
  6. Well, to my mind there's a world of difference between engaging an armed enemy in a built up area and cold-bloodedly dropping an aerial bomb into a residential area to assassinate one person. The idea that they had no reason to suspect others might be killed really doesn't wash - it's a bomb, the bang goes quite a distance.

    Killing innocents never achieves anything but make their relatives more likely to want revenge, that's something both sides will have to learn if they want peace.

    Mind you, I suspect there's plenty on both sides who don't.
     
  7. Let's forget about the killing of the Palestinian. There is a lot of another examples

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2105551,00.html

    So out American friends were well aware that it is a Mosque and it is a school. It is not a very hard task to predict that children could occur in the school.

    What does it mean? Maybe the children were killed by the insurgents.

    It is a remarkable confession. As we know now the children were at the school. So how reliable is American intelligence? Who was in the Mosque with the children? Maybe Mullah and ordinary worshippers? How it could be confirmed that namely militants were killed?
     
  8. Only if there is no alternative and letting him live will cause more deaths.Not my descion thank fcuk .
     
  9. Agreed. For example is a plane captured by terrorists would cause a disaster then it could be shot down.
     
  10. It means that according to local villagers who've spoken to the BBC, the insurgents forced children into the school presumably because they suspected that they me be attacked and it allows them to try to claim a moral victory as children have died. How true the villager's assertions are is another issue, but it does have a ring of truth to it.
     
  11. I'd be dubious of any claims made by a terrorist or terroris-supporting organization (al-Jazeera, for example). If a weapon happens to fall on a school during a raid against a suspected Insurgent Leader, then it could be bad intelligence, it could be a school for terroists (Don't misquote me, im not suggesting that) but im sure that the removal of one man at the cost of X lives outwheighs the moral and economic implications that a strike by said man that kills X+Y lives on a target on home soil.
     
  12. Islamic terrorists have a long standing tradition of co-locating their facilites with civilians for the dual purpose of both detering attack and generating propaganda when an attack occurs. The blood is on their hands period...

    p.s. yes Islamic... I've never heard of nor witnessed tangos in other theaters operate in such a manner. Even the nasty narcos in Colombia don't use kids as human shields...
     
  13. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Sorry, did I miss something? I thought this was a story about more bus bombs, restaurant bombs, nightclub bombs, rockets being fired into Israel, hostage taking and beheadings.

    Ooops, my mistake, it was the yanks making a mistake (again).
     
  14. I would say that Americans, as well as the Brits, bend over backwards and risk their lives to limit the amount of civilian casualties. Unlike their Russian counterparts. Russians would have just leveled the block to get him.

    Mistakes in war happen, it is an unfortunately reality. Fratricide occurs as well, this is the nature of chaotic warfare and although it happens, the military works very hard to avoid it. I would put this issue in that category.

    These issues are compounded by the fact that the enemy uses bases of operations in or around religious holy sites, population centers, and or combinations of both.

    Who is more to blame, the driver that hits a child with his car unintentionally, or the parent who let the child run in the street?
     
  15. Well aware of this my friend, my post was meant to sound humourous.