The army had no reason to foresee death of innocents.

Is it right to kill a terrorist along with many innocents?

  • Yes with some exceptions

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • In many cases it should be done

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Why not if the innocents are foreigners

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only in some special cases

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Never

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/872178.html

The state must inform the High Court of Justice within 45 days on whether it is willing to establish an independent committee to investigate the assassination of leading Hamas militant Saleh Shehadeh in July 2002, including the question of whether a criminal probe is justified.
...
Shehadeh was killed when the air force dropped a one-ton bomb on his apartment building in Gaza. The explosion destroyed the building and killed 14 other people, most of them women and children.
...
The army claimed at the time that it had no reason to foresee this result.
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?
 
#3
SparkySteve said:
Well, they kill innocents all the time!
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
SparkySteve said:
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
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

A US air strike on a mosque and religious school in eastern Afghanistan has killed seven children and several suspected al-Qaida militants, US-led forces in the country said today.
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.

A coalition spokesman said the insurgents were to blame for the children's deaths.
What does it mean? Maybe the children were killed by the insurgents.

Major Belcher said troops had watched the compound all day "and saw no indications there were children inside the building".
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
woody said:
Only if there is no alternative and letting him live will cause more deaths.Not my descion thank fcuk .
Agreed. For example is a plane captured by terrorists would cause a disaster then it could be shot down.
 
#10
KGB_resident said:
SparkySteve said:
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
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

A US air strike on a mosque and religious school in eastern Afghanistan has killed seven children and several suspected al-Qaida militants, US-led forces in the country said today.
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.

A coalition spokesman said the insurgents were to blame for the children's deaths.
What does it mean? Maybe the children were killed by the insurgents.

Major Belcher said troops had watched the compound all day "and saw no indications there were children inside the building".
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?
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...
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
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
KGB_resident said:
SparkySteve said:
Well, they kill innocents all the time!
Our American friends made a lot of similar operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would you say that they kill innocents all the time?
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
ghost_us said:
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.
Well aware of this my friend, my post was meant to sound humourous.
 
#16
Khyros said:
Islamic terrorists have a long-standing tradition of co-locating their facilites with civilians for the dual purpose of both deterring attack and generating propaganda when an attack occurs. The blood is on their hands period...
Any resistance movement has never had the power to go head-to-head with occupying powers on an equal basis. You saw what the Vietcong achieved in their struggle; they lost may battle, buy won the war. Why should “Eye-rack” be any different? And is the blood really, I mean really, on their hands?
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...
Desperate times require desperate measures. How otherwise are these people to realise their dreams of freedom?

MsG
 
#18
Bugsy said:
Khyros said:
Islamic terrorists have a long-standing tradition of co-locating their facilites with civilians for the dual purpose of both deterring attack and generating propaganda when an attack occurs. The blood is on their hands period...
Any resistance movement has never had the power to go head-to-head with occupying powers on an equal basis. You saw what the Vietcong achieved in their struggle; they lost may battle, buy won the war. Why should “Eye-rack” be any different? And is the blood really, I mean really, on their hands?
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...
Desperate times require desperate measures. How otherwise are these people to realise their dreams of freedom?

MsG
Bugsy are you saying you condone the actions of these terrorists or is it a bit of sarcasm that I am missing?
 
#19
He's using pure sarcasm ghost... :)
 
#20
Perhaps it all comes down to numbers: killing 1 terrorist with the forseen but unintended consequence that 5 innocents die seems like a good deal if we know that the terrorist will otherwise go on to kill 50 innocents.

One problem with this kind of utilitarian calculation is that we can hardly ever know for certain that an agent will go on to carry out particular actions. We also risk becoming as bad as the terrorists.
 

Similar threads


Top