Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
Fair enough. Here's some background, in diplomatic language: Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nov 16th 04
I said that Marines are, in incidental cases as well as in the overall structure of the operation, favouring collateral damage over Marine casualties. Kicking off the assault by bombing the central hospital kinda clinches that, don't you think? If you have a better term to describe the practice of fighters hurting civilians to protect themselves than my "force protection" or "cowardice", let me know. Is it that one applies to your side, while the other only applies to your enemy?
Now, specifically, what do you disagree with, and why. |
Under the Geneva Conventions, use of a hospital for military operations allows said hospital to be considered a viable military target. Now, from what I've read, they had snipers on the roof/upperfloors and machine guns positioned in the windows. That makes it a viable military target. If this pisses you off, tough. They should have kept the wounded and the fighters apart.
If you have specific evidence where Marines or other allied troops hurt civilians (people who were clearly non-combatants in a situations that provided no reasonable ambiguity) then please present it. I'll been looking over your points and its alot of outrage but its rather light on facts.