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. |
Everyone knows diplomatic language is very vague. As is evident in the statement made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He did assert that these were on going issues. He only stated that there were reports of violations. Who is making the reports? Honestly, that link hardly supports any of you your premises.
Yes, it appears there may have been isolated violations; however, none of us will know the full facts until the investigations are completed. I know from personal experience that people can act as though they want to surrender then start fighting again. Some of the people we are fighting now don’t have our same sensibilities regarding parlay. I think it is extremely important to understand this in the context these incidence.
In terms of the overall operational ROE, again we have lawyers whose job it is to ensure that the ROE meets and in most cases exceeds the law and western customs of land warfare. You will also be interested to know that the layers will sit on targeting selection boards. Thus, any large pre-selected target like a hospital being used as a combat headquarters will be review by a lawyer to ensure we are not violating any laws. Further the lawyers usually want solid evidence that the hospital now being used for offensive operations.
Force protection-"I do not think it means, what you think it means" force protection is a term used to describe measures we take in order to protect our personnel and/or equipment from terrorist when we are NOT engaged in offensive operations. Please use it correctly from now on.
If you want to call Americans cowards for targeting a hospital, which was being used for military operations…, well I don’t know what to say. I think the cowards are the guys who used the hospital in that way, with the intent to insight bleeding hearts such as you. Further, we gave lots of warning before we started the offensive. We gave civilians an opportunity to get out weeks of notice…hell by doing so we gave some terrorist the opportunity to get out. At what point would you say that the civilians are reasonable for there own safety? Had we sealed off the city and let no one in or out you would have a valid point, but that is not the case. Personally, I would say about 75% of the city’s population had good sense and the other 25% are Darwin Award Candidates.