The difference is that when that happened, we didn't go in and decimate a civilian neighborhood and kill hundreds of civilians. That is a huge difference.
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:34 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Slaughter of civilians by Israel... While there have been incidents of collateral damage caused by US forces (usually planes dropping huge ass bombs), we do try very hard not to do this. Case in point. When I was in Tikrit back in '05, the insurgents would launch four or five attacks against our FOB each week during the fighting season from orchards. We already had these locations indexed, so as soon as they shot at us, we fired back with our artillery. However, the the game changer was when they started launching attacks from within the city. Once that happened, no more counter attacks with artillery. Instead, we'd send a QRF into the sector and kick down doors. The problem though was that they were not using homes to attack us, they were using pickup trucks with the rocket launchers or mortars in the bed, hidden using 55 gallon drums or tarps. So we pretty much had to suck it up when it came to attacks from then on. As far as what goes through the mind of someone who has to do this, I don't know. I am an infantryman. I kick down doors and go on patrols looking for the enemy, I don't fire artillery on them. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Maureen <[email protected]> wrote: > > How terribly hard it must be on the soldiers who are ordered to carry > out these missions, even given that they are permitted. Knowing that > you are firing on non-combatants must be awful > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Bruce Sorge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Tim is right. According to the Protocol Additional to the Geneva > > Conventions of 12 August, 1949 and relating to the Protection of > > Victims > of > > International Armed Conflicts (Protocol l), 8 June 1977, launching > > an attack on a military target that is being shielded by civilians > > is not > off > > limits. Part of this states > > "(c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may > > affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit." > > > > Of course when you read all of it, they go to great length to deter > > such operations, but it's not prohibited per se. > > > > http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750073?OpenDocument > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:371613 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
