mikkel wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't understand how mikkel keeps dodging the question like what's being presented to him doesn't apply.
You're welcome to document any questions that I'm supposedly dodging.
eleven bravo wrote:
really not how it works in real life. as long as there is some kind of restraint on the use of force, what has been done here clearly falls under jus in bello
eleven bravo wrote:
replying to the "avoid conflict in a city with 6 million inhabitants" nonsense.
eleven bravo wrote:
I believe I did. If you are able to master a new form of urban combat that deals with a non uniformed enemy who typically blends in with non combatants while simultaneously maintaining the combat effectiveness of the limited amount of troops at your disposal, then by all means please, I'd love to hear it. honest injun. if you cant think of anything practical and just go with the whole immorality of violent use of force against targets when the difficulty of establishing friend or foe is obvious, then I dont really have much to say to you.
These all directly address:
mikkel wrote:
I think what he's saying is that if you can't do it without shooting first and asking questions later in the middle of a city with more than six million people in it, just don't do it at all.
mikkel wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
War necessitates command decisions.
Yes. Show me where I said anything contrary to this.
mikkel wrote:
What I said was that if you can't do it without shooting first and asking questions later, then don't do it at all.
These instances of "shooting first ask questions later" are clearly command decisions. You can't ask the insurgents to kindly hold up all of their weapons that could be a threat to American personnel so that they may be engaged.
mikkel wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
By your definition of "shoot first, ask questions later" (seeing as calling out a group of people dressed like insurgents and armed like insurgents, waiting over two minutes for the green light and then firing apparently counts as shooting first) war is impossible.
What counts as shooting first is seeing a civilian truck stopping in the middle of a busy city, men coming out of it to tend to an injured man on the side of the street, and then opening fire. Asking for permission to fire from someone who only knows what you're telling him does not constitute 'asking questions'.
Why not? The press should be informing the Army as to their whereabouts. The handlers of the Apache explicitly stated no friendlies were in the area before the Apache opened fire. Command was given accurate information as to the weapons the people were carrying, and as far as the U.S. armed forces knew there were no allies in the area. They could have had a video feed and the exact same decision would have been made. It's not like the pilots lied about anything.
edit:
JohnG@lt wrote:
The video is relayed back to the rear.
like I said
edit2:
mikkel wrote:
I do not need to be told the obvious realities of a situation unless I postulate anything that contradicts them.
You did repeatedly.
This idea of "don't shoot first ask questions later" in the light of the level of restraint presented video being unacceptable directly contradicts the reality of modern warfare.
