Why hurt the innocents to stop the enemy?

[esmith]

You said that they haven't before and aren't doing it now and I'm correcting you? Have you seen what has been actually going on? Just because it doesn't make the front news doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you seriously believe that there aren't some soldiers that have intentionally went after innocents to get the bad guys? Have you seen any war at all? Because almost every war has involved going after innocents. Even in the Civil War it has happened. They don't tell you the Union burnt towns, raped women and killed civilians and livestock and there's writing and even photographs that show this.


It's like nothing pleases you. People tell you and even show evidence and you shoot it down anyway so why ask for evidence in the first place? Even recently a hospital had been bombed because they knew there were bad guys but bombed it anyway and civilians got caught in the explosion. And I can probably say nothing at all and you'll still say I'm pulling a straw man. That word has been used so many times it's lost it's meaning around here.

As usual I will have to disagree with you for many reasons, but let's start with a couple and then expand
A.. Before you ask me the same question you ask leibowder, Yes I have seen war, Vietnam. Up close and personal? No. But, I know what damage a 5" projectile does.
B. So, let me ask you a question. Have you seen war? Up close and personal?
So since we have those two items out of the way let's get down to your main point. Civilian casualties
1. This is not a war where you can recognize the enemy by the uniform they wear.(neither was Vietnam) Everyone has to be considered a possible threat no matter the age or sex. A young child or woman can kill you just as quick as an adult male. The rules of engagement (ROE) during Iraq and Afghanistan were fairly explicit. ref:Rules Of Engagement Iraq In section 1a. Positive identification. Well since the opposing force didn't wear uniforms then the idea of a visible direct threat is hard to determine. Was that vehicle approaching your unit and failed to head all visible and vocal commands to stop a "direct threat"? Your call. Yes I'm sure mistakes were made, and there were probably those that just have a viscous streak and used the situation for their excuse to kill.
C. Now it is said that the ROE cost American lives in Afghanistan. Now I can not disprove or prove the statement all I can do is supply a source that says they did. [ulr=[URL]https://www.rt.com/usa/battlefield-deaths-rules-engagement-change-862/]ROE[/URL] Cost Lives[/url]
2. Attacks from the air. During WWII, precision guided munitions were not available, hence the massive bomber waves in Germany to knock out the means of manufacturing war goods. In addition the accuracy of "dumb" bombs is not good ref: B-17 and B-24 Accuracy hence the massive destruction of German cities.
3. Attacks by US aircraft now is very accurate. However, in war there will always be collateral damage; it can not be avoided. When the enemy puts itself amongst civilians and one has to go after the enemy there will be civilian casualties. Example 45 Min Warning You Will Be Hit. Now, what are the odds that these drivers were ISIS volunteers or civilian conscripts or civilians being paid by ISIS? Good question. I would have not given a warning, you are aiding and abetting the enemy, you then are the enemy.

Finally you seem to want to associate the past with the present to make your point. Ok, I'll give you that atrocities have occurred since man picked up a rock to attack his neighbor. War is not civilized and if you expect it to be you are not living in the real world. Mistakes are made, and there are those on both sides that enjoy the freedom to express their most inhuman lust during war. If you don't think it happens on both sides you again are not living in the real world. Try reading Rudyard Kipling writings about the English in Afghanistan, or the history of combat in the Pacific Island during WWII.

 

[leibowde84]

You said we don't shoot bomb citizens intentionally and said that they have done it before way back in history, a couple decades and there have been incidents where citizens died in order to get the enemy. They've done it before recently. You don't think they are doing it now? Why would this war be the exception? Just because they don't show it on the news often doesn't mean it didn't happen.

There is no evidence beyond mere speculation and the actions of past leaders who aren't in charge any longer that we are.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

There is no evidence beyond mere speculation and the actions of past leaders who aren't in charge any longer that we are.

Except there's tons of evidence. People have made documentaries of stuff like this. Have you read any articles or seen pictures of the stuff that happened before the Iraq War. They were doing stuff long before the war actually started. But hey I guess if it doesn't make it to the front page on the news, I guess it didn't happen.

 

[leibowde84]

Except there's tons of evidence. People have made documentaries of stuff like this. Have you read any articles or seen pictures of the stuff that happened before the Iraq War. They were doing stuff long before the war actually started. But hey I guess if it doesn't make it to the front page on the news, I guess it didn't happen.

Again, you are creating a mere straw man, resorting to irrelevant conflicts under completely different leadership. How many times do I have to tell you, I don't dispute this stuff going on under the direction of past leaders. You have yet to provide any evidence that it is happening now with this conflict against ISIS.

 

[leibowde84]

Except there's tons of evidence. People have made documentaries of stuff like this. Have you read any articles or seen pictures of the stuff that happened before the Iraq War. They were doing stuff long before the war actually started. But hey I guess if it doesn't make it to the front page on the news, I guess it didn't happen.

So, am I safe in assuming that you can't provide any evidence that these things are going on in this conflict? You keep on resorting to examples from past conflicts led by completely different people, which seems unfair. Is it fair to make assumptions about our current leaders based on the past actions of completely different people? I think not.