Say intel knew for certain where a guy that you knew had planned attacks on American interests was hiding -- but your window of opportunity was small and in order to take him out, a number of civilians would have die too.
You are in command. What number of civilian deaths would be acceptable here?
2007-10-29 12:08:26 · 19 answers · asked by captain_koyk 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
labdoctor -- you didn't see 60 minutes last night did you? they were talking about EXACTLY THIS -- and the number was 30
2007-10-29 12:27:19 · update #1
i would wonder how many he has already killed and how many more he would kill if left alive to do so. it is hard to calculate but one must make such decision. i heard on a program that 29 was the number acceptable to the military and over that was considered too much, this was by a military guy on 60 mins last night so not sure how valid it is since 60 mins hasn't much credibility anymore. he also said that the terrorists were famous for using civilians as shields so that they would die, this to make us look bad. i do believe that part.
2007-10-29 12:21:40 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question.
Sometimes these types of decisions must be weighed against the greater good. For instance, how many dead, innocent civilians will ultimately be slaughtered by this terrorist?
A very small number of terrorists murdered almost three thousand innocent civilians on 9/11. Surely it would have been a tragedy had we been able to shoot these planes down before they hit their intended targets - a few hundred dead, innocent passengers - but given the limited choice, it would have been the best solution and would have saved thousands of lives.
The number of innocent deaths likely from the planned attacks on American interests by this terrorist would be the determining factor if I had to make the decision.
2007-10-29 19:32:35 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It depends on who the terrorist is, how dangerous he is and whether or not we think we can find him again.
The rule that will be applied is the proportionality rule. This is where the expected military benefit is compared with the expected civilian casualties.
If he is just a 'small fry' terrorist and we know who he is - we can catch him later. If he is a major player who is likely to get away - we may have to take him out.
BTW - something you need to consider is that under the Laws and Customs of War he is responsible for separating himself from noncombatants. The Geneva Conventions specifically state that surrounding yourself with 'human shields' does not make you immune from attack and any deaths of those civilians are considered to be a war crime on your part.
2007-10-29 19:18:54 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's called "Collateral Damage" and it happens, unfortunately, whenever there is war. What you should be asking yourself, is why a terrorist would be using civilians as cover. And if he would do so, how many do you think he has and will continue to kill. The needs of the many buddy, sorry.
2007-10-29 19:23:52 · answer #4 · answered by HLBellevino 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
5
2007-10-29 19:12:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
If it was up to me, only the "guilty" ones...
No child in any country should die for the greedy wishes of anyone, anywhere.
I believe in the “War on Terror” – but the war on people that happen to live in an oil-producing nation is NOT a “just” war, nor can I take pride in such a war.
We had a “greatest generation” during WWII, now we have a “worst” – at least within the people that represent “we the people”. The times... well, they need to be changin’…
2007-10-29 19:21:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Kind of a loaded question isn't it?
You really need to poll the Iraqi's on this one and let them tell you what bogus nonsense you're spewing.
To think there would be pre-meditated murder by our military on civilians in a combat zone under any circumstances? Get a grip.
2007-10-29 19:18:39 · answer #7 · answered by labdoctor 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Depends on the target. If it were Bin Laden, that would deal a huge blow to the terrorists, and may get some of them to give up the fight, knowing we will eventually find you and kill you, and when we kill you, you may be endangering your family more than necessary. Causing more terrorists to give up the fight would ultimately save more lives in the long run. So, with an opportunity like that, I don't think you put a limit on it.
2007-10-29 19:17:48 · answer #8 · answered by Ninja Rabbit 007 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Why would the window of opportunity be small?
You have already used a CIA excuse for murder.
Really not just a CIA excuse, but the entire rationale behind this illegal war, that has killed (by some estimates upwards to 600,000 civilians) way too many.
2007-10-29 19:12:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
How many dead French civilians was one dead Nazi worth?
The Liberation of Paris (also known as Battle for Paris) took place during World War II from 19 August 1944 until the surrender of the occupying German garrison on the 25th.
2007-10-29 19:14:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 7⤋