Both can and should be targeted if being used for military operations. On Jul 15, 2014 10:18 PM, "Eric Roberts" <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
> > You left off hospitals and schools... > > -----Original Message----- > From: LRS Scout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:49 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Slaughter of civilians by Israel... > > > We never had any fire support larger than company mortars allowed to fire, > except aviation like twice. > > I know during my deployment we had a few mistakes. For us mainly caused by > the mistrust of the Afghan army and national police. People trying to run > a > tcp, because the locals are as likely to rape, rob and murder them as to > search and protect. > > In this situation, with indirect fires, I think counter battery operations > are 100% the right answer from the perspective of doctrine tactically, > although some what against some of the objectives strategically and > operationally. > > Doubly so when you consider how small a pool of candidate's that the > Israelis have to draw from. Preserve the force structure, destroy the > enemies communication, command and control and logistics. Alienate the > local population. > On Jul 15, 2014 5:34 PM, "Bruce Sorge" <sor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 <mamamaur...@gmail.com> 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 <sor...@gmail.com> 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:371618 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
