Vatican representative urges UN to discuss moral problems of drone strikes [CWN]
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
While I can understand the concern behind the use of drones, what causes me far more concern is the use of civilians by combatants as a shield against any type of military intervention.
After the most recent go-around in Gaza, Israel came up with instructions written by, apparently, Hamas, specifically outlining this procedure, and noting that it would give a significant advantage to the militants as Israel would be hesitant to strike at schools and hospitals.
I prefer to not be dragged into a discussion of who was right or wrong, and the information was not widely focused on by the news media. However, it was fairly clear that the news media sided with the militants against Israel.
There was further information in the news, post battle, that Palestinians were shocked at how accurate Israeli information was as to who lived where, and who had not moved after Israel gave warning.
We now face military action (I call it terrorism) by groups commonly united around certain religious principles, who have absolutely no compunction against suicide bombing, firing rockets into known civilian centers, beheading non-combatants, and using quasi military tactics to destabilize any and all peoples whom they have identified as enemies - including a tremendous number of individuals who share a common root of religion.
And as long as these individuals continue to infiltrate civilian populations and continue their tactics from those locations, there are going to be civilian deaths in any retaliatory strikes against the combatants.
That is no way is intended to justify killing civilians; they should never be targeted. But we no longer are involved in military actions with set-piece military concentrations. That pretty much ended with the Korean War; certainly in Vietnam it was an issue of enemy amongst the civilians; and todays jihadists have learned that lesson well. There simply are no weapons capable of the discriminate type of response that many people seem to feel is absolutely necessary.
After the most recent go-around in Gaza, Israel came up with instructions written by, apparently, Hamas, specifically outlining this procedure, and noting that it would give a significant advantage to the militants as Israel would be hesitant to strike at schools and hospitals.
I prefer to not be dragged into a discussion of who was right or wrong, and the information was not widely focused on by the news media. However, it was fairly clear that the news media sided with the militants against Israel.
There was further information in the news, post battle, that Palestinians were shocked at how accurate Israeli information was as to who lived where, and who had not moved after Israel gave warning.
We now face military action (I call it terrorism) by groups commonly united around certain religious principles, who have absolutely no compunction against suicide bombing, firing rockets into known civilian centers, beheading non-combatants, and using quasi military tactics to destabilize any and all peoples whom they have identified as enemies - including a tremendous number of individuals who share a common root of religion.
And as long as these individuals continue to infiltrate civilian populations and continue their tactics from those locations, there are going to be civilian deaths in any retaliatory strikes against the combatants.
That is no way is intended to justify killing civilians; they should never be targeted. But we no longer are involved in military actions with set-piece military concentrations. That pretty much ended with the Korean War; certainly in Vietnam it was an issue of enemy amongst the civilians; and todays jihadists have learned that lesson well. There simply are no weapons capable of the discriminate type of response that many people seem to feel is absolutely necessary.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Does the good bishop prefer that we go back to “dumb bombs” that obliterate everything for miles and hits the actual target only now and then?
O
otjm
Guest
Or fly a fighter that costs who knows how many millions of dollars each, and which can be brought down by a hand held SAM costing not a lot more than what a lot of folks make in two weeks?
I came across a video taken during some of the Syrian fighting; it was taken by someone videoing the tanks in one city. The tanks would go down an alley and fire at buildings; eventually they filmed one of the indivivuals firing an RPG at a tank. The guys inside the tank were most likely killed instantly, and the film showed the ammunition cooking off inside the tank for a couple of minutes. Off one RPG. Don’t know what tanks run, but my guess is they may break 7 figures.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Yes, because the only other option is of course the use of “dumb bombs.”
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
-The monetary cost of a piece of equipment really shouldn’t play a role in determining if it or the method in which it is used is moral or not.
-That’s why only an idiot would use armor in an urban environment without good infantry support.
O
otjm
Guest
Perhaps cost shouldn’t be a consideration; but between the cost of the machine and the cost of the pilot (and REO) and the capabilities between the two choices, that is going to make a difference.
Ah, idiots… we could get easily sidetracked on that one!
- Status