[test54]

I appreciate your attention.

I know you don't condone innocent children but you have said you have no issue with the missile attacks in Pakistan which have killed innocent children. These villages are not terrorist camps, they are villages filled with families. These families cannot beat a group of armed terrorists.

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by test54

I appreciate your attention.

I know you don't condone innocent children but you have said you have no issue with the missile attacks in Pakistan which have killed innocent children. These villages are not terrorist camps, they are villages filled with families. These families cannot beat a group of armed terrorists.

They can start the revolt though. As I stated it has to start some where.

[test54]

but if they don't then they all deserve to be killed?

[LunkHead]

Wirelessly posted (BB 850)

Originally Posted by test54

I appreciate your attention. I know you don't condone innocent children but you have said you have no issue with the missile attacks in Pakistan which have killed innocent children. These villages are not terrorist camps, they are villages filled with families. These families cannot beat a group of armed terrorists.

So let me ask you a Q:

What are we to do? Let terrorists hide in civilian villages and launch attacks and kill our soldiers? Israel faces this everyday..

Should they NOT bomb a terrorist site that is launching missles into their schools everyday? I guess using your theory they should just sit back and wait for the terrorists to run out of bombs?

I really hope that is not what you truly believe..

Kris

[test54]

no, there are many ways to attack them. To level a building that may have a few bad guys in it and kills all other innocent residents is not a good method. there is no good and safe way to do it but that never makes it OK to kill innocent people.

[djm2]

In many respects it would appear that this question has boiled down to the following: What is the acceptable level of collateral casualties? It would appear that Test is arguing for none or few, and Lunkhead, Dawg et al would be willing to accept significant levels. Therefore, my question is:

What level of collateral casualties -- in actual numbers of dead/seriously wounded -- is acceptable in a raid that gets 10 bad guys?

[jsconyers]

Very good point djm2. I tend to agree with Test in the fact that a lot of innocent people are being killed. However, unfortunately that's a part of war. I believe (and would hope) the goal is to remove the terrorists with as few causalities as possible.

Try putting yourself in their shoes. Imagine that this was local, and there were a few terrorists in your town that fired missiles into a bordering country. That country retaliated and in doing so, your family and loved ones were lost. It isn't their fault that the terrorists decided to harbor in that city. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't think there is an an answer on what is an acceptable amount of casualties. To some, it will always be as many as needed to get the job done. To others it will be there shouldn't be any casualties. Is there a happy medium?

[Dawg]

If you can't fight em run. Get out dont stay where you are in harms way.

[test54]

I agree it is part of war. the acceptable ratio would also change depending on the level of importance of the 10 guys. I'm not sure I have an answer other than as few as possible.

the days of carpet bombing a city in WWII are gone for good and the level of collateral damage that is acceptable is drastically different.

[djm2]

Originally Posted by test54

I agree it is part of war. the acceptable ratio would also change depending on the level of importance of the 10 guys. I'm not sure I have an answer other than as few as possible.

the days of carpet bombing a city in WWII are gone for good and the level of collateral damage that is acceptable is drastically different.

Good point, and the closest anyone has come to providing a definitive answer to my question. Why no direct response from the other side of the debate???

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that we are talking about someone who is the equivalent of a colonel and his staff.

[LunkHead]

Originally Posted by djm2

In many respects it would appear that this question has boiled down to the following: What is the acceptable level of collateral casualties? It would appear that Test is arguing for none or few, and Lunkhead, Dawg et al would be willing to accept significant levels. Therefore, my question is:

What level of collateral casualties -- in actual numbers of dead/seriously wounded -- is acceptable in a raid that gets 10 bad guys?

I do not think there is an answer for that, the fewer the better...

I'd say that IF every precaution is / was taken to avoid civilian casualties then I'd be OK with the attack...

If little to no precautions were taken then even one civilian casualty is to many...

To attack with no precautions taken is reckless irresponsible, and criminal in my opinion. To go after terrorists where precaution, after precaution has been taken to minimize civilian casualties is prudent for our nation to protect of soldiers, citizens, ect...

My .02

Kris