What's the point, if you can't make a list?
06/22/2007, 7:30 AM #
The topic is killing human shield kids. In a time of war, and to get "high-valued" targets. But deliberately so, to remove any ambiguity (of the question). We can use this report as a guideline, I guess (provided by Dubina and regarding the recent reported deaths of 7 Afghan children):
According to several officials, and contrary to previous statements, the U.S. military knew there were children at the compound but considered the target of such high value it was worth the risk of potential collateral damage.
Would you do it: 1) almost never; 2) it depends; 3) almost always.
My groups, and it's solely my opinion based solely on the posts in the Tony Snow thread below:
1) daveto, dubina, midway, dallasne, fluffyblackpuppies, biteoftheweek, schmutzie (the most difficult call)
2) inkberrow, topazz (fairly wild guess)
3) jackdallas, jasper (also supports the Haditha massacre), urquhart (to be fair: "trusts the military" a better answer/category)
Apologies in advance to those feeling imugned, cheated or otherwise thwarted. I'll also say this: if I were the guy on the ground .. (incomplete thought) ... well, it's easier, much easier, to make the call from here, isn't it. Maybe those with real combat experience would tend to see this differently.
And for those that say almost never, well, as one of those, I recognize that it may not be the optimal utilitarian answer .. if they are "high value", how many innocents will they go on to kill, on average, after we let them escape? More than 7, in the aggregate? But then we have the "are we terrorists too" business, how many lives do we save, in the aggregate and as a society, by being demonstrably, consistently and unerringly better than the bad guys?