Quote from: mdgiles on July 21, 2012, 06:14:35 AM
I'm sure your squadmates would be overjoyed to know that you're more worried about the locals - who are trying to kill them - than covering their asses.

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 08:34:42 AM
they are nothing but slow natives in an elephant stampede.

I disagree with Your rationale, Solar. I would not fire aimlessly into a crowd of civilians. That is very wrong.  Some here obviously believe it ok to kill civilians if their lives are in danger. All I can say is that Im glad You guys aren't in service anymore, and I feel horrible knowing that many of the terrible stories I've heard from friends in service, in those days, are probably true.



And Rat

Quote from: kramarat on July 21, 2012, 08:11:04 AM
I've never been in active combat

Thankfully You haven't, cause You seem like that type as well.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 21, 2012, 06:14:35 AM
I'm sure your squadmates would be overjoyed to know that you're more worried about the locals - who are trying to kill them - than covering their asses.

My squad didn't want to kill locals, they just weren't the type that believed that just because a native may be slow it was ok for him or her to die. 


As far as throwing a grenade into a room to clear it, that does happens, if there's live fire from inside, but I don't agree with it.

An armed bunker, in that type of combat, I do. But not in urban warfare.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:08:38 AM

I disagree with Your rationale, Solar. I would not fire aimlessly into a crowd of civilians. That is very wrong.  Some here obviously believe it ok to kill civilians if their lives are in danger. All I can say is that Im glad You guys aren't in service anymore, and I feel horrible knowing that many of the terrible stories I've heard from friends in service, in those days, are probably true.



And Rat

Thankfully You haven't, cause You seem like that type as well.

First off, I said nothing about shooting aimlessly and second this was not a Military action, but rather a private one.
Did the perp care about those around him? Hell no, that's why I was forced to fire, had I not taken the risk, people would definitely have been killed.

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 08:34:42 AM
It is incumbent upon the innocent to get the fuck out of the way, if they don't, they are nothing but slow natives in an elephant stampede.
This is one of those cases where collateral damage is a necessity

Ok, I agree, You are aiming in that^ scenario, You're just ok killing the slow, or the ones unable to get out of the way. Got it. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:08:38 AM

I disagree with Your rationale, Solar. I would not fire aimlessly into a crowd of civilians. That is very wrong.  Some here obviously believe it ok to kill civilians if their lives are in danger. All I can say is that Im glad You guys aren't in service anymore, and I feel horrible knowing that many of the terrible stories I've heard from friends in service, in those days, are probably true.



And Rat

Thankfully You haven't, cause You seem like that type as well.

You bet. Not ashamed of it either.

Quote from: kramarat on July 21, 2012, 09:36:33 AM
You bet. Not ashamed of it either.

Quote from: kramarat on July 21, 2012, 08:11:04 AM
I think fish's combat duty has come through watching movies.
I've never been in active combat, but my sense of self preservation is pretty damned strong. If one person in a crowd of civilians was shooting at me, I wouldn't think twice about taking them out. I believe the blame would lie on the coward that used them for cover.

Anyone familiar with the Geneva Convention - as it actually is - knows that any deaths that result from one side using civilians as shields, falls on the head of that side, and is a war crime.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:08:38 AM

I disagree with Your rationale, Solar. I would not fire aimlessly into a crowd of civilians. That is very wrong.  Some here obviously believe it ok to kill civilians if their lives are in danger. All I can say is that Im glad You guys aren't in service anymore, and I feel horrible knowing that many of the terrible stories I've heard from friends in service, in those days, are probably true.

As I noted above, the Geneva convention understands that no soldier is expected to stand as an open target while the opposition uses civilians as cover.

QuoteAnd Rat
Thankfully You haven't, cause You seem like that type as well.

And if you were what you say you were, I'm glad you were a medic. Because that's the only one in my unit I would have accepted that kind of behavior from. If you were a medic in combat, I'm sure you never carried a weapon, had that red cross on your helmet and armband, and were always willing to brave enemy fire to tend to the wounded.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:18:07 AM
My squad didn't want to kill locals, they just weren't the type that believed that just because a native may be slow it was ok for him or her to die.

OTOH, you feel it's okay for one of the people on your side to die, simply to protect the well being of perhaps the relative of someone who killed that person on your side. IOW, you should care more for their near and dear than they do. 

QuoteAs far as throwing a grenade into a room to clear it, that does happens, if there's live fire from inside, but I don't agree with it.
An armed bunker, in that type of combat, I do. But not in urban warfare.

A building with armed personnel (personnel - since a woman or a kid can kill you just as well as an adult male) in it IS an armed bunker. You do realize that the best way to fight in urban combat is to never appear in the open. You start at one end of a block of buildings, and blast holes in the walls, going from thru one building to get to the next building. Now blasting a hole in the wall with C-4 is hard on the folks in the next building, but better on your men than presenting a target for snipers.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:34:06 AM

Ok, I agree, You are aiming in that^ scenario, You're just ok killing the slow, or the ones unable to get out of the way. Got it. 

I am indifferent on the issue, especially when it means saving more lives than would otherwise have been taken.

Lets take the ass hole that murdered 12 people in the theater, had someone shot him after he killed his first victim, an accidentally killed an innocent bystander as well, what would you say about that?
After all, obviously he saved 11 others from being murdered.

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 10:19:06 AM
I am indifferent on the issue, especially when it means saving more lives than would otherwise have been taken.

Lets take the ass hole that murdered 12 people in the theater, had someone shot him after he killed his first victim, an accidentally killed an innocent bystander as well, what would you say about that?
After all, obviously he saved 11 others from being murdered.

He only wants that to happen if you killed that knucklehead with your bare hands. Heaven forbid you used a weapon of any kind/sarc. 

Quote from: mdgiles on July 21, 2012, 11:09:18 AM
He only wants that to happen if you killed that knucklehead with your bare hands. Heaven forbid you used a weapon of any kind/sarc. 

I get the idea from him, that even killing the murderer would be offensive in his pacifist book.

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 12:01:49 PM
I get the idea from him, that even killing the murderer would be offensive in his pacifist book.

You would be able to kill the murderer, but only if he was shooting directly at you. Anything else would be wrong.

I just don't understand the thinking. If the US had adopted the policy of "no dead civilians", we would have lost every war we've been in. Just packed up, gone home, and admitted defeat to any bunch of cowards that used civilians as shields.

Giles got it right. The blame lies on the ones that hide amongst civilians. That's really the end of the story.

Quote from: kramarat on July 21, 2012, 12:24:47 PM
You would be able to kill the murderer, but only if he was shooting directly at you. Anything else would be wrong.

I just don't understand the thinking. If the US had adopted the policy of "no dead civilians", we would have lost every war we've been in. Just packed up, gone home, and admitted defeat to any bunch of cowards that used civilians as shields.

Giles got it right. The blame lies on the ones that hide amongst civilians. That's really the end of the story.

Soo true!
It's like giving into terrorists demands over hostages, once you give in, you show them the tactic works, they will be taking hostages until you put you refuse to deal with them.