Colonel Russell Williams

[Sir Bandelot]

In twenty years of service I never once encountered a fellow service member who wished to target civilians. Nor did I ever encounter one who would not take measures to avoid such incidents. Civilians caught in a crossfire are regrettable accidents, not deliberate targets.

No AngusThermopile, they are not always considered regrettable. There have been many incidents in history in which civilians were deliberately targeted. Canada is responsible for the deaths of hundreds or perhaps even thousands of civilians in Afghanistan. It may not have been done deliberately, but was done nonetheless by the use of weapons and targeting of suspected terrorist safehouses. If similar events took place in our own country, such as incidents with police entering the home of suspected criminals, and children in the vicinity were killed by the police, by accident, there would surely be an investigation. But in war, there is far less effort to protect non-combatants. If an operation is in jeopardy due to the presence of civilians, a commander must decide if the mission should go ahead or not. In many cases these will be considered acceptable losses, although "regrettable". And that will be the end of the story.

[bloodyminded]

And there in lies the key and telling difference,"caught in the crossfire". Not targetted as a legitimate or desirable target. In twenty years of service I never once encountered a fellow service member who wished to target civilians. Nor did I ever encounter one who would not take measures to avoid such incidents. Civilians caught in a crossfire are regretable accidents, not deliberate targets.

That's fair enough, and is the general rule among many (though not all) societies. For example, the recent revelations about the Army "kill team" has summoned no supporters (well, perhaps a few sociopaths) and the killers are in serious criminal trouble. Properly so.

However, Sir Bandelot makes some interesting points. For one thing, it's not quite true that we don't intentionally kill civilians. Civilians are often intentionally killed. They aren't the target; but that doesn't mean their killings aren't intentional.

Personally, I believe that the majority of civilian casualties are to be blamed on policymakers, rather than the soldiers performing as they're ordered.

As for the points PIK makes...well they really are not even worth responding to.

A wise decision.

Edited November 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Wilber]

It is civilians who make it possible for combatants to fight wars so sometimes they become targets. In today's war's it is increasingly more difficult to tell the combatants from the non combatants.

[Saipan]

There have been many incidents in history in which civilians were deliberately targeted.

Makes sense. How do you tell civilian from terrorist?

[Visionseeker]

Lets let this topic die shall we. Move your discussions elsewhere. Create another topic. For the love of mike this has gone beyond insensitive to his victims and their families.

[Wilber]

Lets let this topic die shall we. Move your discussions elsewhere. Create another topic. For the love of mike this has gone beyond insensitive to his victims and their families.

You're right. My apologies.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Wilber

[Saipan]

Lets let this topic die shall we. Move your discussions elsewhere. Create another topic. For the love of mike this has gone beyond insensitive to his victims and their families.

Why? Even CBC goes on, and on, and on, and on, for YEARS about Marc Lepine. Every December 6, like a clock.

Because it fits with liberal "gun control" scheme. Case of Denis Lortie does not - so hardly anyone knows.