From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Mon Aug 12 2002 - 21:24:07 MDT
[Joe Dees]As far a soldiers being specifically instructed to kill women and
children, I do not believe that such instruction was given - unless it was
perceived that they were armed. ANY armed combatants are legitimate targets
in a battle situation by the simple doctrine of self-defence.
[Hermit] I followed up on this story which appears to have been ignored by
the US press but made headlines elsewhere.
[Hermit] Presumably as a result of a suggestion from above, he wrote a
follow-up letter
(http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20020604/opinion/440857.html)
which didn't improve matters one whit:
[Soldier] Prior to the operation, we were made aware of the fact that the
hostile forces of the Whaleback might include women and children. In that
event, if those women and children showed hostile intent, we were ordered to
kill them as hostile forces, just like any other hostile force we
encountered.
[Hermit] No doubt you still "don't want to believe."
[ben] The followup article completely supports Joe's initial response. So,
are you suggesting that we shouldn't trust the soldier's second statement?
But that we should credit the first? And if so, why exactly? Your
presumption (about motivation from above) is feasible but certainly not
concrete. If he is telling the truth in the second statement, he still has
every motive to want to clarify his wording for reasons of personal pride,
nevermind downwards pressure.
-ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:52 MDT