My thoughts: ho hum nothing to see here move along to something more unusual.
The atrocities of War are well documented throughout man's history - no one is immune.
By necessity, those who engage in War will eventuall be forced to commit what non-combatants feel are atrocities. Thus is the nature of War. Condemn it or condone it - makes no difference - as long as humans engage in Warfare, atrocities will flourish.

ganjoa

There are probably going to be more members saying that civilian casualties are just a part of "war," because it is true, but only to an extent. I can understand there being civilian deaths, calculated or uncalculated, during bombing raids and long-range weapons fire, because the pilots dropping the bombs, or the soldiers firing the weapons, are not practicing precise targeting. Of course there is an element of precision involved, and the specified target has a lot to do with the amount of casualties, civilian or otherwise.

After it has been established that yes, civilian deaths are a part of warfare, there are atrocious exceptions, such as when soldiers intentionally seek or single out unarmed, nonthreatening civilians. Having been in the military I know that any member of the armed forces that carries a firearm must behave by the rules of engagement. Disobeying these will more often than not result in a court marshall.

Believe it or not, there are soldiers who are just plain "bloodthirsty," and they think that because they kill a Bedouin shepherd civilian, just as an example, half-way across the globe, it is okay and there won't be repercussions. Non-combatants should NEVER be targeted, but with that said, no civilians should be with a standing military force, or rebel force, etc, unless they reside where the fighting is going on. Purposely going out of one's way to step within a battleground is highly suspicious in my opinion, but again, U.S. forces have STRICT rules of engagement, and they are drilled into the heads of any weapon-wielding military personnel, even more so if they are to be deployed into a hot zone.

So if an innocent civilian non-combatant is killed away from direct fighting, by direct and purposeful fire, they were wrongfully killed, and there should be consequences for that action. So really it just depends on the situation. Gung ho soldiers who do not possess the necessary restraint to avoid not only murdering civilians, but SEEKING THEM OUT specifically to murder them, should not only not be in the military, but should probably be in therapy or prison, or both. Just because you are an armed soldier does not give you the right to murder someone. I hope everyone on this forum can understand that point.

I get what your saying but it can be pretty tough following those rules when Children are sent by their parents with suicide bombs strapped to their chests killing Soldiers that were simply trying to help them. Or the fact that at any second People whom appear to be civilians Sneak Attack Units guerilla warrior Style. Many Combatants don't dress in uniforms... they are dressed in civilian clothing. So it must be pretty tough in the Hot Zone. I believe that the SGT. in this case had a experience like losing a friend or Man and decided to go out on patrol and to take no prisoners because if they had to go out they would kill these people... better safe than sorry. THe grunts were simply following orders because they didn't want to receive any friendly fire.

I agree a lot of soldiers are fired up because they lost family in 911... had buddies that were killed on top of dealing with other BS. These are 18 and 19 year old Kids. They Think War Is like modern Warfare 2 the video game. Frag all of the noobs... high body count ratios, come home alive. It's also reasonable that you have Blood thirst individuals in it to score a high body count for some reason and not just to collect a pay check because they didn't go to school

My thoughts? I think every soldier that willing went over there to murder people they've never even met based off a lie all for the sake of corporate imperialists should be charged with murder.

So a bullet from a child soldiers rifle will not kill you ? It's a sad fact that children are forced to fight by these scum ,but what do you want soldiers to do ? die because it's a 13 year old pointing the AK at them ?

I currently have two friends in the Military, an MP in Iraq and a Marine in Afganistan. The Marine friend told me how they were ordered to kill everybody on a certain block in a town. Everybody. Meaning, they went through the whole block, hut by hut, and killed everybody that was there. My friend was nearly in tears when he told me this story, and he has been a changed man since he came back. He doesn't seem quite right, and I fear he won't ever be again.

I didn't want to go to deep into it with him, as I could tell he was upset. I just asked for the context in which they did this. He said supposedly there were some BGs that fled into the block, they were pretty sure they didn't get out, but they didn't know who they were. So they just killed everybody on the block.

Could he have been lying about this? Absolutely. Do I think he was? Not at all. Other than the fact he is one of the most honest people I know, something has indeed changed about him since he returned. And the way he looked and talked while telling me the story, if all an act, was deserving of an award for best actor.

I tell this story to illustrate the fact that this is nothing new, and I'm sure has happened in every war. Obviously a job, like a soldier, where killing is a requirement, is going to attract some evil people that enjoy killing for the sake of killing.

In no means am I saying that all military people are like this, I believe most are very good people trying to fight for their country. But when you have a large number of people, you are going to get a cross section of people in general. Some good, some bad, and some in the middle.

Very sad and disturbing.