Since the day has already been wasted arguing with chickens, I will rise in opposition once more.
No, you made half of a point. You asserted that violence was occurring near this group, you offered no evidence to suggest that was sufficient under the ROE's.
If you had read the quiz BAC linked, you would know that soldiers could not fire on an insurgent that shot one an American in the neck if he was surrounded by innocents because the collateral damage was not justified.
Which assumes the troops have a way of reasonably concluding that the people surrounding the insurgent are in fact innocents. Which is far from the case in the incident in question. And you know it.
But you're hiding behind the "innocents" caveat because without it, you have nothing. In reality, you have nothing with it either, but you are hoping to cling tenuously to it. For the duration of your lifetime, if necessary.
That's after an actual act of aggression. Obviously someone standing around with a weapon making no hostile act or not implying any hostile act shouldn't be unloaded on just as a matter of course, but there's certainly no justification for killing everyone in the area.
That has all been quoted and explained to you before. However, I will endeavor to re-quote and re-explain. Not because you will ever come to your senses, but because others might.
"The Rules of Engagement are not a suicide pact. Basic understanding of the globally applicable Rules of Engagement for self-defense reveals public criticisms to be incorrect or misleading on a number of points."
"At any time a service member reasonably perceives an imminent ability and intent to cause him or others serious bodily harm or death, he is authorized to use deadly force in defense."
"It is also incorrect that both a hostile intent and a hostile act must be demonstrated before use of force is permitted. Identified hostile acts or intentions each equate with authorization to engage if a service member decides it necessary to defend himself."
"The US ROE defines hostile intent as "the threat of the imminent use of force,"
What constitutes a threat of the imminent use of force?
Unfortunately for the dogamatic, there is no list of stiff, dogmatic rules which can adequately cover every possible threat of imminent harm. And even if such a list existed, it would be too long for anyone to memorize, and too cumbersome, stiff and dogmatic to be useful in many cases. Plus, once the enemy knows what's on the list, the enemy will endeavor to stay off the list.
And that's why it's a judgement call. That's right, lefto-chickens. Troops are actually allowed to use judgement, are even required to do so.
However, In the case in question, the decision was rather simple. The most obvious and irrefutable example of a threat of imminent harm short of the actual ongoing stutter of a Kalashnikov firing into the midst of friendly troops would be the presence of several unidentified people armed with deadly weapons in close proximity to friendly troops, in an area where hostile action has already been occurring. This gives rise to a reasonable conclusion of hostile intent.
Is there a reasonable expectation that some of the people in the cluster of people are innocent civilians? The answer is clearly NO. There is no such reasonable expectation. There is merely the possibility. A possibility is not a reasonable expectation. The reasonable expectation is that a group of obviously associated people, in close proximity, moving together, with weapons, in a hot fire zone, are indeed associated, and likely harboring bad intent. And since it has already been reasonably concluded that the weapons support a reasonable expectation of hostile intent, it is indeed imperative to unload on this group without delay. In fact, failure to do so might well result in court-martial for dereliction of duty, should the group fire on the nearby troops and kill or injure someone. It is not necessary nor desirable to absolutely verify hostile intent by taking fire from the deeply suspect armed group. Because, as has been earlier noted, the Rules of Engagement are not a suicide pact.
But will tranewreck ever acknowledge these obvious realities? Of course not. Would it ever be possible to win any war under tranewreck's rules of engagement? Of course not. Me and five teenage girls could whup the lot of you under tranewreck's rules of engagement, because you would never be allowed to fire on us. But we could fire on you. We could fire on you a lot. As long as we are in the midst of a group of people who might possibly be civilians, you can't shoot under tranewreck's RoE. So all me and my five girls need is a small group of fake civilians to stay with us.
And that's why the Taliban want tranewreck to be president. Because he is easy pickings.
