We're talking about wives, children, and other family members who are non-combatants. We're gonna shoot Granny in the head just because her terrorist grandson cares about her?
Not this Marine. Not ever.
LTC Allen West had a prisoner who knew details of enemy plans that would save the lives of many in West’s battalion. West held a gun to his head and gave him a choice: talk or die.
West was forced out of the Army over this, even though he was a hugely successful young officer and probably a future general.
Would you side with those who fired West or would you side with West?
I have always sided with West. At the time, America was outraged by the treatment of West.
Isn't that "taking out the families?"
-PJ
You can shave it any way you like. Singling out noncombatant personnel is always something you do not deliberately do. If you kill twenty people in a wedding party knowing that the target you want to kill is in that wedding party, you've deliberately targeted civilian noncombatants. If you return fire you're not only not always aware that others are present you're also not doing your duty to protect your people if you don't try and suppress and destroy the source of the fire because you're afraid Granny may be home.
Consider a building you know they're reloading brass in, full of bullets and powder along with the makings for IEDs. Now consider that the people doing part of the work are women and children. Target vehicles and armed personnel leaving only ? Or take out the sight and the components therein?
People making sweeping statements one way or another are trying to apply one standard to a multitude of situations.