The world only protests when Israel Strikes

I completelly disagree and ill tell why.

I am not talking about semantics. Im talking about procedures and force of habbit, about drills. Every tactical decision we make in the field, and by we i mean low level tactical commanders, is based on a drill. Contcat, 100 meters ahead, what do you do? Stop and think? Nope. You do the drill.

IDF ROE procedures in these cases call for three positive ansawers before you engage: Means, Intention, Capabilety.
Means: a weapon, improvized or purpose built.
Intention: the wish to use this weapon agianst you, non-combatents, or friendly units.
Capabilety: the abilety to cause damage with said means, as in range, physical abilety etc.

When you have these ground rules, it makes decisions much easier to make.
 
Settle down Sherman,:D That was not aimed at you, I was writing it as you were writing your post and because you are a better typist, you sent yours first.

I was aiming at the people who were using semantics as to what these people are called. As far as I know, what they are called, is of no real importance, what matters is that the person who comes into contact with them is sure that they are a danger to him or his colleagues, before he acts.

Like all these things, it's not as it always appears and calls for split second judgements to be made and acted upon. What is wrong, is to go in with the idea of, "kill'em all" and let god sort 'em out.

As always, the best answers are usually easily arrived at with a little common sense, not a book full of ROEs
 
Last edited:
Tell me about it,...

It's only people like yourself, who have English as a second language, that shame me into trying to make my posts look like I passed out of primary school.:wink:
 
senojekips said:
Like all these things, it's not as it always appears and calls for split second judgements to be made and acted upon. What is wrong, is to go in with the idea of, "kill'em all" and let god sort 'em out.

As always, the best answers are usually easily arrived at with a little common sense, not a book full of ROEs
Click to expand...

Senojekips - from your posts and opinions I reckon that you got past primary school & probably secondary as well.

I agree, combat is about split second decisions and they can be tough calls, woman, child, weapon, looking nervous, looking at me, moving their hands etc. Which is why we spend so much time training, not just to try and help make the right decisions, but also to prevent casualties on our side and loss of innocent life in the community. This is also why we need ROE, they provide the guidelines and framework for those decisions. They are there to protect & guide the individual soldier, who always has the right to protect him/herself against harm, but might need to justify themselves, if the engagement was outside of the ROE.

I would also add that if we, "the civilised" nations purport to support the rule of law, we need to set the example. If we choose to fight from the moral highground - then we had better be sure that we're standing on it, because hypocrisy will lose you allies as quickly as a bodycount.

That said, ROE must be simple, easy to remember and reflect the potential issues that soldiers will face on the ground, they should not need to worry whether they need a solicitor to protect them in combat!! But if we go for kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out, we're back to the dark ages, killing prisoners, raping, pillaging and looting our way across the world, I think that we're better than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top