From a letter sent to The Times by their director Kate Allen. As here:
‘First, that US-led strikes are reportedly still highly likely. Too little has been said about what this may mean for civilians in Syria.
International humanitarian law is clear that scrupulous care must be taken to ensure that civilians are protected from harm at all times.
Though neither President Obama nor US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will acknowledge this, the USA has a lamentable record of providing proper accountability for previous US strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, attacks that have killed and maimed large numbers of civilians’.
It’s the obvious point to make, isn’t it? That the U.S. has regularly killed and injured large numbers of civilians over the last ten years via airstrikes, with near total impunity.
And so given that horrendous track record, you have to wonder just how wise it is to implore these people to bomb Syria on ‘humanitarian’ grounds, or to ‘protect civilians’ no less (and this is before we even start to question whether there can ever be such a thing as a ‘humanitarian’ bomb, a highly problematic concept to say the least).
I doubt that, for example, many people would’ve been calling on Russia to bomb East Timor to ‘protect civilians’ as the Russian Air Force were laying waste to Chechnya in 1999, because the utter absurdity of it would’ve been readily apparent.
It should be in this instance as well.