Terrorist Victims were Tortured ? "the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks"

[JI7]

i'm not sure how reliable this is with all the rumours going around and things that conflict or haven't been proven. but they made the wrong move if they were able to capture the terrorists alive without risking other lives but still killed them.

here are some parts of the article


<Asked specifically if he was talking of torture marks, he said: "It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood," one doctor said.

The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: "Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again," he said.

On the other hand, there is enough to suggest that the terrorists also did not meet a clean, death.

The doctors who conducted the post mortem said the bodies of the terrorists were beyond recognition. "Their faces were beyond recognition."

A senior National Security Guard officer, who had earlier explained the operation in detail to rediff.com, said the commandos went all out after they ascertained that there were no more hostages left. When asked if the commandos attempted to capture them alive at that stage, he replied: "Unko bachana kaun chahega (Who will want to save them)?" >


http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/30mumterror-doctors-shocked-at-hostagess-torture.htm

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Clarification.

I am not sure what you mean by this:

"but they made the wrong move if they were able to capture the terrorists alive without risking other lives but still killed them.

[JI7]

2. i think they should have captured the terrorists

instead of killing them assuming that they could have done so without anyone else being harmed.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Well, capture would have been nice.

To my knowledge, one was captured alive and has released information about the reasons for the attack.

You did read this part too, correct? "It was clear that they (the Israelis) were killed on the 26th itself.

So, was the "harm" you are discussing for the terrorists of the victims?

[JI7]

5. it's kind of difficult to explain

i'm only talking about the point where they were able to kill the terrorists. if at that point they could easily have captured them instead of killing them they should have done so.

i'm not saying they should have avoided trying to kill them at any time.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. That's cool.

I wasn't sure what you were saying. Your explanation makes sense.

"if at that point they could easily have captured them instead of killing them they should have done so."

I agree. I was just confused by the initial post you made. I appreciate your taking the time to explain what you were trying to say.

[aquart]

4. How humane of you,

But that's pretty much anybody's last consideration after mass casualties.

[MrSlayer]

6. They let one of them live.

And he is talking. The rest got what they asked for.

[meowomon]

8. No, they didn't. (get what they asked for)

They are evil delusional violent people who think killing and torturing the innocent in the name of their God is reasonable and rational. They were asking for paradise and I doubt very much they will receive it.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. Look. Here's how that awful stuff works:

Traditional SPECOPS anti-terrorist and hostage rescue ROE does not allow for police-style tactics. First operational assumption is that these people are committed, ready to die and armed well. Job 1 is rescuing hostages, if any live ones are still available to rescue, job 2 is getting all team members out alive and tactical assumption 1 is that as soon as your teams make entry, the terrorists will start killing hostages to get the entry teams to back off and make themselves easy targets. So, when the teams make entry, hopefully from multiple points to scatter the hostage taker's attention, they, of course, use flash bang grenades to stun, deafen, blind and distract the tangos, and then, they shoot them. Dead. Normal doctrine in that is either a double tap in the neck or head, or double tap center mass.

Because of the heightened agitation of the tangos, their usual well-armed stance and the sense of immediate threat and panic on their part, once the teams make entrance and make themselves known, capture of live ones is just dumb luck. The job of the teams is to neutralize the threat and that is done by killing them. There is no time for Marquess of Queensberry niceties.These situations play out in mere seconds.

It's brutal and nasty work, close-quarter combat in those situations, but the job of the teams is to rescue hostages and get their people all out alive. Dead or wounded team members, due to the small and close-knit makeup of these teams, can be a crushing blow to morale and operational efficiency. You want all your people back in one piece, so you are fully ready to go again, if needed.

It's called "violence of action", it is meant to be overwhelming and the side that is best at it wins the confrontation. Them is the sad, nasty and necessary facts.

Considering the carnage that was found, I don't think the tangos had any capacity or desire to negotiate or any intention of surrendering after said negotiations. They would have merely used said negotiations for time to regroup and put themselves in a better tactical posture.