VEJANAND INDIJI RAMLAKAN
One tends to, one tries to be as ethical as possible in the context of war but the Americans in the bombings of Hiroshima, if you compare that sort of situation to say the Chatsworth bombing and the issue of ethics arises and out of the ethical issue the policy of Umkhonto weSizwe was to limit damage to property and person as far as possible, qualified by the understanding that in a war situation, in a situation of civil war it is practicably impossible not to have unintended consequences.  In the Chatsworth operations of what is the Chatsworth Magistrate's is one, the previous one there as well, it was possible within the political objective to select targets in which we, being military persons, could carefully control the nature of the operation and to maximise the political message.  There was no need to injure persons or buildings.  We were part of the armed propaganda, the African National Congress, and we conducted an operation so as to heighten the efficacy of that message.  There was no need to damage beyond that which is required to state the political message.  This was a general principle.  It is possible that that principle may have been transgressed like somebody other principles in the context of war.  War is not a cold clinical business, one cannot predict outcomes.  You try within a certain concept to attain your purpose with a minimum damage.  This is standard military approach.