14% of North Africans and Middle Easterners Believe Targeting Civilians is Sometimes Justified

So you are saying yes, sometimes targeting civilians is justified, and it is codified in the Geneva conventions.

 

I don't get why it's taking you this long to understand something so simple. If a person is engaging in hostile actions against any of the parties to a conflict, then they are not a civilian. Spies fall under that umbrella.

 

Taliban forward observers when I was in Marjah were considered enemy combatants according to ROE. But you know more, so go on.

 

So this criminal person is a civilian.

And they forfeit the rights of a protected person, so they can be targeted. They are a civilian who can be targeted.

Let's assume that they are not even in a war zone, there is just some guy and he is raping a woman. He is a civilian, yes? He can be targeted by someone in the military or otherwise, yes? So under that set of circumstances, targeting a civilian is justified, yes?

 

Dude just stop. First, when one refers to 'colletral damage' and accidental deaths of civilians, no one is referring to enemy combatants. The assumption is that colletral damage is destruction of civilian structures, and injuries and deaths of non-combatants.

Also, just an FYI, US servicemembers are not fighting any formal standing military in Afghanistan. So according to your logic, every US troop who was wounded in Afghanistan do not qualify for a Purple Heart, because the sole requirement for receiving a Purple Heart is being wounded or killed by an enemy of the state. Civilians aren't enemies of the state buddy. Majority of the fighters who we encountered in places like Marjah were former farmers in the area who were either recruited or forced by the Taliban to pick up a rifle or set IEDs.

 

I wonder . . . . Which countries have killed the most civilians during military actions this year. . . the last decade . . .since the start of the century

Maybe I will google a chart

I am genuinely curious

Rocket River