Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza. I don't know to what extent civilian administrators are appropriate military targets in a war,
but the concept of the civilians surrounding civilian administrators being a "human shield" is clearly an absurd lie. It is possibly (I am not an expert) improper for Hamas fighters to hide among civilians and perhaps this justifies
the mass slaughter of civilians in order to attack Hamas fighters. But surely to attack civilian Hamas administrators by the mass slaughter of civilians does not represent the civilian adminstrators using "human shields" because the only appropriate place for civilian administrators to operate is among the
civilians whose services they are managing.
Any experts on the laws of war here who can tell me where I am going wrong?
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza. I don't know to what extent civilian administrators are appropriate military targets in a war,
but the concept of the civilians surrounding civilian administrators being a "human shield" is clearly an absurd lie. It is possibly (I am not an expert) improper for Hamas fighters to hide among civilians and perhaps this justifies
the mass slaughter of civilians in order to attack Hamas fighters. But surely to attack civilian Hamas administrators by the mass slaughter of civilians does not represent the civilian adminstrators using "human shields" because the only appropriate place for civilian administrators to operate is among the
civilians whose services they are managing.
Any experts on the laws of war here who can tell me where I am going wrong?
On 30/03/2025 22:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various
civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza.
So that you can get a sensible answer, could you kindly give some links, please?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza. I don't know to
what extent civilian administrators are appropriate military targets in a war,
but the concept of the civilians surrounding civilian administrators being a >> "human shield" is clearly an absurd lie. It is possibly (I am not an expert) >> improper for Hamas fighters to hide among civilians and perhaps this justifies
the mass slaughter of civilians in order to attack Hamas fighters. But surely
to attack civilian Hamas administrators by the mass slaughter of civilians >> does not represent the civilian adminstrators using "human shields" because >> the only appropriate place for civilian administrators to operate is among the
civilians whose services they are managing.
Any experts on the laws of war here who can tell me where I am going wrong?
Is the current Gaza unpleasantness a ‘declared war’ or is it something like
Putin’s ‘special military operation’, or something else entirely?
I ask because it may be that ‘the laws of war’ to which you refer may not be universal but depend somewhat on the particular circumstances of each case.
On 30/03/2025 22:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza.
So that you can get a sensible answer, could you kindly give some links, please?
On 30/03/2025 22:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza. I don't know to
what extent civilian administrators are appropriate military targets in a war,
but the concept of the civilians surrounding civilian administrators being a >> "human shield" is clearly an absurd lie. It is possibly (I am not an expert) >> improper for Hamas fighters to hide among civilians and perhaps this justifies
the mass slaughter of civilians in order to attack Hamas fighters. But surely
to attack civilian Hamas administrators by the mass slaughter of civilians >> does not represent the civilian adminstrators using "human shields" because >> the only appropriate place for civilian administrators to operate is among the
civilians whose services they are managing.
Any experts on the laws of war here who can tell me where I am going wrong? >>
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman between himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. They are people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between the soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza. I don't know to what extent civilian administrators are appropriate military targets in a war,
but the concept of the civilians surrounding civilian administrators being a "human shield" is clearly an absurd lie. It is possibly (I am not an expert) improper for Hamas fighters to hide among civilians and perhaps this justifies
the mass slaughter of civilians in order to attack Hamas fighters. But surely to attack civilian Hamas administrators by the mass slaughter of civilians does not represent the civilian adminstrators using "human shields" because the only appropriate place for civilian administrators to operate is among the
civilians whose services they are managing.
Any experts on the laws of war here who can tell me where I am going wrong?
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/03/2025 22:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza. I don't know to
what extent civilian administrators are appropriate military targets in a war,
but the concept of the civilians surrounding civilian administrators being a
"human shield" is clearly an absurd lie. It is possibly (I am not an expert)
improper for Hamas fighters to hide among civilians and perhaps this justifies
the mass slaughter of civilians in order to attack Hamas fighters. But surely
to attack civilian Hamas administrators by the mass slaughter of civilians >>> does not represent the civilian adminstrators using "human shields" because >>> the only appropriate place for civilian administrators to operate is among the
civilians whose services they are managing.
Any experts on the laws of war here who can tell me where I am going wrong?
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
On 31 Mar 2025 at 11:39:43 BST, "GB" <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid>
wrote:
On 30/03/2025 22:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed
various civilian administrators belonging to the Hamas
administration of Gaza.
So that you can get a sensible answer, could you kindly give some
links, please?
I really do not expect a sensible answer from uncritical Israeli
supporters. But you can have the following to be going on with. A
civilian official slaughtered in hospital along with the people
treating him and fellow patients.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce93qvvzzx0o
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>> On 30/03/2025 22:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza. I don't know to
what extent civilian administrators are appropriate military targets in a war,
but the concept of the civilians surrounding civilian administrators being a
"human shield" is clearly an absurd lie. It is possibly (I am not an expert)
improper for Hamas fighters to hide among civilians and perhaps this justifies
the mass slaughter of civilians in order to attack Hamas fighters. But surely
to attack civilian Hamas administrators by the mass slaughter of civilians >>>> does not represent the civilian adminstrators using "human shields" because
the only appropriate place for civilian administrators to operate is among the
civilians whose services they are managing.
Any experts on the laws of war here who can tell me where I am going wrong?
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess behind, for >>> the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily terrorists but
civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a terrorist.
Is that even controversial?
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess behind, for >>> the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but
civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a terrorist.
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman between >>>> himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. They are >>>> people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between the >>>> soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets with >>>> their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess behind, for >>>> the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but
civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian
he would be a soldier.
On 31 Mar 2025 at 14:03:52 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>> On 30/03/2025 22:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Recent gleeful announcements from Israel claim to have killed various civilian
administrators belonging to the Hamas administration of Gaza. I don't know to
what extent civilian administrators are appropriate military targets in a war,
but the concept of the civilians surrounding civilian administrators being a
"human shield" is clearly an absurd lie. It is possibly (I am not an expert)
improper for Hamas fighters to hide among civilians and perhaps this justifies
the mass slaughter of civilians in order to attack Hamas fighters. But surely
to attack civilian Hamas administrators by the mass slaughter of civilians
does not represent the civilian adminstrators using "human shields" because
the only appropriate place for civilian administrators to operate is among the
civilians whose services they are managing.
Any experts on the laws of war here who can tell me where I am going wrong?
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman between >>>> himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. They are >>>> people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between the >>>> soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets with >>>> their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess behind, for >>>> the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily terrorists but
civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a terrorist. >>
Is that even controversial?
Unless terrorism is actually a thought crime, yes it's controversial.
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman between >>>> himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. They are >>>> people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between the >>>> soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets with >>>> their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess behind,
for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but
civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian
he would be a soldier.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person >>>>> holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman between >>>>> himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the >>>>> officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. They are >>>>> people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between the >>>>> soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets with >>>>> their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess behind, for >>>>> the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political status, however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering civilians) are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an army, no matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person >>>>>> holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman
between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the >>>>>> officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation.
They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets
with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess
behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian >>> he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political
status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of
tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas
fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an
army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
On 31/03/2025 05:55 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person >>>>> holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman between >>>>> himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the >>>>> officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. They
are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between the >>>>> soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets with >>>>> their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess behind, >>>>> for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but
civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian
he would be a soldier.
It's not impossible to imagine a soldier committing acts of terrorism.
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a
person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman
between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and >>>>>>> the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation.
They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess
behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a
civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political
status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of >>> tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas
fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an
army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person >>>>>>> holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman
between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the >>>>>>> officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation.
They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess
behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian >>>> he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political
status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of >>> tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas
fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an
army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a >>>>>>>> person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and >>>>>>>> the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess
behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarilyBeing a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a
civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political
status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of >>>> tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas >>>> fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an
army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not
terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics
irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person >>>>>>>> holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the >>>>>>>> officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess
behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarilyBeing a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian >>>>> he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political
status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of >>>> tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas >>>> fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an
army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not
terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism.
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a >>>>>>>> person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield
and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess
behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarilyBeing a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a
civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political
status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a
kind of
tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas >>>> fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an
army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is
not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics
irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
On 01/04/2025 00:30, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 05:55 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person >>>>>> holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman
between himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield >>>>>> and the officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation.
They are people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing >>>>>> between the soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or >>>>>> rockets with their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody >>>>>> mess behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but
civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian >>> he would be a soldier.
It's not impossible to imagine a soldier committing acts of terrorism.
Given the reign of terror inflicted on the Gazans, I presume you are
saying the IDF are committing acts of terrorism, and therefore terrorists?
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person >>>>>>>> holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the >>>>>>>> officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess
behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarilyBeing a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian >>>>> he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political
status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of >>>> tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas >>>> fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an
army, no matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not
terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not >>terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not >>protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is >>attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or >>terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against >>enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose >>politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism.
Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of soldiers to >cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your opinion)?
Tell us also: how is it that the planting of a bomb on a coach carrying >members of the UK armed forces and their families on the M62 motorway
(FTAOD, the M62 is in England) was not, in your opinion, terrorism?
CoPilot:
QUOTE:
The M62 coach bombing, often referred to as the M62 Massacre, occurred on >February 4, 1974, during the Troubles. A bomb, hidden in the luggage >compartment of a coach carrying off-duty British Armed Forces personnel
and their families, exploded on the M62 motorway in Yorkshire. Tragically,
12 people were killed (including nine soldiers and three civilians), and
38 others were injured.
The coach had been specially arranged to transport military personnel and >their families between bases at Catterick and Darlington. The explosion, >which happened just after midnight, caused devastating damage, scattering >debris and casualties across the motorway.
ENDQUOTE
JNugent wrote:
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not
terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not >>> protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is >>> attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency
(or terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage
against enemy *military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise
people whose politics we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not
be committing terrorism.
Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of soldiers
to cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your
opinion)?
QUESTION B:
Tell us also: how is it that the planting of a bomb on a coach
carrying members of the UK armed forces and their families on the M62
motorway (FTAOD, the M62 is in England) was not, in your opinion,
terrorism?
CoPilot:
QUOTE:
The M62 coach bombing, often referred to as the M62 Massacre, occurred
on February 4, 1974, during the Troubles. A bomb, hidden in the
luggage compartment of a coach carrying off-duty British Armed Forces
personnel and their families, exploded on the M62 motorway in
Yorkshire. Tragically, 12 people were killed (including nine soldiers
and three civilians), and 38 others were injured.
The coach had been specially arranged to transport military personnel
and their families between bases at Catterick and Darlington. The
explosion, which happened just after midnight, caused devastating
damage, scattering debris and casualties across the motorway.
ENDQUOTE
In my view it was terrorism.
On 01/04/2025 09:43 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person >>>>>>>>> holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the >>>>>>>>> officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>>Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian >>>>>> he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political >>>>> status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of >>>>> tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas >>>>> fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an >>>>> army, no matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not
terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not
terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not
protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is
attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or
terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism.
Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of soldiers to cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your opinion)?
Tell us also: how is it that the planting of a bomb on a coach carrying members of the UK armed forces and their families on the M62 motorway
(FTAOD, the M62 is in England) was not, in your opinion, terrorism?
CoPilot:
QUOTE:
The M62 coach bombing, often referred to as the M62 Massacre, occurred
on February 4, 1974, during the Troubles. A bomb, hidden in the luggage compartment of a coach carrying off-duty British Armed Forces personnel
and their families, exploded on the M62 motorway in Yorkshire.
Tragically, 12 people were killed (including nine soldiers and three civilians), and 38 others were injured.
The coach had been specially arranged to transport military personnel
and their families between bases at Catterick and Darlington. The
explosion, which happened just after midnight, caused devastating
damage, scattering debris and casualties across the motorway.
ENDQUOTE
On 01/04/2025 09:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person >>>>>>>>> holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the >>>>>>>>> officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>>Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian >>>>>> he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political >>>>> status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of >>>>> tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas >>>>> fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an >>>>> army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not
terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not
terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not
protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is
attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or
terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism.
Calling a group we don't like terrorists is common place. We call Hamas terrorists and even proscribe the organisation but fail to call the IDF terrorists even though they are bent on ethnic cleansing.
On 01/04/2025 09:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
<snip>
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not
terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not
protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is
attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or
terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism.
Moot point, but if the targeted group on October the 7th were mainly IDF reservists are you intimating they were legitimate targets and so in
normal circumstances a non-terrorist attack?
The rest being acceptable collateral damage?
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a >>>>>>>>> person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield >>>>>>>>> and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>>Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a
civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political >>>>> status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a
kind of
tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance,
Hamas
fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an >>>>> army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is
not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages as a
combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics
irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:24:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 09:43 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>>>Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a >>>>>>>> terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political >>>>>> status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of >>>>>> tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas >>>>>> fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering >>>>>> civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an >>>>>> army, no matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than >>>>> disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not >>>> terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not
terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not >>> protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is >>> attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or >>> terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism.
Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of soldiers to
cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your opinion)?
That is really going from the sublime to the ridiculous; I suppose a gentlemanly commander might send a runner to the enemy comander with a note: "I'm terribly sorry old chap but I plan to ambush your supply column tomorrow."!
Tell us also: how is it that the planting of a bomb on a coach carrying
members of the UK armed forces and their families on the M62 motorway
(FTAOD, the M62 is in England) was not, in your opinion, terrorism?
CoPilot:
QUOTE:
The M62 coach bombing, often referred to as the M62 Massacre, occurred
on February 4, 1974, during the Troubles. A bomb, hidden in the luggage
compartment of a coach carrying off-duty British Armed Forces personnel
and their families, exploded on the M62 motorway in Yorkshire.
Tragically, 12 people were killed (including nine soldiers and three
civilians), and 38 others were injured.
The coach had been specially arranged to transport military personnel
and their families between bases at Catterick and Darlington. The
explosion, which happened just after midnight, caused devastating
damage, scattering debris and casualties across the motorway.
ENDQUOTE
This is more borderline I suppose, but I think this probably qualifies as a legitimate military attack, albeit by an illegal and often terrorist organisation.
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:24:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 09:43 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
[TRIMMED TO CONTEXT]
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still
not terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters
are not protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as
the latter is attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm
and despondency (or terror) and quite distinct from clandestine
attacks and sabotage against enemy *military* targets. The use of
"terrorism" to criticise people whose politics we don't like is
dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism.
Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of soldiers
to cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your
opinion)?
That is really going from the sublime to the ridiculous; I suppose a gentlemanly commander might send a runner to the enemy comander with a
note: "I'm terribly sorry old chap but I plan to ambush your supply
column tomorrow."!
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal"
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a >>>>>>>> person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield
and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing
between the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or
rockets with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess
behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily
terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded
civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a
terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a
civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a
political status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a
kind of tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for
instance, Hamas fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather
than slaughtering civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting
an army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather
than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment
and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not
terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is
not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages as
a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
On 01/04/2025 02:50 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:24:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 09:43 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of soldiers to >>> cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your opinion)?
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:CORRECTION:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>>>>Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a >>>>>>>>> terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political >>>>>>> status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of
tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas >>>>>>> fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering >>>>>>> civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an >>>>>>> army, no matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than >>>>>> disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism. >>>>>
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not >>>>> terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not >>>> terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not >>>> protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is >>>> attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or >>>> terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism. >>>
That is really going from the sublime to the ridiculous; I suppose a
gentlemanly commander might send a runner to the enemy comander with a note: >> "I'm terribly sorry old chap but I plan to ambush your supply column
tomorrow."!
Extraordinary.
Tell us also: how is it that the planting of a bomb on a coach carrying
members of the UK armed forces and their families on the M62 motorway
(FTAOD, the M62 is in England) was not, in your opinion, terrorism?
CoPilot:
QUOTE:
The M62 coach bombing, often referred to as the M62 Massacre, occurred
on February 4, 1974, during the Troubles. A bomb, hidden in the luggage
compartment of a coach carrying off-duty British Armed Forces personnel
and their families, exploded on the M62 motorway in Yorkshire.
Tragically, 12 people were killed (including nine soldiers and three
civilians), and 38 others were injured.
The coach had been specially arranged to transport military personnel
and their families between bases at Catterick and Darlington. The
explosion, which happened just after midnight, caused devastating
damage, scattering debris and casualties across the motorway.
ENDQUOTE
This is more borderline I suppose, but I think this probably qualifies as a >> legitimate military attack, albeit by an illegal and often terrorist
organisation.
It isn't "borderline" in the slightest. A murderous attack by British
(OK, UK) civilians on British soldiers and their families travelling
home and off-duty is "legitimate" in your eyes?
You cannot be serious.
But you just cannot bring yourself to admit the truth.
On 01/04/2025 02:50 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:24:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 09:43 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of soldiers to >>> cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your opinion)?
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:CORRECTION:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>>>>Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a >>>>>>>>> terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political >>>>>>> status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of
tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas >>>>>>> fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering >>>>>>> civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an >>>>>>> army, no matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than >>>>>> disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism. >>>>>
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not >>>>> terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not >>>> terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not >>>> protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is >>>> attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or >>>> terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism. >>>
That is really going from the sublime to the ridiculous; I suppose a
gentlemanly commander might send a runner to the enemy comander with a note: >> "I'm terribly sorry old chap but I plan to ambush your supply column
tomorrow."!
Extraordinary.
Tell us also: how is it that the planting of a bomb on a coach carrying
members of the UK armed forces and their families on the M62 motorway
(FTAOD, the M62 is in England) was not, in your opinion, terrorism?
CoPilot:
QUOTE:
The M62 coach bombing, often referred to as the M62 Massacre, occurred
on February 4, 1974, during the Troubles. A bomb, hidden in the luggage
compartment of a coach carrying off-duty British Armed Forces personnel
and their families, exploded on the M62 motorway in Yorkshire.
Tragically, 12 people were killed (including nine soldiers and three
civilians), and 38 others were injured.
The coach had been specially arranged to transport military personnel
and their families between bases at Catterick and Darlington. The
explosion, which happened just after midnight, caused devastating
damage, scattering debris and casualties across the motorway.
ENDQUOTE
This is more borderline I suppose, but I think this probably qualifies as a >> legitimate military attack, albeit by an illegal and often terrorist
organisation.
It isn't "borderline" in the slightest. A murderous attack by British (OK, UK)
civilians on British soldiers and their families travelling home and off-duty is
"legitimate" in your eyes?
You cannot be serious.
But you just cannot bring yourself to admit the truth.
On 01/04/2025 02:18, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED TO CONTEXT]
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems,
is not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages
as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics
irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/us-military- targeting-strategy-afghanistan
And a more general overview:
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-drone-papers-highlight- the-murky-way-obama-views-civilian-casualties-2015-10
I'm surprised you didn't know?
On 12:38 1 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 01/04/2025 02:18, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED TO CONTEXT]
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems,
is not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages
as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics
irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-
targeting-strategy-afghanistan
That link is about killing alleged child soldiers.
And a more general overview:
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-drone-papers-highlight-
the-murky-way-obama-views-civilian-casualties-2015-10
I'm surprised you didn't know?
That link is about allegedly exaggerating civilian casualties killed by drones.
However, you wrote about how America counts casualties:
"Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages as
a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics".
Do you have a reference for this?
On 02/04/2025 14:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:38 1 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 01/04/2025 02:18, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED TO CONTEXT]
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have
read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a
combatant (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a
uniform and equipment and vehicles clearly marked with
identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain
ages as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death
statistics irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-
targeting-strategy-afghanistan
That link is about killing alleged child soldiers.
Not just alleged child soldiers. "army Lt Col Marion Carrington told
the Marine Corp Times that children, as well as "military-age males",
had been identified as a potential threat because some were being used
by the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and coalition
forces."
Military speak for an acceptable targeting and killing and then
calling them combatants and not civilians.
And a more general overview:
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-drone-papers-highlight-
the-murky-way-obama-views-civilian-casualties-2015-10
I'm surprised you didn't know?
That link is about allegedly exaggerating civilian casualties killed
by drones.
No, it was about the under-reporting of civilian deaths through misrepresenting deaths of Military aged males.
However, you wrote about how America counts casualties:
"Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain
ages as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death
statistics".
Do you have a reference for this?
You could have used google to see more evidence.
A NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in- war-on-al-qaeda.html
"Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties
that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age
males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several
administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence
posthumously proving them innocent."
Feel free to find additional examples yourself. There are some
research articles and other sources unfortunately through pay-walls.
On 02/04/2025 14:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:38Â 1 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 01/04/2025 02:18, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED TO CONTEXT]
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read: >>>>>>
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant >>>>>> (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems,
is not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages
as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics >>>>> irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-
targeting-strategy-afghanistan
That link is about killing alleged child soldiers.
Not just alleged child soldiers. "army Lt Col Marion Carrington told the Marine Corp Times that children, as well as "military-age males", had
been identified as a potential threat because some were being used by
the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and coalition forces."
Military speak for an acceptable targeting and killing and then calling
them combatants and not civilians.
And a more general overview:
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-drone-papers-highlight-
the-murky-way-obama-views-civilian-casualties-2015-10
I'm surprised you didn't know?
That link is about allegedly exaggerating civilian casualties killed by
drones.
No, it was about the under-reporting of civilian deaths through misrepresenting deaths of Military aged males.
However, you wrote about how America counts casualties:
   "Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain
ages as
   a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics". >>
Do you have a reference for this?
You could have used google to see more evidence.
A NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html
"Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that
did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in
a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration
officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving
them innocent."
Feel free to find additional examples yourself. There are some research articles and other sources unfortunately through pay-walls.
On 01/04/2025 02:18, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a >>>>>>>>>> person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield >>>>>>>>>> and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing >>>>>>>>>> between
the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded
civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a >>>>>>>> terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a
civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political >>>>>> status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a
kind of
tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance,
Hamas
fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering >>>>>> civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an >>>>>> army, no
matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than >>>>> disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and
vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is
not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages as a >>> combatant, and so not included in the civilian death statistics
irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-targeting-strategy-afghanistan
And a more general overview:
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-drone-papers-highlight-the-murky-way-obama-views-civilian-casualties-2015-10
I'm surprised you didn't know?
On 00:32 3 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 02/04/2025 14:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:38 1 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 01/04/2025 02:18, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED TO CONTEXT]
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have
read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a
combatant (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a
uniform and equipment and vehicles clearly marked with
identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain
ages as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death
statistics irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-
targeting-strategy-afghanistan
That link is about killing alleged child soldiers.
Not just alleged child soldiers. "army Lt Col Marion Carrington told
the Marine Corp Times that children, as well as "military-age males",
had been identified as a potential threat because some were being used
by the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and coalition
forces."
Military speak for an acceptable targeting and killing and then
calling them combatants and not civilians.
And a more general overview:
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-drone-papers-highlight-
the-murky-way-obama-views-civilian-casualties-2015-10
I'm surprised you didn't know?
That link is about allegedly exaggerating civilian casualties killed
by drones.
No, it was about the under-reporting of civilian deaths through
misrepresenting deaths of Military aged males.
However, you wrote about how America counts casualties:
"Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain
ages as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death
statistics".
Do you have a reference for this?
You could have used google to see more evidence.
A NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-
war-on-al-qaeda.html
"Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties
that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age
males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several
administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence
posthumously proving them innocent."
Feel free to find additional examples yourself. There are some
research articles and other sources unfortunately through pay-walls.
The phrase: "Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between
certain ages as a combatant" is about the present. However the NYT
article you reference about Obama-era practice is 13 years old. And the subsequent text in the article explains it's specifically about
terrorists.
See https://archive.ph/8yQVm#selection-1021.60-1021.89
The source for your reference may have been the Wikipedia article on
Civilian Casualties, but in the following paragraph of that page it
refers to a change in policy:
"In October 2017, Trump abolished the Obama-era approval system in
favor of a looser, decentralized approach, which gave the military
and CIA officials the discretion to decide to launch drone strikes
against targets without White House approval."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_the_United_States_d rone_strikes#Approvals_of_drone_strikes>
Your original claim about America counting civilians as combatants was true only for a specific time but no longer applies.
On 03/04/2025 16:50, Pamela wrote:
On 00:32 3 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 02/04/2025 14:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:38 1 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 01/04/2025 02:18, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED TO CONTEXT]
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have
read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a
combatant (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a
uniform and equipment and vehicles clearly marked with
identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain
ages as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death
statistics irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-
targeting-strategy-afghanistan
That link is about killing alleged child soldiers.
Not just alleged child soldiers. "army Lt Col Marion Carrington told
the Marine Corp Times that children, as well as "military-age
males", had been identified as a potential threat because some were
being used by the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and
coalition forces."
Military speak for an acceptable targeting and killing and then
calling them combatants and not civilians.
And a more general overview:
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-drone-papers-highlight-
the-murky-way-obama-views-civilian-casualties-2015-10
I'm surprised you didn't know?
That link is about allegedly exaggerating civilian casualties
killed by drones.
No, it was about the under-reporting of civilian deaths through
misrepresenting deaths of Military aged males.
However, you wrote about how America counts casualties:
"Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between
certain ages as a combatant, and so not included in the
civilian death statistics".
Do you have a reference for this?
You could have used google to see more evidence.
A NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-
war-on-al-qaeda.html
"Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties
that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age
males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several
administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence
posthumously proving them innocent."
Feel free to find additional examples yourself. There are some
research articles and other sources unfortunately through pay-walls.
The phrase: "Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between
certain ages as a combatant" is about the present. However the NYT
article you reference about Obama-era practice is 13 years old. And
the subsequent text in the article explains it's specifically about
terrorists.
See https://archive.ph/8yQVm#selection-1021.60-1021.89
It's history goes back further. A combatant does not have to taking
part in an armed conflict.
The source for your reference may have been the Wikipedia article on
Civilian Casualties, but in the following paragraph of that page it
refers to a change in policy:
"In October 2017, Trump abolished the Obama-era approval system
in favor of a looser, decentralized approach, which gave the
military and CIA officials the discretion to decide to launch
drone strikes against targets without White House approval."
Which doesn't change how deaths how counted.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_
the_United_States_d rone_strikes#Approvals_of_drone_strikes>
Your original claim about America counting civilians as combatants
was true only for a specific time but no longer applies.
So you claim, yet you don't cite any article that states that men of a certain age are no treated as combatants without any evidence to the contrary.
By way of example a medical convoy were recently attacked for purely
being in an active combat zone. And then buried by bulldozers
presumably an attempt to destroy incriminating evidence. Apparently
these killings were justified by labelling these aid workers as nine militants from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Do you genuinely think that Israel has labelled these deaths as
civilians?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m52b7dFgk4tU1@mid.individual.net...
On 01/04/2025 02:50 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:24:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 09:43 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:That is really going from the sublime to the ridiculous; I suppose a
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of soldiers to >>>> cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your opinion)? >>>
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:CORRECTION:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing between >>>>>>>>>>>> the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or rockets >>>>>>>>>>>> with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded civilians. >>>>>>>>Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a >>>>>>>>>> terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't a civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a political >>>>>>>> status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is a kind of
tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for instance, Hamas
fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering >>>>>>>> civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas. Fighting an >>>>>>>> army, no matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather than >>>>>>> disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and >>>>>>> vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism. >>>>>>
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read: >>>>>>
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant >>>>>> (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not >>>>>> terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still not >>>>> terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters are not >>>>> protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the latter is >>>>> attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and despondency (or >>>>> terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people whose politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing terrorism. >>>>
gentlemanly commander might send a runner to the enemy comander with a note:
"I'm terribly sorry old chap but I plan to ambush your supply column
tomorrow."!
Extraordinary.
Tell us also: how is it that the planting of a bomb on a coach carrying >>>> members of the UK armed forces and their families on the M62 motorway
(FTAOD, the M62 is in England) was not, in your opinion, terrorism?
CoPilot:
QUOTE:
The M62 coach bombing, often referred to as the M62 Massacre, occurred >>>> on February 4, 1974, during the Troubles. A bomb, hidden in the luggage >>>> compartment of a coach carrying off-duty British Armed Forces personnel >>>> and their families, exploded on the M62 motorway in Yorkshire.
Tragically, 12 people were killed (including nine soldiers and three
civilians), and 38 others were injured.
The coach had been specially arranged to transport military personnel
and their families between bases at Catterick and Darlington. The
explosion, which happened just after midnight, caused devastating
damage, scattering debris and casualties across the motorway.
ENDQUOTE
This is more borderline I suppose, but I think this probably qualifies as a >>> legitimate military attack, albeit by an illegal and often terrorist
organisation.
It isn't "borderline" in the slightest. A murderous attack by British (OK, UK)
civilians on British soldiers and their families travelling home and off-duty is
"legitimate" in your eyes?
You cannot be serious.
But you just cannot bring yourself to admit the truth.
IOW, the only way Roger Hayter could possibly disagree with you, is by
lying to himself ?
That's a rather strong accusation to be making, is it not ?
So just purely as a matter of interest what is *your* considered opinion
of the area bombing conducted by the Allies in World War Two ?
Is it your considered opinion for instance, that it was perfectly acceptable to kill
innocent civilians in World War Two because the people doing the killing
were wearing uniforms ?
On 01/04/2025 15:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m52b7dFgk4tU1@mid.individual.net...
On 01/04/2025 02:50 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:24:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2025 09:43 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:CORRECTION:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal"
<the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant woman >>>>>>>>>>>>> between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human >>>>>>>>>>>>> shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without hesitation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing >>>>>>>>>>>>> between
the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or >>>>>>>>>>>>> rockets
with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded >>>>>>>>>>>> civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a >>>>>>>>>>> terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't >>>>>>>>>> a civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a
political
status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is >>>>>>>>> a kind of
tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for
instance, Hamas
fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than slaughtering >>>>>>>>> civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas.
Fighting an
army, no matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant (rather >>>>>>>> than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and >>>>>>>> vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not terrorism. >>>>>>>
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read: >>>>>>>
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant >>>>>>> (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and
equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, >>>>>>> is not
terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is still >>>>>> not
terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters
are not
protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the
latter is
attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and
despondency (or
terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage
against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people
whose politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing
terrorism.
Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of
soldiers to
cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your
opinion)?
That is really going from the sublime to the ridiculous; I suppose a
gentlemanly commander might send a runner to the enemy comander with
a note:
"I'm terribly sorry old chap but I plan to ambush your supply column
tomorrow."!
Extraordinary.
Tell us also: how is it that the planting of a bomb on a coach
carrying
members of the UK armed forces and their families on the M62 motorway >>>>> (FTAOD, the M62 is in England) was not, in your opinion, terrorism?
CoPilot:
QUOTE:
The M62 coach bombing, often referred to as the M62 Massacre, occurred >>>>> on February 4, 1974, during the Troubles. A bomb, hidden in the
luggage
compartment of a coach carrying off-duty British Armed Forces
personnel
and their families, exploded on the M62 motorway in Yorkshire.
Tragically, 12 people were killed (including nine soldiers and three >>>>> civilians), and 38 others were injured.
The coach had been specially arranged to transport military personnel >>>>> and their families between bases at Catterick and Darlington. The
explosion, which happened just after midnight, caused devastating
damage, scattering debris and casualties across the motorway.
ENDQUOTE
This is more borderline I suppose, but I think this probably
qualifies as a
legitimate military attack, albeit by an illegal and often terrorist
organisation.
It isn't "borderline" in the slightest. A murderous attack by British
(OK, UK)
civilians on British soldiers and their families travelling home and
off-duty is
"legitimate" in your eyes?
You cannot be serious.
But you just cannot bring yourself to admit the truth.
IOW, the only way Roger Hayter could possibly disagree with you, is by
lying to himself ?
That's a rather strong accusation to be making, is it not ?
So just purely as a matter of interest what is *your* considered opinion >> of the area bombing conducted by the Allies in World War Two ?
Is it your considered opinion for instance, that it was perfectly
acceptable to kill
innocent civilians in World War Two because the people doing the killing
were wearing uniforms ?
It depends.
Dropping bombs on ball-bearing factories during the night shift seems to
have been an accepted and highly practical war aim. That's just one
example of course. Bombing a dam so as to flood a valley was another.
On 05/04/2025 18:11, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 15:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m52b7dFgk4tU1@mid.individual.net...
On 01/04/2025 02:50 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:24:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 01/04/2025 09:43 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025 at 02:06:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 06:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 14:03, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 01:00 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025 at 12:33:04 BST, "The Todal"
<the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
The Israelis use the term "human shield" in a unique way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a person
holding a hostage in a house in the UK places a pregnant >>>>>>>>>>>>>> woman
between
himself and the armed policeman, that would be a human >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shield and the
officer would not risk shooting that woman.
In Gaza, "human shields" are to be shot at without >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hesitation.
They are
people who are accidentally or maybe deliberately standing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
the
soldier and the terrorist. So they cannot stop bullets or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rockets
with
their soft flesh. They can only leave more of a bloody mess >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind, for
the greater glory of the IDF.
And, as I point out, the people being shot are not necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>>> terrorists but civilians, and in the latest case wounded >>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians.
Being a civilian does not of itself mean that a person is not a >>>>>>>>>>>> terrorist.
It's s precondition I would have thought. If the person isn't >>>>>>>>>>> a civilian
he would be a soldier.
But soldiers can certainly be terrorists. Terrorism isn't a >>>>>>>>>> political
status,
however much our politicians would like it to be, terrorism is >>>>>>>>>> a kind of
tactic, aimed at intimidating civilian populations; for
instance, Hamas
fighters while fighting the Israeli army (rather than
slaughtering
civilians)
are either soldiers or resistance fighters or guerillas.
Fighting an
army, no matter how worthy, is not terrorism.
Fighting an army, in the open, identified as a combatant
(rather than
disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and equipment and >>>>>>>>> vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, is not
terrorism.
CORRECTION:
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have read: >>>>>>>>
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a combatant >>>>>>>> (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a uniform and >>>>>>>> equipment and vehicles clearly marked with identifying emblems, >>>>>>>> is not
terrorism.
Fighting an army in a clandestine way in civilian clothes is
still not
terrorism. It is a breach of the rules of war, and such fighters >>>>>>> are not
protected by said rules. But it is still not terrorism, as the
latter is
attacking civilians and infrastructure to cause alarm and
despondency (or
terror) and quite distinct from clandestine attacks and sabotage >>>>>>> against enemy
*military* targets. The use of "terrorism" to criticise people
whose politics
we don't like is dishonest. They may or may not be committing
terrorism.
Tell us: why is the unnanounced and clandestine attacking of
soldiers to
cause alarm and despondency (or terror) not terrorism (in your
opinion)?
That is really going from the sublime to the ridiculous; I suppose a >>>>> gentlemanly commander might send a runner to the enemy comander
with a note:
"I'm terribly sorry old chap but I plan to ambush your supply column >>>>> tomorrow."!
Extraordinary.
Tell us also: how is it that the planting of a bomb on a coach
carrying
members of the UK armed forces and their families on the M62 motorway >>>>>> (FTAOD, the M62 is in England) was not, in your opinion, terrorism? >>>>>>
CoPilot:
QUOTE:
The M62 coach bombing, often referred to as the M62 Massacre,
occurred
on February 4, 1974, during the Troubles. A bomb, hidden in the
luggage
compartment of a coach carrying off-duty British Armed Forces
personnel
and their families, exploded on the M62 motorway in Yorkshire.
Tragically, 12 people were killed (including nine soldiers and three >>>>>> civilians), and 38 others were injured.
The coach had been specially arranged to transport military personnel >>>>>> and their families between bases at Catterick and Darlington. The
explosion, which happened just after midnight, caused devastating
damage, scattering debris and casualties across the motorway.
ENDQUOTE
This is more borderline I suppose, but I think this probably
qualifies as a
legitimate military attack, albeit by an illegal and often terrorist >>>>> organisation.
It isn't "borderline" in the slightest. A murderous attack by
British (OK, UK)
civilians on British soldiers and their families travelling home and
off-duty is
"legitimate" in your eyes?
You cannot be serious.
But you just cannot bring yourself to admit the truth.
IOW, the only way Roger Hayter could possibly disagree with you, is by >>> lying to himself ?
That's a rather strong accusation to be making, is it not ?
So just purely as a matter of interest what is *your* considered
opinion
of the area bombing conducted by the Allies in World War Two ?
Is it your considered opinion for instance, that it was perfectly
acceptable to kill
innocent civilians in World War Two because the people doing the killing >>> were wearing uniforms ?
It depends.
Dropping bombs on ball-bearing factories during the night shift seems
to have been an accepted and highly practical war aim. That's just one
example of course. Bombing a dam so as to flood a valley was another.
Bombing a cathedral was another. Obviously if you destroy God's house,
your enemy will know that God has abandoned him.
Bombing a dam "so as to flood a valley" is a rather simplistic view of
the war aim. It isn't just to drown people.
The dams provided hydroelectric power and pure water for steel-making, drinking water and water for the canal transport system.
On 23:47 3 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 03/04/2025 16:50, Pamela wrote:
On 00:32 3 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 02/04/2025 14:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:38 1 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 01/04/2025 02:18, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED TO CONTEXT]
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have >>>>>>>>> read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a
combatant (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a >>>>>>>>> uniform and equipment and vehicles clearly marked with
identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain >>>>>>>> ages as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death >>>>>>>> statistics irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-
targeting-strategy-afghanistan
That link is about killing alleged child soldiers.
Not just alleged child soldiers. "army Lt Col Marion Carrington told
the Marine Corp Times that children, as well as "military-age
males", had been identified as a potential threat because some were
being used by the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and
coalition forces."
Military speak for an acceptable targeting and killing and then
calling them combatants and not civilians.
And a more general overview:
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-drone-papers-highlight-
the-murky-way-obama-views-civilian-casualties-2015-10
I'm surprised you didn't know?
That link is about allegedly exaggerating civilian casualties
killed by drones.
No, it was about the under-reporting of civilian deaths through
misrepresenting deaths of Military aged males.
However, you wrote about how America counts casualties:
"Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between
certain ages as a combatant, and so not included in the
civilian death statistics".
Do you have a reference for this?
You could have used google to see more evidence.
A NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-
war-on-al-qaeda.html
"Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties
that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age
males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several
administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence
posthumously proving them innocent."
Feel free to find additional examples yourself. There are some
research articles and other sources unfortunately through pay-walls.
The phrase: "Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between
certain ages as a combatant" is about the present. However the NYT
article you reference about Obama-era practice is 13 years old. And
the subsequent text in the article explains it's specifically about
terrorists.
See https://archive.ph/8yQVm#selection-1021.60-1021.89
It's history goes back further. A combatant does not have to taking
part in an armed conflict.
The source for your reference may have been the Wikipedia article on
Civilian Casualties, but in the following paragraph of that page it
refers to a change in policy:
"In October 2017, Trump abolished the Obama-era approval system
in favor of a looser, decentralized approach, which gave the
military and CIA officials the discretion to decide to launch
drone strikes against targets without White House approval."
Which doesn't change how deaths how counted.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_
the_United_States_d rone_strikes#Approvals_of_drone_strikes>
Your original claim about America counting civilians as combatants
was true only for a specific time but no longer applies.
So you claim, yet you don't cite any article that states that men of a
certain age are no treated as combatants without any evidence to the
contrary.
You wrote all men between certain ages are treated as combatants by
America. You added (above): "A combatant does not have to taking part in
an armed conflict".
However the Red cross definition of combatant is someone with "a right
to directly participate in hostilities between States".
I wonder if your justifications are getting tangled in order to to avoid exposing the error in the original.
By way of example a medical convoy were recently attacked for purely
being in an active combat zone. And then buried by bulldozers
presumably an attempt to destroy incriminating evidence. Apparently
these killings were justified by labelling these aid workers as nine
militants from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Do you genuinely think that Israel has labelled these deaths as
civilians?
That is not the same as what was originally claimed which was "Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages as a combatant"
It may now be best to conclude your claim was possibly true many years
ago but no longer.
On 05/04/2025 12:03, Pamela wrote:
On 23:47Â 3 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 03/04/2025 16:50, Pamela wrote:
On 00:32Â 3 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 02/04/2025 14:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:38Â 1 Apr 2025, Fredxx said:
On 01/04/2025 02:18, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 08:12 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2025 02:06, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2025 12:43 AM, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED TO CONTEXT]
There was an important word or two omitted. It ought to have >>>>>>>>>> read:
Fighting as part of an army, in the open, identified as a
combatant (rather than disguised as a civilian) and wearing a >>>>>>>>>> uniform and equipment and vehicles clearly marked with >>>>>>>>>> identifying emblems, is not terrorism.
Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain >>>>>>>>> ages as a combatant, and so not included in the civilian death >>>>>>>>> statistics irrespective of the clothes they are wearing
Perhaps you can prove that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-
targeting-strategy-afghanistan
That link is about killing alleged child soldiers.
Not just alleged child soldiers. "army Lt Col Marion Carrington told >>>>> the Marine Corp Times that children, as well as "military-age
males", had been identified as a potential threat because some were
being used by the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and
coalition forces."
Military speak for an acceptable targeting and killing and then
calling them combatants and not civilians.
And a more general overview:
https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-drone-papers-highlight-
the-murky-way-obama-views-civilian-casualties-2015-10
I'm surprised you didn't know?
That link is about allegedly exaggerating civilian casualties
killed by drones.
No, it was about the under-reporting of civilian deaths through
misrepresenting deaths of Military aged males.
However, you wrote about how America counts casualties:
     "Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between >>>>>>      certain ages as a combatant, and so not included in the >>>>>>      civilian death statistics".
Do you have a reference for this?
You could have used google to see more evidence.
A NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-
war-on-al-qaeda.html
"Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties
that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age
males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several
administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence
posthumously proving them innocent."
Feel free to find additional examples yourself. There are some
research articles and other sources unfortunately through pay-walls.
The phrase: "Many countries, including the USA, treat a man between
certain ages as a combatant" is about the present. However the NYT
article you reference about Obama-era practice is 13 years old. And
the subsequent text in the article explains it's specifically about
terrorists.
See https://archive.ph/8yQVm#selection-1021.60-1021.89
It's history goes back further. A combatant does not have to taking
part in an armed conflict.
The source for your reference may have been the Wikipedia article on
Civilian Casualties, but in the following paragraph of that page it
refers to a change in policy:
    "In October 2017, Trump abolished the Obama-era approval system >>>>     in favor of a looser, decentralized approach, which gave the
    military and CIA officials the discretion to decide to launch >>>>     drone strikes against targets without White House approval."
Which doesn't change how deaths how counted.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_
the_United_States_d rone_strikes#Approvals_of_drone_strikes>
Your original claim about America counting civilians as combatants
was true only for a specific time but no longer applies.
So you claim, yet you don't cite any article that states that men of a
certain age are no treated as combatants without any evidence to the
contrary.
You wrote all men between certain ages are treated as combatants by
America. You added (above): "A combatant does not have to taking part in
an armed conflict".
However the Red cross definition of combatant is someone with "a right
to directly participate in hostilities between States".
I wonder if your justifications are getting tangled in order to to avoid
exposing the error in the original.
By way of example a medical convoy were recently attacked for purely
being in an active combat zone. And then buried by bulldozers
presumably an attempt to destroy incriminating evidence. Apparently
these killings were justified by labelling these aid workers as nine
militants from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Do you genuinely think that Israel has labelled these deaths as
civilians?
That is not the same as what was originally claimed which was "Many
countries, including the USA, treat a man between certain ages as a
combatant"
It may now be best to conclude your claim was possibly true many years
ago but no longer.
As you confirm, it is safe to say it was formalised many years ago
however in reality never changed.
If you can find documentation issued by the US government that all men
of combatant age are civilians until proven otherwise I will duly bow to
your claims.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:32:52 |
| Calls: | 9,822 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,759 |
| Messages: | 6,190,952 |