23 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat if you only attack politicians and not soldiers?
If I pick up arms and try to kill my government's military soldiers I am considered a civilian?
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03/21/whats-the-difference-between-a-rebel-and-a-civilian/
Seriously?
Is the man who shot a politician in the US a rebel or a soldier because he used a gun?
Can rebels not be civilians? I thought a civilian was anyone who was not a soldier. If the rebels have an accountant is he not a civilian? Is he not a rebel?
23 Mar 11
Once someone is trying to kill people it could be argued they are terrorists. I think allowing them to be called civilians is very Orwellian. When Obama says Qadaffy Duck is killing civilians they could all be terrorists/rebels/insurgents who are killing government forces.
I think most people think of civilians as being unarmed bystanders. When Qadaffy Duck said they would have no mercy he was talking about the rebels, not innocent bystanders. If Obama wanted to say Qadaffy said he would show no mercy to civilians he could get away with. He would really mean rebels and most people would not realize that.
If a militia group decided to take part of Michigan I think my government would respond no differently than Qadaffy did. Would my government call them civilians, rebels or domestic terrorists? Somehow I think it would be the latter.
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainOnce someone is trying to kill people it could be argued they are terrorists
Once someone is trying to kill people it could be argued they are terrorists. I think allowing them to be called civilians is very Orwellian. When Obama says Qadaffy Duck is killing civilians they could all be terrorists/rebels/insurgents who are killing government forces.
I think most people think of civilians as being unarmed bystanders. When Qadaffy ...[text shortened]... ment call them civilians, rebels or domestic terrorists? Somehow I think it would be the latter.
Only if the circumstances render the individual to be a terrorist, and even if that is the case it doesn't in any way alter their status as civilians.
I think most people think of civilians as being unarmed bystanders
Popular conceptions of the meaning of these terms are hardly stable foundations for the conduct of government, a civilian is simply someone who is not on active military duty, Obama's terminology doesn't contain any actual inaccuracies. Civilian and terrorist/rebel/etc are not mutually exclusive.
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by generalissimoThey are playing on the misconceptions to mislead the public.
[b]Once someone is trying to kill people it could be argued they are terrorists
Only if the circumstances render the individual to be a terrorist, and even if that is the case it doesn't in any way alter their status as civilians.
I think most people think of civilians as being unarmed bystanders
Popular conceptions of the meaning ...[text shortened]... ontain any actual inaccuracies. Civilian and terrorist/rebel/etc are not mutually exclusive.[/b]
Don't you think there should be terms used to show a difference between rebels and unarmed bystanders? It can't be hard to do. I think it is obvious that manipulation is taking place (i.e. propaganda) to gain public support or apathy.
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainHere's the thing: armed revolutionaries are being killed as well as unarmed civilians. It's called collective punishment: the cities that protested are being destroyed.
They are playing on the misconceptions to mislead the public.
Don't you think there should be terms used to show a difference between rebels and unarmed bystanders? It can't be hard to do. I think it is obvious that manipulation is taking place (i.e. propaganda) to gain public support or apathy.
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageQadaffy warned everybody to leave the city before his military rolled in.
Here's the thing: armed revolutionaries are being killed as well as unarmed civilians. It's called collective punishment: the cities that protested are being destroyed.
He did give fair warning. Gotta give him that much.
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainIndeed, and btw Im personally rooting for Gaddafi on this one, but it doesn't change the fact that ultimately (for whatever reason) a number of civilians have lost their lives as a result of those attacks.
Qadaffy warned everybody to leave the city before his military rolled in.
He did give fair warning. Gotta give him that much.
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainIn Iraq they talked in terms of non-combatant and combatant, where combatant was either legal or illegal. You don't need a uniform to be a lawful combatant, provided you make it obvious that you are a combatant - which is why they brandish their weapons so much. The coalition is using "civilian" because they can't don't want to distinguish between non-combatants and those people using arms to fight Gaddafi. "Protecting Civilians" is getting embedded into the language used about this, every statement includes the words.
They are playing on the misconceptions to mislead the public.
Don't you think there should be terms used to show a difference between rebels and unarmed bystanders? It can't be hard to do. I think it is obvious that manipulation is taking place (i.e. propaganda) to gain public support or apathy.
23 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIn Misrata, a humanitarian disaster area right now, the hospital has been seized; Gaddafi snipers are firing at anyone who moves, combatants and non combatants alike, while tanks have been shelling indiscriminately. Therefore eliminating these snipers and tanks is protecting civilians.
"Protecting Civilians" is getting embedded into the language used about this, every statement includes the words.
24 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNevertheless I think the linguistics is something to note. I was reading a report in Reuters where a rebel sympathizer - apparently non-combatant - was calling on the allies to attack a specific target and used "protect civilians" as a phrase which basically means "bomb Gaddafi's forces". Using language this way, and encouraging Rebel sympathizers to, may turn out to be unhelpful in future conflicts as it blurs the line between treatment of combatants and non-combatants - and may make it more difficult to stay a non-combatant elsewhere.
In Misrata, a humanitarian disaster area right now, the hospital has been seized; Gaddafi snipers are firing at anyone who moves, combatants and non combatants alike, while tanks have been shelling indiscriminately. Therefore eliminating these snipers and tanks is protecting civilians.
Technically Gaddafi's mercenaries are civilians, and I'm pretty sure resolution 1973 is not intended to protect them. Just for clarity - I'm not suggesting that this is part of some grand design, it's probably driven by the use of the words in the relevant U.N. resolutions, and it's just the media's latched onto the phrase.
24 Mar 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHow do you know?
In Misrata, a humanitarian disaster area right now, the hospital has been seized; Gaddafi snipers are firing at anyone who moves, combatants and non combatants alike, while tanks have been shelling indiscriminately. Therefore eliminating these snipers and tanks is protecting civilians.
Do you have a credible news source to confirm that?