Obama: I'm not 'particularly ideological'

[24601]

88. Let's start with a fundamental disagreement it's always a war to attack a civilian. A civilian may

be a legitimate target and a uniformed person may be a non-combatant and therefore not a legitimate target.

For example, Hitler was a civilian - he had a uniform but was not himself a member of the German armed forces. Are you really saying FDR would have been a war criminal if he ordered an attack that included Hitler as a target.

I'd recommend that the element is better defined as to whether you are targeting a combatant or a non-combatant. There are plenty of people that fit the non-combatant category. Chaplains and most military medical personnel, despite being members of the armed forces and wearing uniforms, are non-combatants so if they are captured, they are not prisoners of war but instead have the status of detainees.

Combatants come in two different categories, lawful and unlawful. International laws of Armed Conflict (commonly referred to as the Geneva Convention) provides a greater degree of protection to lawful combatants, presumably to deter unlawful combatants (essentially one who lacks legal standing to engage in the fight) and to provide lawful combatants positive incentive to comply with the conventions (there are more than one).

You may not intentionally target non-combatants. That doesn't mean that attacks, even those that are certain to have non-combatant casualties, are illegal. It means that the intended target is legitimate.

If you wish to quote me, please have the decency to not misquote me. I've reviewed my comments in this thread and "How would you deal with the people who want to kill us?" are not my words.

In my two posts, in order, I asked the following questions (These are not quotes but are re-stated)

1. How many drone strikes does it take before a [US] President commits a war crime? Included in this question, does it matter that a target is a US citizen?

2. Why would President Obama expose himself to war crimes scrutiny?

3. Does the location of a terrorist matter if he/she is planning attacks against you. (not you personally but implied that it's a terrorist attack, meaning [intent] a deliberate attack against non-combatants for the purpose [motive] intimidate or coerce. Normally the attack target differs from the victim)

4. Does the Congressional Authorization For Military Force applicable Al Qaeda exclude any territory?

5. Can clothes that don't look like modern US military uniforms determined to be uniforms?

6. How do you engage terrorists who will not comply with the laws of armed conflict?

7. Was it a war crime for FDR and/or Churchill to order the bombing German Industry?

The fallacy of your question is that it presumes an adversarial rank and file (you don't see AQSL blowing themselves up) viewing murder-suicide as a bad thing done as a response to being pissed off. Successful indoctrination that murder-suicides results in an eternity of bliss in paradise doesn't require to require the individual to be angry?

If you are implying that the response to terrorism is a sincere apology, you need to find a different buyer. If I've misread you implication, feel free to clarify. And feel free to address what I really asked.