Confederate Yankee: On Non-Civilians: "In asymmetrical warfare, does the status of civilian always exist for non-militants, or should there be a new classification to account for those somewhere between active militancy and those that are truly non-participatory?
I'd opine that the Palestinian women in the Greenberg story above, by voluntarily interjecting themselves into a projected conflict area as human shields as partisans acting on behalf of Hamas militants, have surrendered their rights to be defined as 'civilians.' They are ideologically-aligned with terrorist organizations, but that alone does not make them loose their protected status as civilians. Nor does the fact that they are human shields remove their protected status, as human shields can be involuntary.
No, what should remove their status as 'civilians' is that they have willfully interjected themselves into a conflict with the express intent of providing immediate tactical support for a terrorist group. Their purposeful decision to run interference for terrorists should not in any way prevent an Israeli military response."
Does it get any more politically incorrect than this?
34 minutes ago