Civilian
It seems to me that people need to be reminded what the word "civilian" actually means. This is what Webster's has to say.
Civilian: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force.
One of the problems with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that of terminology. Al'Qaeda, Taliban and insurgent fighters don't fit the historic military mold. They don't have uniforms, they frequently don't really answer to a central command and they'll strike at civilian targets just as readily as military targets. Dubya's administration attempted to label these people as "enemy combatants," in an attempt at an end run around the Geneva Convention and U.S. Law. Whatever you want to call them, the one label that doesn't apply is "civilian."
Everytime a U.S. or NATO attack kills someone, Al'Qaeda, the Taliban and the media go into a frenzy about civilian casualties. Sure, sometimes the claims are true. After all, if you drop a bomb on a village, odds are good someone is going to get killed that you weren't necessarily targeting. Those kinds of civilian casualties are actual tragedies and U.S./NATO forces should do everything possible to minimize them.
If, on the other hand, the civilian casualties came as a result of, say, people inviting enemy forces into their homes, that's an entirely different story. If you are housing military forces, your home becomes a legitimate military target. If you agree to "shield" potential military targets by living near them, you are no longer a civilian. If you just put down that AK-47 to eat dinner with your family, you aren't a civilian.
This brings me to the current brouhaha about the NATO airstrike that killed "civilians" in Afghanistan. For starters, the fuel trucks were hijacked by a sizable contingent of Taliban fighters. When the trucks got stuck, the Taliban enlisted locals to help them carry the fuel. Other folks were drawn to the tankers in hopes of obtaining free fuel. So, here you have a legitimate military target surrounded by 1) Taliban fighters, 2) People helping the Taliban, 3) Looters. Expain to me the crime in the airstrike. These people claiming to be innocent victims is the same as me claiming to be an innocent victim if a stolen Brinks truck broke down near my house and I either helped the robbers move the money or tried to take the cash for myself, and I got shot in a police crossfire. I'm no warhawk, but I can't bring myself to feel all that sorry for this type of "civilian" casualty.
I won't even start about how Al'Qaeda or any other terrorist organization has the balls to complain about civilian casualties when 99% of their attacks intentionally target civilians.
So the next time you hear moaning an groaning about civilian casualties, dig deeper. The war was never in Iraq. That was all Dubya and his erection. The real war has always been in Afghanistan, and now, increasingly, in Pakistan as well. These are places worth fighting in. These are legitimate national security issues. Talk of civilian casualties and GOP attempts to label Afghanistan, "Obama's War" (Do those fucks really think I buy that?) are nothing more than political bullshit and smoke screens meant to drive us out of an area it would really serve us better to remain in.
Civilian: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force.
One of the problems with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that of terminology. Al'Qaeda, Taliban and insurgent fighters don't fit the historic military mold. They don't have uniforms, they frequently don't really answer to a central command and they'll strike at civilian targets just as readily as military targets. Dubya's administration attempted to label these people as "enemy combatants," in an attempt at an end run around the Geneva Convention and U.S. Law. Whatever you want to call them, the one label that doesn't apply is "civilian."
Everytime a U.S. or NATO attack kills someone, Al'Qaeda, the Taliban and the media go into a frenzy about civilian casualties. Sure, sometimes the claims are true. After all, if you drop a bomb on a village, odds are good someone is going to get killed that you weren't necessarily targeting. Those kinds of civilian casualties are actual tragedies and U.S./NATO forces should do everything possible to minimize them.
If, on the other hand, the civilian casualties came as a result of, say, people inviting enemy forces into their homes, that's an entirely different story. If you are housing military forces, your home becomes a legitimate military target. If you agree to "shield" potential military targets by living near them, you are no longer a civilian. If you just put down that AK-47 to eat dinner with your family, you aren't a civilian.
This brings me to the current brouhaha about the NATO airstrike that killed "civilians" in Afghanistan. For starters, the fuel trucks were hijacked by a sizable contingent of Taliban fighters. When the trucks got stuck, the Taliban enlisted locals to help them carry the fuel. Other folks were drawn to the tankers in hopes of obtaining free fuel. So, here you have a legitimate military target surrounded by 1) Taliban fighters, 2) People helping the Taliban, 3) Looters. Expain to me the crime in the airstrike. These people claiming to be innocent victims is the same as me claiming to be an innocent victim if a stolen Brinks truck broke down near my house and I either helped the robbers move the money or tried to take the cash for myself, and I got shot in a police crossfire. I'm no warhawk, but I can't bring myself to feel all that sorry for this type of "civilian" casualty.
I won't even start about how Al'Qaeda or any other terrorist organization has the balls to complain about civilian casualties when 99% of their attacks intentionally target civilians.
So the next time you hear moaning an groaning about civilian casualties, dig deeper. The war was never in Iraq. That was all Dubya and his erection. The real war has always been in Afghanistan, and now, increasingly, in Pakistan as well. These are places worth fighting in. These are legitimate national security issues. Talk of civilian casualties and GOP attempts to label Afghanistan, "Obama's War" (Do those fucks really think I buy that?) are nothing more than political bullshit and smoke screens meant to drive us out of an area it would really serve us better to remain in.