Talk:Civilian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hmm. to whomever... please read the part on collateral damage in the Atrocity article and see if you have a disagreement. if you do, please say so on the talk page there.
The notions expressed here with regard to it being ok to kill civilians as long as theres a military objective, smacks of murderous moral relativism, which is situational ethics - and this is contradictory to any moral code - not the course a warrior caste is developing toward, especially in the usa, where we attempt at least to strive for principle. ---Sv
Actually, relative to civilian police... The term should be "citizen" rather than "civilian". - Curt
[edit] First Paragraph
Who says that the police are not civilians? GCIII does not list them as lawful combatants, there for they must be civilians. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Civilians and war
protected person. The article curruntly says
- Under the Fourth Geneva Convention it is a war crime to deliberately attack a non-combatant civilian or wantonly and unnecessarily destroy or take the property of a civilian
Under Which article is this protection given? I think this is wrong because the Fourth Geneva Convention relates to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
