Combatant is different. If this was a civil war or something similar (and thus ruled by laws of war) and someone was a combatant you’d be absolutely correct. But the people here are talking about killing a civilian, as civilians, while not at war, and without trial which is definitely murder.
I guess if you make the 134 million guns owners in America enraged and frightened for their life by providing concrete examples of killing them you can make sure it’s a civil war.
I’m assuming you’re being kind of sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek as it were. If anyone takes it seriously though: if the people you oppose are so incompetent they pose no threat, then why do you need to beat/murder them in the 1st place? If you look up “enemy is both weak and strong”, saying that is actually a defining characteristic of fascism (and I assume other authoritarian ideologies).
it isn’t murder if they are an enemy combatant.
Combatant is different. If this was a civil war or something similar (and thus ruled by laws of war) and someone was a combatant you’d be absolutely correct. But the people here are talking about killing a civilian, as civilians, while not at war, and without trial which is definitely murder.
Who gets to decide it’s a civil war?
Historically it’s leaders like presidents, governors, legislative bodies, and generals. Not forum posts.
deleted by creator
I guess if you make the 134 million guns owners in America enraged and frightened for their life by providing concrete examples of killing them you can make sure it’s a civil war.
They’re mostly retarded so it’ll be fine.
I’m assuming you’re being kind of sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek as it were. If anyone takes it seriously though: if the people you oppose are so incompetent they pose no threat, then why do you need to beat/murder them in the 1st place? If you look up “enemy is both weak and strong”, saying that is actually a defining characteristic of fascism (and I assume other authoritarian ideologies).