3 ms·

Nope because using Civilians as "Point-Making' Intentional Victims (not Collateral Damage engaging Combatant targets, e.g. human shields) out of combat sectors

Nope because using Civilians as "Point-Making' Intentional Victims (not Collateral Damage engaging Combatant targets, e.g. human shields) out of combat sectors is simply fighting dirty (YMMV in 2000s), because those 9/11 hijackers had bankroll and were intent not on collecting information but inflicting damage. There is a significant difference between being an "observer" and an "assassin" if you want to get down to it. Spying is akin to foreshadowing, to have knowledge before action. If you don't understand the difference between inserting Assets for Information Gathering versus Mass Murder then we probably won't be able to communicate very well. There are nuances. Your conclusion is a false premise.

averagewall 9y ago
"combatant targets" are humans too, sometimes conscripted involuntarily. Killing them is also murder. You seem to be carefully defining what's right so that it allows the type of murder the US army does but not the type that other groups/countries do to the US. Really, I think the US is a danger to Chinese people and is at risk of killing them. It surely will use its intelligence to help it do that. These spies might have had some other purpose but they surely weren't purely peaceful ones. Perhaps I should use a less sensitive example of Chinese industrial spies stealing trade secrets from American companies or stealing military secrets from the government. Do you support them too? It's not as risky and not for killing but is still spying.
- hueving 9y ago
  It's not about sensitivity, it's that your first example wasn't equivalent at all. Spying != collecting information to murder people.