posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:41 PM
The second American civil war is coming, we can all feel it. With that in mind, I thought I would share some information that will be important then.
We do not want to target genuine civilians and true non-combatants, BUT there are some "civilians" who are in fact legitimate military targets
because they materially contribute enemy combat capabilities. Politicians, police, and even Boeing or Lockheed Martin employees would all be
legitimate targets; while their families would not. Obviously Lawful Combatants are acceptable targets.
A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular
armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed
distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms, and carry arms openly.
Thus members of the police, FBI, BATFE, DHS, TSA, and
other groups are legitimate targets. Many of these agencies are already engaged in operations against American citizens.
Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability
and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military
This is where I ascertain justification for the legality of targeting "civilian" employees of arms and munitions producing
companies. These people would be directly contributing to the war effort against us. "Just doing my job" is not an acceptable excuse for arming the
forces of tyranny against patriots.
Military Objectives. Objects that, by their nature, use, location, or purpose, make an effective contribution to military action are legitimate
military objectives. Their destruction, capture or neutralization is justified if it offers a definite military advantage. There must be a nexus
between the object and a “definite” advantage toward military operations. Examples: enemy equipment, munitions factories, roads, bridges,
railroads, or electrical powers stations.
Civilians. Prohibition against attacking civilians or civilian property. Presumption of civilian property attaches to objects traditionally
associated with civilian use (dwellings, school, etc.) (GP I, art. 52(3)), as contrasted with military objectives such as industrial facilities such
as munitions factories, which remain legitimate military objectives even if manned by civilian workers.
Keep in mind that any civilian building
occupied or in use by military forces is a military target.
Both the Hague IV Convention and the laws of war permit attacks upon valid military targets at any time or place.39 What is included in the
category of “targets,” however, is broader than just troops in the field. Noncombatants and civilians can be designated a valid target if they are
sufficiently involved in the war effort.40 For example, any civilian who directly participates in hostilities would be equivalent, for targeting
purposes, to a combatant. Although the exact level of involvement necessary for a civilian to become a valid target has not been fully defined
legally,41 it is usually viewed as being a decision in practice based on context. Civilians who work directly to conduct the war, or occupy a role
normally held by a soldier, are valid targets. There is also a legal consensus that a civilian head of state who serves as commander-in-chief of the
armed forces falls within this category.42 Other civilians who occupy positions of special importance or significance—such as weapons
development—that are more valuable to their government in their current role than any contribution they could have made on the front lines, are
similarly subject to attack.43
With this in mind, many senior members of government are legitimate targets due to the nature of our system in
which the civilian government actively controls our military forces.
It is important to note that the Article 23(b) ban on treachery does not preclude the use of either stealth or surprise, and does nothing to
change the basic rule that combatants are still legally subject to attack at any time or place. The most recent revisions to the principle are also
“not [intended] to foreclose activity by resistance movements, paratroops, and other belligerents who may attack individual persons.”46 Scholars
such as JM Spaight echo these conclusions, pointing out that “treachery must clearly be distinguished from dashes made at a ruler or commander by an
individual or a little band of individuals who come as open enemies.”47 It must not, he continues, “be confounded with surprises, stratagems, or
ambushes, which are allowable.”
As distasteful as this subject may be, we all need to think about what revolution/rebellion really means. Sides will be chosen. It will not be pretty,
it will be dirty, miserable, messy, and will cause serious mental and physical anguish to all of us forced to participate. This is why many patriots
have patiently endured for so long. We do not want war, but the choice is coming. Will we fight for liberty? Or will we bow down to tyranny. Best of
luck to all. The day of decision swiftly approaches.