• TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Well then define non-combatants.

    “a person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, especially a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner.”

    Sure he was responsible for deaths due to denying health coverage. But he’s still a civilian.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      So it was a civilian on civilian kill. Not a militant group/gang/mercenary.

      If the “battle” was pertaining to healthcare denials, he was currently battling and his group took up battle after he was gone.

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 minutes ago

        The perpetrator of an act of terrorism isn’t part of the definition. They need not be affiliated with a group or military.

        I find it curious how many people on Lemmy were gleefully posting about CEOs and billionaires being scared because of this attack, and then to see push-back about the label of terrorism (where fear is part of the outcome, hence the name).

        The saying is “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” right?