Strongest objection
What pushes against this view?
Extreme emergencies generate hard cases involving proportionality, dual-use infrastructure, combatant status, and foreseeable collateral harm.
QAEDA-ARG-010 · hard boundary
Civilian immunity is not faction-dependent
Deliberate targeting of civilians, collective guilt, terrorism, dehumanization, and intimidation remain wrong when practiced by rulers, rebels, allies, or opponents.
Current response
Why QAEDA still holds it.
Those hard cases require more careful discrimination, not abandonment of the civilian line. QAEDA does not convert them into operational targeting guidance.
Revision rule
What would change the argument?
This is a hard normative boundary; factual applications can change with evidence about who is a civilian, what occurred, and what alternatives existed, but factional identity is not a revision condition.
Open question
What remains unresolved?
How should civilian protection principles be applied to ambiguous dual-use systems without normalizing collective punishment?
Trace the basis
Linked public records
These links do different jobs. Claim status owns evidence confidence; source IDs own preserved-file identity; annotations own passage context; positions own current commitments.
Positions
civilian-immunityCivilian immunity is a hard boundaryhard boundaryPreserved sources
QAEDA-SRC-001THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE AND THE ETHICS OF FORCEProtected dossier fingerprintQAEDA-SRC-007THE COMPLETE THEORY OF REBELLION: FROM REFUSAL TO LIBERATION WITHOUT BECOMING THE NEW EMPIREProtected dossier fingerprintEssays
QAEDA-ART-018The civilian line: ethics before allegianceEditorial synthesisReading paths
QAEDA-COL-004Power, legitimacy, and counterpowerCurated navigationQAEDA-COL-006Resistance without moral exemptionCurated navigationChallenge the reasoning
The graph is a map of current arguments, not a demand for agreement.
Point to a missing premise, stronger objection, counterexample, source, or revision condition. Stable IDs make disagreement specific.