Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Other subjects

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

random "lay" readers, editors, writers, anyone with an opinion about words.

57 replies

hatwoman · 05/12/2006 19:39

do you react against the following sentence or do you think you get the gist?

According to international law combatants must distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects.

OP posts:

WhenSantaWentQuietlyMad · 05/12/2006 20:28

Go on hatwoman, put me out of my misery. What is this for?

dara · 05/12/2006 20:28

I don't think a comma is essential btw.

wickedwinterwitch · 05/12/2006 20:29

Oh yes, I agree re the civilian targets, true, true. They do indeed call it collateral damage which is such a pile of shit when what they really mean is 'we accidentally killed civilians while we were really trying to kill miliary people.' Hmm.

coolmama · 05/12/2006 20:30

which is why I said the sentence didn't make sense - you can't compare objectives (inanimate) with people, no?

WhenSantaWentQuietlyMad · 05/12/2006 20:31

I've decided that the problem is that you can't "distinguish" between military objectives and civilians and civilian objects, because they aren't comparable.

However, if you change "distinguish" then the sentence can make sense.

So: "According to international law, combatants must explicitly consider the impact on civilians in pursuit of their military objectives."

tamum · 05/12/2006 20:32

I agree with Ellbell, not least because she agrees with me . I do think it's important not to call the civilian part a target or an objective.

Original poster

hatwoman · 05/12/2006 20:33

so how do people feel about:

same sentence with some commas:
According to international law, combatants must distinguish between military objectives, and civilians and civilian objects. (I know, I put an or in the first one, it should have been an and)

same sentence with "targets" instead of "objectives"

According to international law, combatants must distinguish between military targets, and civilians and civilian objects.

btw you lot are unbelievably useful you know!

OP posts:

dara · 05/12/2006 20:34

this explains why I think a comma is not necessary in this sentence

tamum · 05/12/2006 20:34

I don't actually see why you can't compare people with targets in that sense- you're comparing different "things" a bomb or whatever might be aimed at (how's that for a crap sentence girls?).

tamum · 05/12/2006 20:36

I still think it would be loads better if "civilians and civilian objects" could be replaced with a single term. The comma after and is worth having, IMHO, but doesn't solve the whole problem.

dara · 05/12/2006 20:36

I think its fine once you remove all those mad commas! I am not mad about 'civilian objects' to be be honest. It sounds as if you have missed the end off 'objectives'. Civilian areas sounds more normal and comprehensible to me.

dara · 05/12/2006 20:37

The bracketing commas are definitely wrong.

welliemum · 05/12/2006 20:37

Without context, it's hard to know what "distinguish" really means though.

Does it mean the combatants just have to know the difference or does it mean they have to act on this knowledge eg by not shooting at civilians?

Perhaps the context explains this, but otherwise, it's hard to know what the international law is actually saying.

coolmama · 05/12/2006 20:39

I still think ther shouldn't be an and between tagets and civilians - ie -
......distinguish between military targets, civilians or civilian objects ( as you are trying to distinguish between all three)

In a different context -
" I can't decide between green shoes, red ones or a yellow parka" -
make sense?

welliemum · 05/12/2006 20:45

Another thought: did you get that wording from the actual law, hatwoman?

It might be that "civilian objects" has a specific meaning in military law.

tamum · 05/12/2006 21:00

You're not trying to distinguish between all 3 though, are you? If you are then my comments make no sense whatsoever and I apologise- I thought it was distinguishing between military things and civilian things, and it was just the exact nomenclature of the things that is the problem.

Original poster

hatwoman · 05/12/2006 21:12

i'm off to have my dinner. if you really want an explanation of all this I can provide it. (but I doubt you want it) but thanks loads for your responses

OP posts:

welliemum · 05/12/2006 21:14

Yes, don't leave us in suspense, please do explain!

WhenSantaWentQuietlyMad · 05/12/2006 21:21

Mmmmm. Having looked again at this, I have come up with three things not to do in this sentence.

You can't use "between" for three objects, it would need to be "among", and in this context "among" would be clumsy because of "distinguish", so this means you need to link "civilans and civilian objects" into one 'term'.

The commas aren't necessary, but the sentence does need slight alteration because the commas (however wrong) are helping the sentence make sense.

Don't put a comma before 'and'. If the comma stays, the 'and' must go.

Ellbell · 05/12/2006 22:25

Sorry... had to disappear for a little while.

This sentence (the one offered by hatwoman) means something different still IMO...

According to international law, combatants must distinguish between military objectives, and civilians and civilian objects.

This mean that combatants have to make two distinct decisions: (a) they have to distinguish between two or more different military objectives (to bomb, say, the airport or the weapons store); and (b) they have to distinguish between civilians (people) on the one hand and civilian objects (stuff belonging to civilians) on the other.

If this is what you mean, hatwoman, then it's fine. But I'm not sure this is what you mean.

Original poster

hatwoman · 05/12/2006 22:28

no ellbell - its between military objectives, on the one hand, and civilians and civilian objects on the other.

OP posts:

welliemum · 05/12/2006 22:29

Hurry up and finish your dinner, hatwoman, I have to go soon!

Ellbell · 05/12/2006 22:30

In which case, I think that the comma before the and is confusing.

Does my earlier suggestion of 'between military objectives and actions likely to impact on civilians and civilian objects' not mean what you want it to mean?

We're really agonising over this for you!

Original poster

hatwoman · 05/12/2006 22:43

no Ellbell it doesn't cos - contrary to what it sounds like military ojectives aren't actions or plans. I'm going to pop upstairs and post the explanation I did earlier. dh told me not to post it cos he doubted anyone cared.

OP posts:

Original poster

hatwoman · 05/12/2006 22:56

ok here it is.

the original sentence is a faithful and accurate summary of the relevant law. warts (some of which some of you rightly spot) and all. it is also, I agree, a pretty awful sentence. The key question I was interested in is whether it means anything to lay readers.

a civilian object is a school, the number 73 bus, your house and mine. I had thought that most people would get this.

"military objective" is the unfortunate phraseology of the law and I totally agree with you www that it sounds like it should refer to "bomb Slough". In fact it doesn;t - it means soldiers and miltary camps. I have no idea why the law uses "objective" and not "objects". It's so taken for granted that it does mean objects, and is threfore comparable to the civilian side of the equation that the (mis)use of this horrible word in teh law itself is never really even discussed. But we all go on repeating it because it is what the law says.

Coolmama- sorry - I hadn;t seen that you came up with what is imo the next best option - using targets instead of objectives.

Ellbell is right that you can't have a civilian target (or objective)

Coolmama - tamum is right - they don;t need to distinguish between civilians and civilian objects - they can happily be lumped together.

welliemum - you are right that it needs to explain what, having made such a distinction they're meant to do, but that comes in a later sentence.

and finally, some of you have correctly identified that the law doesn't prevent combantants from causing harm to civilians. it prevents civilians being targeted and it prevents "disproportionate" or "excessive" harm. hence the concept of collateral damage.

the key point is that combatants have to distinguish between military people and things, on the one hand, and civilian people and things, on the other. and they are only allowed to direct their actions against the former. this does not mean that all killing of civilians will be unlawful. Unfortunately the law is couched in confusing terms. "Miltary objectives" is used to encompass both people and things; whereas on eth civilian side the law refers to "civilians" and "civilian objects"

it was very useful to hear people's reactions. I had a difference of opinion with a colleague about Jo Public/the lay reader and you will be delighted to know that I thought that "military objective" was as understandable as "military target" but you have proved me wrong as well as picking all manner of other holes in the sentence. genuinley genuinely useful

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3