The levels of perversion to which logic is being taken here are actually quite astounding. Quite apart from the idiotic claim that anyone is not a military target while engaging in acts of combat but NOT wearing a uniform, the idea that any political body that sends out "combatants" (in uniform or out of it) should thus be excluded from retaliatory consequences is so laughingly absurd that it's only use lies in showing what posts really are an embarrassment on and to any serious forum.
The equally silly notion that a terror cell like AQ is fair game only on account of not ever having been a political party (elected), would lead to the conclusion that all those democratically elected are thus sacrosanct. Which, conceivably in conflict with the poster's actual desire, would give even the Israeli government a get out of jail card over anything it engages in.
Such leaps of logic all being pretty much in line with the argument proffered elsewhere of Hamas never targeting civilians on account of lacking the instruments for targeting.
So "yeah, yer honor, I DID set my neighbor's house on fire but of the charge of intentional homicide I'm not guilty, seeing how I had no way of knowing if he'd be affected by the conflagration".
Geeezazz H.
Obviously if you are engaging in hostilities/combat you are a legitimate target even if you are not wearing regular military uniforms. That much was obvious in what followed it regarding the status of IDF personnel not engaging in combat and/or not wearing uniforms, IE not being on duty.
Like with any political party charged with cxontrolling/running a society, there is the civilian element to their duties and a military element . The point being that not everyone associated with or working for Hamas is a legitimate target. Only those leading and/or engaged in combat themselves.
It isn't really hard to understand but if it's all you want to focus on, which given your penchant for childish postings, it's hardly a surprise.
It's noticeable that you refer to AQ as a terror cell. On that alone they are legitimate targets. When a political party has a military wing that sometimes engages in terrorism/war crimes only the people involved in those acts are legitimate targets. The people running the civil economic duties are not. No doubt there would have been government workers in the twin towers but that doesn't mean they were legitimate targets, nor that everyone else that died could be deemed human shields
You see, you have to be consistent. I applied the same standing to Hamas combatants as I did the IDF combatants. That's what reading the views and words of reputable HRs groups does for you. Evidently your postings show yourself to be trapped in ignorance and bias, so much so, that any notion of applicating the same standards is impossible for you. It was the same with that junk about the Wall and the fact that you care not about how it scoops in 80% of the ILLEGAL settlers.
Not knowing the US voting at the UNGA for around 4 decades but believing Bidens hollow words lol The list is pretty much endless
Your attempts at duping people that you are some sort of objective observer are completely bogus and it all becomes apparent when you post , each and every time.
Hamas have targeted civilians in acts of terrorism but the rockets from Gaza constitute indiscriminate actions within the framework of an ongoing conflict. You not understanding the difference is a you problem. Your comparisons are as rubbish as the other ones found in Fledermaus posts.