We are too at war

It's his own damn fault for not enabling comments on his blog.

Satoshi Kanazawa blogs on The Scientific Fundamentalist, and in his newest post, We Are NOT at War, he argues that the word war always means interstate war, and therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply to the war in Iraq.

If we were suddenly attacked by space aliens from Alpha Centauri and got involved in interstellar war, the Geneva Convention would not be applicable then either, because its drafters did not imagine situations of interstellar war. The Geneva Convention is no more applicable to our current situation of global civil war than to interstellar war against Alpha Centaurians.

Another confusion occurs when others complain about “civilian casualties” in Iraq or Afghanistan. Contrary to popular belief, there has not been a single civilian casualty in Iraq or Afghanistan. The word civilians means individuals who are not officially designated as combatants, members of an organized army under the direction of the leadership of sovereign states. There are no combatants on our enemy’s side in our current situation, and without combatants there are no civilians. No civilians, no civilian casualties. By the same token, no civilians were killed by the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Okay great. No civilians killed in Hiroshima. What the fuck were they, then? Child soldiers with Kalashnikovs? I just don't remember seeing them on the pictures.

I also think war always means white war, such that the Geneva Convention does not apply to war down in Africa or over in Asia. Which is damned convenient. Also, where do I go to sign up to be a civilian? When Europe colonized Africa, where should the children have gone to sign up to be a civilian, again?

I'm sorry, Sathoshi-kun, but methinks you have gone and lost it. Again.