Yea but you said the US "declared" "every" person w/ a radio a "target".

This story doesn't show any of the 3 words I put in quotes.

Edit: can I get an explainer on the downvotes to both my comments?

You could try to explain what you think the difference between

> US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target.

and the policy described in the article is, attempting that will likely lead you to why you are downvoted.

1. The US did not make any sort of declaration 2. Not everyone with a walkie talkie will have this new guideline applied to them. Even just going off the article, someone with a radio could be treated with suspicion by these new guidelines, as they could be a spotter. 3. They are not defacto a "target" as described above^, although that is what the poster claimed.

The poster's statement was hyperbole to the point of being an outright lie.

they said "a legitimate target", not "everyone was targeted".

That's not the US military's position and the linked article doesn't even make that claim.

(Had to wait since I was silently barred from posting due to 'karma'/downvotes. Not a great algo for public discussion imo, although I acknowledge this thread is now in the weeds. At the very least it should be made public and obvious that I cannot reply.)