I didn't ask you about the part I didn't find confusing and questionable, this is a true observation on your part. I only asked you about the part that I found confusing and questionable. I guess I don't find myself in confusion/disagreement over the "essence" of your argument, as you put it, if you really need me to explain that for you. I initially did not bring up the "essence" of your argument because I didn't think I'd need to explain that I was not asking about/challenging the "essence" of your argument, but rather a different part of your post. I thought this would be clear by the fact that I.... raised a different part of your post, and did not challenge the "essence" of your argument.

Perhaps you think the two are inseparable, that there is no difference between saying "That these are even considered civilians is because Shining Path lost," and "this is a tactical consideration and not a moral one." But it's trivial to demonstrate that we can separate your assertion that I am asking/talking about from the "essence" of your argument as you put it. Guzman, as quoted in OP, performs such a separation and does not shrink from calling the civilian casualties what they are even as the war is in progress. Guzman holds to your overall idea of the need to prioritize tactical considerations in war, yet does not feel compelled by this logic to deny the killing of civilians, as you seem to be doing (or else, what did you mean by that remark, specifically?).

Having established that we can separate your confusing and questionable remark from the part of your comment that is not overall confusing or questionable, do you have anything to say? Or are you going to share your unquestioned elitism again and divert from the question again?