Fair enough, that is a possible interpretation. Tough it is geared towards large-scale violence - bombing, artillery, WMDs, starvation - where you have problem discriminating the violence.

If on the other hand the attacker has mostly infantry, local population on the attackers side is an asset as they know terrain, hide-outs etc. And in an ethnic conflict where both parties speak the same language and look the same, local knowledge is essential in determining who is in the desired cathegory and who is not. Of course, you can argue that anyone who does not to as they are told are the enemy in one way or the other.

I have not enough data to form a real opinion on the case here myself, so I'll let you argue which case this is.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se