Service man fights off two armed attackers
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
No, kidnap is not necessarily terrorism but kidnapping to convey an agenda is. I have no idea if this story is about an attempted terrorist attack or not but my argument is that it could be, civilian or military status is not enough to redefine an attack.
You have to be trolling, the alternative is hard to believe.
Do you think our military should be viewed as fair game for terrorists then? What about British citizens who contribute taxes that pays for the military? Is terrorism a legitimate tactic of war would you say?
why bother buying the daily mail if you cant read, is it really just for the pictures ?
Correct, how does he not understand that the alternative is impossible, i know, because it would make his opinion wrong.
Along with him and a few others like him (im starting to think they are the same poster) their views in these kind of threads are basically that every other possible outcome first except for the Elephant in the room.
They post the same responses every time in every one of these kind of threads.
you made a claim now im calling you on it, how is that trolling?
just quote the text rather than posting a link to a 10000038984874 page pdf
So in your mind if we drop bombs on ISIS camps then we could also be dropping them on unarmed ISIS men?
Right, just to point out exactly why I'm not going to bother explaining to you what LOAC and the Geneva convention mean in regards to your question....
What you are asking me to somehow specifically quote is not the same thing that upon your request I provided evidence for. Upon further engagement with you I have realised that ever answering your ridiculous question was a pointless mistake.
Please stop.
Can't provide answer so here have an insult?
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law1_final.pdf
DISTINCTION
[Slide 22]
You must always clearly distinguish between combatants and civilians
or the civilian population as such. Combatants may of course be
attacked unless they are out of action, i.e. they are hors de combat.
Civilians are protected from attack but lose that protection whenever
they take a direct part in hostilities for the time of their participation.
Similarly, you must always distinguish between military objectives
which can be attacked and civilian objects which must be respected.
The word “object” covers all kinds of objects, whether public or private,
fixed or portable.
Linked to here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...chment_data/file/33695/ADPOperationsDec10.pdf
Section 0221.
To be honest, I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you are genuinely stupid.
How is it a stupid question?
Or are you advocating all armed forces and intelligence (including police) are fair game because that is what you are inferring.
Why do you care what we do to the headchoppers of ISIS? Hmmm #ISISfan?
lol we drop bombs on isis camps to kill isis members.
a poster claimed we check to see if isis memebers are armed first and you provide that link to show we check if isis members are armed first and you call me stupid ?
how does your link show that we check if isis members(terrorists) are armed before bombing them. to even suggest we scope the camp out to check is stupid but pls do carry on
Thankyou jord. He will just ignore it as it blows apart his narrative and go off on a different tangent of failed attack.
Prediction: We have caused this situation in the west!
Would it bother you if they are unarmed ISIS men?
not sure if serious