Thanks for adding that. I’m not sure that I feel the first point applies here (I can see that people might argue otherwise) but the second point seems like a slam dunk.
The second point applies to both - a combatant also entered as a civilian and received aid pretending to be a civilian.
One doesn’t justify the other - the way i could legitimize it is by saying the hot squad dropped their disguise before engaging… like sending their own flag up the pole. Would need to review prior to saying if it was correct or not.
The arguement against the first section is that those protections apply to civilians and non combatants - conviently left out of their statement. The (pretty solid IMO) arguement is that combatants do not fall under this protection, and terrorists never do, abd these were still designated combatants including possibly carrying arms and planning ops. The room also looks oddly cleaned for three dead people including at least one head shot.
Thanks for adding that. I’m not sure that I feel the first point applies here (I can see that people might argue otherwise) but the second point seems like a slam dunk.
The second point applies to both - a combatant also entered as a civilian and received aid pretending to be a civilian.
One doesn’t justify the other - the way i could legitimize it is by saying the hot squad dropped their disguise before engaging… like sending their own flag up the pole. Would need to review prior to saying if it was correct or not.
The arguement against the first section is that those protections apply to civilians and non combatants - conviently left out of their statement. The (pretty solid IMO) arguement is that combatants do not fall under this protection, and terrorists never do, abd these were still designated combatants including possibly carrying arms and planning ops. The room also looks oddly cleaned for three dead people including at least one head shot.