In your opinion, are civilians still non combatants if they attack soldiers with bricks or petrol bombs?

Anyone who uses a weapon to attack soldiers myst expect thirteen going to open up on them.

They’re not just going to tolerate bricks and petrol bombs. Nor should they.

No. They are definitely combatants. I think the human mind is the weapon, not the gear they carry. I also think any soldier, gangster or cop knows that. But the soldier is taught to follow the rules of war and when i comes down to decision making they are really just political pawns sent in to complete a task for someone higher up. Not every soldier wants to go to war just cause they like killing and destruction. They are taught to believe they are defending those they love by killing who ever they are told is an enemy when really we are just all the same humans in the same boat killing and destroying because someone with power told us its right.

Regardless, those are deadly weapons they’re using and should be met with equally lethal force.

Combatants are normally thought of and defined as belonging to an official military force/group, minus medical and religious members of the armed force.

Your question though is what my personal opinion is... they are (in my opinion), if engaged in fighting against a member of recognized military force with the aim to support their side of the war. Which is different than say using a rock or brick to prevent a member of a military force from stealing, raping, etc. So my answer is both yes and no, depending upon the situation.

the moment you carry something that is intended as a deadly weapon you are no longer a non-combatant

Civilians don’t often seek out conflict zones to go throw rocks at soldiers, meaning the vast majority of those that do are attempting to defend their homes and homeland. I don’t see them so much as combatants as patriots to their side attempting to expel a hostile force.

{@guerrilla] reading between the lines if soldiers are there too keep the peace ,so this must be an illegal assembly or riot and if you pelt them with missiles they are then entitled to retaliate with water cannon as you are technically breaking the law the same with the police

It's a grey area right because fully armed soldiers could absolutely massacre civilians armed with bricks. It's a good lesson on why fighting an insurgency is near impossible.

Probably depends what the soldiers are armed with. I mean if a bunch of protestors throw rocks against an armoured car, I don't know if I'd condone the soldiers lighting them up with automatic rifles.

Petrol bombs are a lot more serious but even then if civilians are throwing them to burn on a street or hundreds of meters from actual people, I think soldiers should still follow a more policing standpoint of using the least violence necessary to restore order

Training plus PURPOSELY designed lethal weapons = combatants!

There's no getting around that any way anyone thinks of it.

Yes you can kill with an ice pick, yet you can't do so in mass!

It's the in mass that matters.

Why an average citizen doesn't have a bazooka or machine gun. And why any should have training in order to use them.

Heck even "most" police do not have anything more than handguns.

Yes they are.

What I would call them are “at risk of being shot” dead.

I believe that would depend on the country. If say, that happened in Russia, I would imagine Putin would label them terrorists and a threat (influenced by the West no doubt), and he'd probably dispatch his Kadyrovites to shoot them down. They like shooting civilians and terrorizing/raping them.

Sounds pretty combative to me.

No, but then again WHEN in history did armies at war really avoid civilian casualties when it was inconvenient?

They are definitely combatants. Whether the soldiers should shoot them is debatable.

Depends on what the soldiers are doing I suppose

just un-uniformed combatants

Attach them to their hands?

yes

Maybe not kids throwing stones at tanks.