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

@Ducky the problem is soldiers don't carry around rocks to throw back at them, of they respond with firearms, then it would most likely be deemed exercise force

@Andromedanian I have no pity for those foolish enough to throw such things at armed soldiers.

@Ducky human rights disagree though. Check what happens to soldiers that respond in kind in zones of conflict, they usually get court martialed. J know it's unfair but there's a reason why insurgent forces and guerrilla tactics are hard fo beat, they cannot do much about these tupes of aggressions

@Ducky it is very ambiguous

@Andromedanian Not interested in debating this. Was just giving my opinion.

@Ducky I wasn't debating it either, just wanted to tell you how that ends up often times. Hehehehe

@Andromedanian I already knew that, but thanks.

@Andromedanian Do you have to carry rocks with you to bend down, pick one up and return fire???

They're rocks and don't self destruct upon hitting the ground...

@HootyTheNightOwl you get the point, are they supposed to throw rocks back at them then?

@Andromedanian Well... they could shoot them, gas them or bomb them for all the difference it makes to me. I'm not silly enough to be throwing rocks or anything else at military personnel...

I'm a fan of responding with similarly deadly force, given that a rock to the head has the potential to kill.

@HootyTheNightOwl that's not what most human rights groups think, if a soldier were to do that he'd be in trouble faster than a bullet from their rifle

@Andromedanian I'm not a human rights group.