Because there are two of them?Why do you keep referring to them as plural?
Because there are two of them?Why do you keep referring to them as plural?
There were? Who said that?Because there are two of them?
Another APL lie.So they are not terrorizing American citizens?
Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
Because of my superior intelligence.
So you're an American citizen who is not being terrorized?
Their families in the article I read.There were? Who said that?
As "terrorists" they don't have the same legal standing uniformed soldiers do.During an active war against Nazis you cannot do that. You are not firing on their boats to bring them to justice or arrest them. You bomb their ship to blow it out of the fucking water and destroy that ships capabilities and kill all on it.
And yet legally you can not just bomb the capsized disabled ship again and you MUST render aid to the nazi's stranded in the water.
As I have stated, sometimes I mirror posters here.Another APL lie.
I read only one.Their families in the article I read.
I'm going to ask the same question I've asked a few times... Who are/were they terrorizing?As "terrorists" they don't have the same legal standing uniformed soldiers do.
Why do you keep referring to them as plural?
You must have mistook me for someone else. As of right now it appears that a fisherman was piloting the boat. Apparently was paid to do so.Fishermen-Fisherman....the point is that you saying those narcos were fishermen or fisherman is totally hilarious.
You must have mistook me for someone else. As of right now it appears that a fisherman was piloting the boat. Apparently was paid to do so.
His name was Carranza.Where did you get this nonsense that a fisherman was piloting the narco boat? Do you
have his name and do you know if he caught any fish on that trip?
Please cite the law of statute that would allow the Military to ignore the below based on what you say.As "terrorists" they don't have the same legal standing uniformed soldiers do.
From the U.S. Military Code of Conduct
- and survivors of maritime warfare who are “out of combat” due to ship destruction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Enemy personnel in the water from a destroyed vessel are considered hors de combat (out of the fight)
If an American war ship was blown up and some of the personell was floating in the water clinging to wreckage, an opposing army could assume they were trying (hoping) for a US war ship to save them and they would rejoin the fight. So do magats believe every single US service person in that spot is fair game to kill, if the opposing commander simply says 'I think they were trying to rejoin the fight"?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Fishermen-Fisherman....the point is that you saying those narcos were fishermen or fisherman is totally hilarious.