re: #630 AemJeff

Nice try.

Nice try in what way, Jeff?

You’ve admitted that the commandos didn’t assault the ‘activists’. You’re saying that they threatened to assault them— through the fact that they had sidearms, I assume.

So you are arguing, in essence, that the ‘activists’ had the right to defend themselves against the commandos because they had sidearms, even though they were using paintball guns and not using the sidearms, because carrying the sidearm is an inherent threat of assault.

That is a very, very weak line of logic, especially since on the other ships, the commandos did not carry through on this ‘threat’ and no one was harmed. Only on one ship was their violence, and it was not initiated by the commandos.

So how can you refer to it as an assault, when in every case but this one, no violence, no assault resulted? How is it an assault when no one is harmed?