"you must give the enemy a chance to kill you before you can kill them"

This could go on for ever ...

The guys who destroyed the Van weren't in Danger.

They had time and space to look for evidence of a threat from the Van.

"kill those who are about to kill your colleagues,"

There was no evidence that the Van was a threat of any sort.

Round and round and round we go, supporting discredited arguments with conclusions based on the same discredited argumnents.


There was no threat from the Van.

The guys who Dstroyed the Van saw no evidence of a threat from the Van.

The Guys who destroyed the Van were not under fire.

They had time to make an informed decision from the safety of 5 miles away.

So none of your arguments apply.


You're just making shit up.


The only evidence concerning their motivation is their eagerness to be allowed to destroy the van and their satisfaction once they have done so.


I suspect you will say something like "but they were at risk" or "but they were under fire" or "but they were defending their colleagues on the ground from attack" again, because you appear to be too thick to stop repeating it ad infinitum.

Go on say it again.