Am I a pacifist, yeah i guess i am. What of it? Or does make my stance any less valid?
Not at all. Your opinion is as valid as mine.
It's wrong though.
I guess when you are not allowed a military you don't get the cover of your acts being part of a military action.
I think this is wrong too. Firstly because Islamic State
does have a military. Much of it is stolen, but that's neither here nor there since it's as good as theirs now. They don't yet have an airforce, that's true, or atomic weapons. I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief at that! Unless, of course, one believes that the mere possession of these things acts as a civilising force - in which case, we need to arm Islamic State as quickly as possible with the latest weaponry and bring them into parity with NATO.
Secondly it's wrong because the possession of "a military" does not provide moral cover for anyone. If the British government were to launch an H-Bomb on, say, Iran or New Zealand tomorrow, then it would stand condemned in world opinion forever. The H-Bomb, itself, would not provide cover for its own launching, as it were. It's how you use the "military" that counts.