Moral objections on warfare.

plan_D · Mar 28, 2005

And it's the invading armies "right" to shoot on sight any one who takes up arms.

Under the Geneva Convention, if you fight under civilian or enemy 'colours' then you're a spy or partisan and should be treated as one. What difference does it make anyway? It all depends on the person who captures you, uniformed or not many people were shot on sight after putting their hands up.

Sorry to say, all war is total war. There's no rules or restrictions imposed on both sides. The only restrictions are those set by one side to its own troops.

Personally, I'd shoot a man in his parachute, a civilian transport, a military transport, [definately] a trainer so on and so forth. If you don't shoot them, one day they're going to shoot you or one of your friends. Plus, with civilian transports, how do you know it's not carrying military equipment?

Anonymous · Mar 28, 2005

plan_D said:
And it's the invading armies "right" to shoot on sight any one who takes up arms.

Under the Geneva Convention, if you fight under civilian or enemy 'colours' then you're a spy or partisan and should be treated as one. What difference does it make anyway? It all depends on the person who captures you, uniformed or not many people were shot on sight after putting their hands up.

Sorry to say, all war is total war. There's no rules or restrictions imposed on both sides. The only restrictions are those set by one side to its own troops.

Personally, I'd shoot a man in his parachute, a civilian transport, a military transport, [definately] a trainer so on and so forth. If you don't shoot them, one day they're going to shoot you or one of your friends. Plus, with civilian transports, how do you know it's not carrying military equipment?

Well, basically I agree. But I think civilian planes, clearly not of a military orientation, is a bit dishonorable, especially during the first day of invasion. The German's shot down hords of such planes on the first day over Poland.

=S=

Lunatic

hellmaker · Mar 28, 2005

Yes... civil aviation should be spared. But... there is a catch... Think of the fact that Germany built it's fisrt fighterplanes stating that they were researching a more efficient Air MAILING Service... What about that? Who should you trust then?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 28, 2005

Shooting down civilian aircraft is deffinatly a dishonorable act and should not happen or be condoned.

Shooting down trainers is perfectly allowed and legal. Many trainers are armed trainers. How is a pilot supposed to know that a trainer is armed or unarmed. Therefore since it is a military aircraft it is legal.

As for shooting civilians that take up arms against you. That is completely legal, they are trying to kill you and it is either you or them. I have no problem shooting at a civilian who is shooting at me, and I did not have a problem with it when I did it in Iraq. I am not going to let them kill me even if they are civilian. They are no combatants when they have a gun in there hands.

Anonymous · Mar 28, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Shooting down civilian aircraft is deffinatly a dishonorable act and should not happen or be condoned.

Shooting down trainers is perfectly allowed and legal. Many trainers are armed trainers. How is a pilot supposed to know that a trainer is armed or unarmed. Therefore since it is a military aircraft it is legal.

As for shooting civilians that take up arms against you. That is completely legal, they are trying to kill you and it is either you or them. I have no problem shooting at a civilian who is shooting at me, and I did not have a problem with it when I did it in Iraq. I am not going to let them kill me even if they are civilian. They are no combatants when they have a gun in there hands.

Adler, the issue is how do you treat those civilians when they are captured, not whether they are legit targets when they are fighting you.

=S=

Lunatic

the lancaster kicks ass · Mar 28, 2005

well do you mean civilians you've captured after trying to kill you??

Nonskimmer · Mar 28, 2005

Combatants. Treat them as such. No better.

Anonymous · Mar 28, 2005

Nonskimmer said:
Combatants. Treat them as such. No better.

Well, in fact they were treated worse. The Germans excuted them immeadiately.

My personal feeling is that until an invaded nation has surrendered, such civilian combatants should be accorded POW status. After the nation surrenders, if they fight they are partisians or spies, and do not merit POW status.

=S=

Lunatic

Nonskimmer · Mar 28, 2005

Oh yes, I'm aware of how civilians, armed or not, were treated by the Germans and the Soviets. My comment was simply meant to reflect my personal feeling on the matter.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 28, 2005

My personal feeling on the matter is that if they are not taking arms up against you they should be treated as civilians and not harmed. If they take up arms against you they should be dealt with. If that means kill them then so be it. If they give them selves up, they should be treated as POW's and interned.

And yes RG it was not just Germans. All occupyers thoughout history have done so: Gehngis Kahn, the Romans, The English to the Scottish, The US to the Indians, The Germans to the Russians, The Russians to the Germans, The Japanese to the Chinease, the Serbs to the Bosnians and it will go on forever.

Anonymous · Mar 29, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
My personal feeling on the matter is that if they are not taking arms up against you they should be treated as civilians and not harmed. If they take up arms against you they should be dealt with. If that means kill them then so be it. If they give them selves up, they should be treated as POW's and interned.

And yes RG it was not just Germans. All occupyers thoughout history have done so: Gehngis Kahn, the Romans, The English to the Scottish, The US to the Indians, The Germans to the Russians, The Russians to the Germans, The Japanese to the Chinease, the Serbs to the Bosnians and it will go on forever.

Not arguing that Adler. Let's just not have the USA doing it in the present or future.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 29, 2005

I too hope it does not happen again, however what happened in Iraq (which is what I think you are getting at) has no relevence to anything from the past.

Anonymous · Mar 29, 2005

Not that it matters, but no I was not talking about the minor occurances in Iraq. What I am more afraid of is that if we suffer another serious terrorist attack the American attitude is ripe for a change in a bad direction.

As for the current situation, I think some changes in policy need to be adopted. Old men should not have their hands bound behind them, a hood placed over their heads, and then be loaded into a cramped back of a truck and driven for hours across the hot desert to an interrogation center. Evidently a surprisingly large number of such detainee's have died in transit in Iraq and Afganistan. Nothing breeds a terrorist faster than such treatment of their fathers and granfathers.

=S=

Lunatic

hellmaker · Mar 29, 2005

I agree to that RG. Show them no mercy, and they will respond in the same way... And I agree to DerAdler... Shooting at a civilian that is shooting at you is Self Defence...

Anonymous · Mar 29, 2005

hellmaker said:
And I agree to DerAdler... Shooting at a civilian that is shooting at you is Self Defence...

That was never really the issue. The issue is what is such a person's status if they surrender.

My personal feeling is, they are a POW if their country has not yet surrendered, and entitled to treatment as such under the Geneva Convention and the rules of war. However, if their country has surrendered, they are then partisans/insurgents and are entitled to no such rights.

=S=

Lunatic

Nonskimmer · Mar 29, 2005

Makes sense to me.

hellmaker · Mar 29, 2005

And what rights are those? How is he treated diffrent if he his a POW who's country hasn't surrendered yet... Which are his rights given the two circumstances...

Anonymous · Mar 29, 2005

hellmaker said:
And what rights are those? How is he treated diffrent if he his a POW who's country hasn't surrendered yet... Which are his rights given the two circumstances...

A POW has rights under the Geneva Convention and the rules of war. A partisan/insurgent/spy has none.

Medvedya · Mar 29, 2005

Of course the Geneva Convention is only any use if the capturing power is concerned about it.

Quoting lumps of it to a Japanese POW camp commandant wasn't ever going to get you far. (probably an extra beating in fact)

the lancaster kicks ass · Mar 30, 2005

sad but true............

Moral objections on warfare.

Lieutenant Colonel

Anonymous

Guest

Airman 1st Class

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Anonymous

Guest

Major General

Captain

Anonymous

Guest

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Anonymous

Guest

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Anonymous

Guest

Airman 1st Class

Anonymous

Guest

Captain

Airman 1st Class

Anonymous

Guest

Master Sergeant

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads