Moral objections on warfare.

plan_D · 03-28-2005, 01:18 AM

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?

03-28-2005, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

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 · 03-28-2005, 06:12 AM

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 · 03-28-2005, 01:41 PM

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.

03-28-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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 · 03-28-2005, 02:32 PM

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

Nonskimmer · 03-28-2005, 02:34 PM

Combatants. Treat them as such. No better.

03-28-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonskimmer

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 · 03-28-2005, 03:07 PM

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 · 03-28-2005, 04:21 PM

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.

03-29-2005, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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 · 03-29-2005, 10:34 AM

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.

03-29-2005, 12:45 PM

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 · 03-29-2005, 01:07 PM

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...

03-29-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellmaker

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