[–] Comic_Dans ago (edited ago)
Real answer: it doesn't matter.
You're not going to fight; you won't be affected. Don't worry about it.
[–] respondwithdata [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
[–] Jasnah_Kholin 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Was anyone ever arguing that this doctor's decapitation was honorable, or is that just a straw man?
[–] respondwithdata [S] ago
Nobody is arguing that. But it is an important element to consider in our ongoing efforts to prop up the petrodollar by bombing hundreds of thousands of civilians to get a few thousand belligerents.
[–] CatNamedJava 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
I'm guessing it goes back to when aircraft first started to be used in warfare. Where the pilots were officers and noble gents. Killing a gentlemen when he is defeated is against the 18th/19th century code of honor.
[–] respondwithdata [S] 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
Right on the money. An era where the monied class had picnics on hilltops overlooking interminable trench warfare.
It is time we gain a new understanding of what 'their' rules are and begin applying them evenly.
[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
the Officers still were in the middle of battle. Leading the charge with their sword drawn, they still had that martial nobility idea. It wasn't until you were dying in ditches in WW1 that started to change. Though most of the pre Napoleonic Officers were only officers because they bought their commission, thus there was a major social class different between the commissioned officers and the enlisted.
[–] Aussiesurvivor 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
I assume its because its considered that a pilot is unarmed when his aircraft is disabled. Essentially execution of an unarmed individual.
[–] The_Only_Other 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Because they are unarmed and have no way to defend themselves. They can easily be captured kept as POWs when they reach the ground. There's no reason to kill them as they offer no threat.
You can't really compare collateral damage or accidental killings based on bad information, no information, or the poor assessment of a situation in combat to intentionally executing unarmed and helpless persons.
[–] respondwithdata [S] ago (edited ago)
Where you and I disagree is that when we launch hellfire missiles - knowing full well there will be collateral damage - we are intentionally killing unarmed and helpless persons.
[–] The_Only_Other ago
There will be collateral damage in any war, and that won't ever change. No one fires on a target knowing they will kill civilians in the process (at least not without a DAMN good reason for doing so) but it will happen like it or not. Especially with the rise of urban warfare.
You have a very naive ideal of war.
[–] Pawn ago
It's a shitty move by the weak and shitheaded. You don't fire on the ones that are already beat, that wastes ammunition, wastes time, and allows the enemy time to counter attack while you're focused on parachute over there.