[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
[–] respondwithdata [S] ago
The only 'great' wars were fought over principals. Not the theft of oil or to create more war for profit.
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] Myrv 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
Probably because it is one of the prohibitions in the Hague/Geneva conventions.
From the Hague 1922-23:
US Army Field Manual (1956)
Geneva Conventions (1977)
A pilot escaping from a disabled aircraft has essentially been disarmed (and quite possibly wounded). To fire upon a parachuting pilot would be the same as firing on an unarmed/wounded ground solder. It's a take no prisoners approach (no quarter given) that is frowned up by most militaries.
[–] respondwithdata [S] 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
I wonder how they would treat predator drones in the Hague?