[–] 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
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] 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:
When an aircraft has been disabled, the occupants when endeavoring to escape by means of parachute must not be attacked in the course of their descent
US Army Field Manual (1956)
- Persons Descending by Parachute
The law of war does not prohibit firing upon paratroops or other persons who are or appear to be bound upon hostile missions while such persons are descending by parachute. Persons other than those mentioned in the preceding sentence who are descending by parachute from disabled aircraft may not be fired upon
Geneva Conventions (1977)
Article 42 - Occupants of aircraft
No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.
Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.
Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.[1]
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?
[–] 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.