[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] respondwithdata [S] ago 

The only 'great' wars were fought over principals. Not the theft of oil or to create more war for profit.

0
9

[–] 3522962? 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Where is the honor to use a drone and shoot someone at a safe distance? Honor does not exist in war only in fictional history books

1
3

[–] CatNamedJava 1 point 3 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.

2
-2

[–] respondwithdata [S] 2 points -2 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.

0
1

[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 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.

0
11

[–] Myrv 0 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)

  1. 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

  1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

1
3

[–] respondwithdata [S] 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

I wonder how they would treat predator drones in the Hague?

0
4

[–] Aussiesurvivor 0 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.

0
1

[–] Jasnah_Kholin 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Was anyone ever arguing that this doctor's decapitation was honorable, or is that just a straw man?

0
0

[–] 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.

0
5

[–] The_Only_Other 0 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.

0
0

[–] 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.

0
0

[–] 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.

0
0

[–] 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.

1
-1

[–] respondwithdata [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

0
0

[–] Comic_Dans ago 

I don't see how this changes anything.

load more comments ▼ (3 remaining)