• ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’re just speedrunning through the Geneva Conventions now. Who will be first to shoot a pilot parachuting from a disabled aircraft?

    • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I actually disagree with this one. Pilots will kill more people through bombing unless killed if allowed to return to their planes later. Unless you can be sure of their capture there’s no reason to let them live, from a humanitarian perspective. There was even this case where a pilot from a Russian aircraft killed a civilian on the ground. This rule just never made sense to me - you don’t have that with the crew leaving a tank, do you?

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        The idea is that they have to be given a chance to surrender. If they don’t do so, the Geneva Convention (specifically Protocol 1, Article 42) has no issue with you gunning them down. They just have to be given the chance to surrender, which they obviously can’t do while parachuting

        • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But if they land somewhere the opposing troops can’t reach them, you can know in advance they won’t surrender.

          Edit: it shouldn’t be a controversial notion that you won’t surrender in friendly territory.

          • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            “I know in advance this medic might become a soldier. I’ll shoot him now while he’s carrying that body!”

              • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No he’s a pilot. He’s not emergency-ejecting with his rucksack and his m1.

                The medic is also a soldier, I meant a valid target solider. You know what I meant

                • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  So we’re supposed to just wait until he’s emergency-killing those civilians to avoid discovery/steal from them while on the ground, like the Russian bloke did? Or bombing cities, killing hudreds or thousands?

                  • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes. That’s how the geneva convention works.

                    We’re not going to get rid of the convention just because some people commit war crimes, like killing civilians. That’s what the convention is for, or else it wouldn’t be a war crime.

                    By your logic, the russian dude just killed all those civilians because they would eventually become Ukranian combattants who would kill thousands. He still shouldn’t be killing those civilians, like we shouldn’t be killing parachuting pilots or medics. It’s pretty simple