Why is it considered a war crime to shoot parachuting pilots after they got shot down? Aren't they the enemy?

Did Ahmed steal your lunch money again honey?

There can't be an angry civilian populace if you kill the entirety of the civilian populace.

Because he's incapable of resisting, thus hors de combat. What a stupid question.
>w-why do we have laws when it comes to war
Because human civilizations evolved sufficiently to regulate another area of life.

t. German

> t. headchopping moderate
> t. has balls on his truck

That only works if you go full depopulation with it. It's not economical to violently replace 85+% of a population with you're own citizens. You only end up turning the whole population into combatants.

then whats the point of winning if you just clear the place out or are you one of these ethnocentric memers

Thanks for your contribution Tyrone, but OP's question is "why is it a war crime", not "is it cool or not".

>user starts a nuclear war

I'm being serious. For every American soldier killed in Iraq or in Afghanistan they should have 100 civilians executed for aiding the enemy. Wars used to be fought like this along time ago, now its been made PC and feminized. Fuck that.

not ethnocentric, just a memer

And for every 100 civilians you execute you get another bunch of rebels that kill more of your soldiers.

There's a reason even centuries ago leaders started to reign in the bad behaviour of their soldiers.

Hostage executing worked wonders for silencing the Belgian and Serbian resistance in WW1.
That's why there's still a Hohenzollern and Habsburg dynasty in charge today.

Yeah but a long time ago there wasn't cell phones or the internet or whistleblowers or human rights you can't exactly get away with mass murder in war anymore

the nazis killed a fuckton of civilians in barbarossa and what did they get? partisans out the ass even in spite of reprisals, it doesn't work you edgelord dipshit

>brainlet thinks USA, a country which relies on global influence and trade, can just implement Nazi tactics in a country they occupy
Pro-tip: there is a political, and inevitable economical cost of such actions.
Pro-tip: you are in their country, they aren't invading America.

Burgers should be exterminated

Not to mention that the Nazis never successfully put down a single insurgency, and implementation of Nazi-esque tactics, for instance, the Soviets in Afghanistan, does not actually have a particularly good track record at counterinsurgency.

Why do edgelords always think they're the only ones "smart" enough to come up with this shit?
If it was actually effective there'd be less urge to ban it. Armies like what works, the only cruelties outlawed are ones that generally cause more trouble than they solve.

HATE WHITE PEOPLE. LOVE BLACK PEOPLE. HATE WHITE PEOPLE. LOVE BLACK PEOPLE.

Pretty much, and also there's always a political aspect of war. Most of wars aren't wars of annihilation like Nazi campaigns in East were, so such behaviour is countrr-productive for many reasons.

That's basically what they said dude they just left out the bit about there being less of an urge to ban it

Oh I'm sorry for triggering you. Let's trigger you some more. For every 1 American soldier killed it will be 1,000 sandniggers that will be killed and their supporters. Stop feminine and fight for civilization! Otherwise you can go join your muslim friends in Europe. For every 10 soldiers killed we will have 10,000 shot and so on and so forth.

Isn't it something like shooting at a pilot that bailed out is a warcrime but shooting at a paratrooper is perfectly legit?

...

>There's a reason even centuries ago leaders started to reign in the bad behaviour of their soldiers.
>In the Middle Ages, the King decided to "judicialize the perimeter of the battlefield". King Charles V's 1373 edict states: "The provost of the constable is responsible for knowing the crimes and evil spells committed in the armies by the men of war"
2017, muricans still didn't figure it.

You aren't triggering anyone dude, you're just a dumb fuck who doesn't understand that such behaviour is counter-productive.

You're dodging the question you 14 year old

How is shooting loads of people who didn't do anything supposed to work? "Break the will of the people"? If anything they'll fight harder if they think its become an existential conflict with their existence on the line

see Nazis in literally any country they occupied
see Americans in Vietnam
see Soviets in Afghanistan
see Nationalist Chinese against the Communists
See Japanese against the Chinese

And so on

Paratrooper is making an air drop and intends to fight as soon as he lands.
Pilot is just bailing out, he's also probably injured.

amerishits should be banned from Veeky Forums

Being a paratrooper sounds like it fucking sucks.

>this retard actually thinks that would work

youtube.com/watch?v=VWgsdexkv18

Bailed out pilots are technically noncombatants in that they're implied to be prisoners/fugitives if they aren't apprehended

Paratroopers on the other hand are fair game because they're simply deploying infantry from the sky

Im still with her!

>Who didn't do anything.
They are Muslim, they did a lot of things that go against our civilization. Don't you be lecturing me about "human rights" for Muslims that want to kill me and attack America and bring Sharia law and their backwards way of life. If they don't want to be shot, they should become ex-Muslims and fight the terrorists.

The point is that there's no such thing as a "war crime" if you either
>know you won't be held accountable
or
>know your destruction is imminent anyway
when the chips are down no one plays by the rules

Maybe try not invading their countries.

Being a pilot sounds like the most comfortable fighting position in the army
>do nothing most days when not deployed
>your only job is to do cute air tricks during national parades
>when deployed you won't combat 99% of the time that's what drones are for
>if shot down and survive the enemy can't kill you
Yeah, pilots are the real glorified welfarare queens.

They're called chairforce for a reason.

>this is Veeky Forums
nothing Veeky Forums related has ever been posted on twitter

It's like being a doctor.

You have to work pretty hard to keep your skills sharp, and you know that if you fuck up, people will die.

>know you won't be held accountable
No, it's still a war crime, even if no one knows about it.

>when the chips are down no one plays by the rules
And not playing the rule is by definition a fault.

America has never faced a true land invasion, no wonder they always act like arrogant cunts in matters of war.

You deserve it.

war crimes are a meme, the winner just proclaims that anything the loser did is a war crime in hindsight.

No shit.

>US never face a true land invasion
What was the American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? Indians Wars? American Civil War? Mexican-American War?

I'm American, but not even I am a dumb ass like you.

because of the whole combatant thing... a soldier is no longer considered a combatant when he does not have his weapons and/or ammo. So a pilot (even though he most likely carries a side arm nowadays) is not considered a combatant because his "weapon" (the airplane) is gone

aaaaannnnnddddd there we go

/pol/ pls go im pretty sure some afghan goat herder isn't complicit in the undermining of western civilization

This rule only makes sense in big wars because you're literally forcing civilians to fight. In situations where people willingly sign up to kill other people this is total bullshit; don't be a nigger and die like a man.

Well snowflakes, since we've lost about 7,000 killed in both Afghanistan and Iraq that means at least 700,000 goat fuckers need to be killed or turned into halal meat. And don't tell me its counterproductive because I'll tell you what's counterproductive, being lectured by the UN, liberals, Soros, Russia, and anti-Americans about how kill Muslims is some how bad and we are the bad guys when they are the ones that are attacking America and our civilization as well. Our military is too feminized and PC because of people like you. So don't you be telling me what's counterproductive and what isn't because having a feminized and PC military is what's counterproductive for America.

Yeah and so is killing 700,000 people just because they're muslim

>George Soros dictates United States military policy
This is your brain on hamburgers.

It is not a war crime to shoot at enemy military pilots, including pilots in parachutes or on the ground, unless the shooter knows they are trying to surrender.

t.Hirohito Yatsumada

Because they essentially become a noncombatant. It's no different from shooting wounded soldiers, prisoners, or civilians.

In war time, anyone wearing an enemy uniform can be shot on sight, including wounded, unless they are in the act of surrendering. it does not matter if they are armed or not, or running away from the shooter.

Funposting should be banned

No. Not even during Bronze Age.

So can you cite something? Nothing in the Geneva Conventions prevent shooting unarmed soldiers who refuse to surrender or attempt to run away.

this hurts to read.

>give up your religion and your way of life or we kill you
>american whines about sharia.
irony

>Why is it considered a war crime to shoot parachuting pilots after they got shot down?
because it's wrong

>american revolutionary war
a revolt that the americans instigated.
>1812
a war americans started by invading leafland
>indian wars
a war of aggression started by the USA
>civil war
a civil war.

What lmao. That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. There are specific ROEs that stop soldiers from engaging unarmed targets. Not to mention how that has literally nothing to do with shooting helpless parachuting pilots.

If you wear an enemy uniform in a war zone you are fair game. How you got there is irrelevant as is why you are there. Only exception would be an unarmed medic whose uniform is conspicuously marked with the red cross/crescent/lion, etc.

Rules of Engagement (ROE) are imposed (and enforced) by combatants on themselves, and violations are not international war crimes. Most combatants want to capture pilots in order to interrogate them, not because they are noncombatants when on the ground and so impose ROE's to that effect on their own troops. This is in no way binding on their opposition.

>I'm American
>proceed to be wrong

Indians must have put a curse on that place to make you lot this retarded.

user do you really need a source to know that you shouldn't shoot at wounded or unarmed soldiers?

>7,000 killed
that's fucking nothing in the grand scheme of things and you know it.

did trudeau ever say that?

You really think that could compare to the Western Front, Japanese invasion of China or the Great Patriotic War?

No.

Oh, so it's another fake quote from /pol/ then?

the first result I got came from know your meme.
should have guessed.

Yes, I do. Being wounded or unarmed does not make you helpless or a non-combatant. Hears how I decide: 1. Am I an armed, uniformed soldier in the service of a country that is a Geneva Convention signatory? If no, stop. If yes go to 2. Am I in a declared war zone? If no stop If yes go to 3. Have I visually acquired a potential target wearing the enemy uniform? If no stop. If yes go to 4. Is this person wearing an international symbol worn by medics? If no shoot him.

But how do we up our k/d too 1000/1? Start more wars?
And its 10,000 dead, you forgot about 9/11. How could you, you promised.

Okay faggots, make it 1,000,000 sandniggers killed for attacking America and our freedoms and civilization.

Why would you throw a man out of a plane just to shoot him?

Best to be sure.