Shooting downed enemy soldiers

It depends, they're both right to a degree

>>33395534
both right

bong as always cuck

>>33395534
Its only a war crime if you go to prison.

>>33395534
The source is https://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-war-crime-to-shoot-dead-enemy-soldiers-to-verify-theyre-dead BTW.

File: doors.jpg (137KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1024x512px

its really dependent, yes, canoeing (shooting downed people in the face etc. is mutilation of a body, and you can get in trouble for this) but usually you need to be caught for this to happen (there was a whole incident with the CIA and SEALs about this), you cannot shoot a wounded enemy or noncombatant, but sometimes ROE is shoot on sight all persons meeting criteria (i.e. some large scale city clearing ops... even people without guns can be declared "enemy combatants" ), and that in a shady way justifies the killing... also war crimes have mostly only been pressed against africans, so they got upset cus the rest of the world just turns a blind eye when other first world nations do it, also there are other ways to dead check (poke the eye, most alive people flinch) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_checking

>>33395608
This. It's not a war crime if you're not punished for it.

You always shoot muslims after you've got them down, they are definitely willing to suicide bomb themselves in order to kill you before risking capture

>>33395608

also this, the American COC would never charge an American soldier with a war crime for ensuring the enemy in Iraq/Afghanistan was dead

The main criteria for the First Geneva convention would be that you should care for wounded enemy soldiers who are "out of the fight".

Well, thats up to interpretation isnt it?

When is a jihadi out for the count? when he doesnt have any arms to reach a detonator? when he doesnt have a voice to alert his fellow fighters to the number and condition of the advancing soldiers?

Those seem like credible threats that should be dealt with.

The mention of passing an enemy's position having something to do with taking prisoners is horseshit

Isn't it only 'illegal' if both sides are abiding by the geneva convention?

If one side martyrs themselves and swears to kill you no matter what, then aren't they still a combatant until they are 110% dead?

>be british
>join army
>kill towelheads
>sentenced to prison for murder when I get home
>god save the queen!

1st guy is right. at least thats how i was trained. just because a guy is "down" or "wounded" doesnt mean he's out of the fight and is more than capable of shooting, throwing a grenade, or whatever

Odd thing is, Geneva Convention only applies to 'uniformed and identifiable combatants', i.e those wearing some sort of military uniform or at least uniform which identifies them as a soldier. So surely seeing as talibangs arent uniformed, therefore the rules of the Geneva convention dont apply when fighting them?

>>33395534
>>33396141
What we are taught in the army now is that when you are assisting through an objective you are allowed to shoot people on the ground as you are walking up to them but once you pass them you are not allowed to turn around and then shoot them. Make sense ?

>>33396385
Assaulting* my bad

>>33395534
>So because they don't follow it, we don't either?
I thought that was how the Geneva Conventions worked? Only binding against other signatories.

Why else would anyone bother signing it?

>>33396385
sounds like the stuff I was told 6 years ago. granted we were also told to shoot in the general direction of an ied in the hopes to set if off if we really needed to get past it in an emergency

File: 1485737564914.jpg (42KB, 510x525px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 510x525px

>>33395534
The first guy is correct. 11bs are taught when crossing through the Limit of Advance(LOA) you should be double tapping downed combatants that still pose a threat. Most fire teams advancing across a LOA will put down a respectable layer of fire over the objective, then once you cross thru you are no longer legally allowed to to fire, unless the combatants pose an immediate threat(IE a grenade or SVEST). It's fucking cracks me up that my first experiences on the interweb as a teenage American(2000-2001), you run into Canadians and Brits who tried to devalue your national character and guilt trip you as an American. Now that I'm older and infirmation thru interweb is mass communicated, you realize how pathetic and Cucked Brits/Euros/Canadians really are. Feel seriously fucking sorry for these fools

>>33396425
We can't say "double tap" that's a nono according to jag. We say " controled pair"

>>33396385

War crime. The only way to get around this (other than just not getting caught), is to make sure you kill them immediately after hitting him (if possible). Is anyone really going to take offense to you hitting with 5 rounds when 2 rounds would have downed your target?

War crimes don't have to necessarily make sense, shooting a downed enemy if you know they have use a tactic of playing dead IOT take you by surprise, or using the exact same tear gas that cops use on civilians... both war crimes.

Genie-what?

It's every Americans God given right to double tap wounded enemies.

We fight wars to kill you, not to make you surrender.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t9eybY9qFfY

>>33396485
Sorry I got out in 2010. I probably wouldn't make it in today's Army

>>33396491
War crime or not that's what is currently taught

>>33396513

Yup, I'm just following the rules. And that's what I was taught (Canadian).

>>33396501
Yeah, it's getting weird. There's an openly gay dude in platoon and we're told that someone needs to spoon him at night or else it's discrimation.

File: direct hit.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>33395534
Brit is a cuck. Weapons free

>>33396533
well even if their was a European retarded enough to try to interpret it that way. we've threatened to invade the Hague and hang everyone if an american soldier is ever arrested for war crimes before. we'll do it again

>>33396513
That's why your military will always be little guppies next to ours

>>33396494
Technically it's better to maim enemies then kill them.

Mangle their arms and then send them back to their nation, let the enemy waste resources dealing with them.

>>33396624
Fuck I'm drunk this was meant for the Cucknadian
>>33396533

>>33396406
The bong is definitely a holier-than-thou war romanticizer

At no point does he consider realism in his depraved rants

>>33395534
The American.

When fighting an enemy the only reason to capture combatants is Intel.

Otherwise they should be neutralized definitively and any threat they may pose to your men mitigated.

Frankly my view of warfare is even starker.

Fuck hearts and minds, and taking over populations. When invading a hostile nation all inhabitants encountered should be neutralized. Their existence and nation destroyed and the land subsequently colonized with your own excess population.

You solve the problems of insurgency, rebellion, unemployment and economic growth all in one swoop.

The problem is determining if the battle is over. It's not like it's a video game where the downed enemy players have a yellow flag on them.

Did the guy I just shot just move toward his dropped weapon? Is he still alive? In the heat is difficult to tell. Talking to old guys from WWII we are kinder and gentler. It's hard to believe but true.

In the middle east we are fighting people who happily behead folks who cannot answer religious questions accurately. People who kill prisoners by beheading them for the mere brutality and sadism of it.

They light enemy soldiers on fire in steel cages.

They use their own people as organic guidance systems.

And we still follow the rules of war. After the fight we collect the wounded, we treat them, we let them live. Even if they captured us we would be killed in expedient and brutal manners. Even guys who are wearing civilian clothing which would under normal rules of war would net you a quick bullet in the back of the head legally. Why the fuck do we even try to follow the rules?

>>33396494
Like how its every Muslim's Allah-granted right to behead prisoners?

They fight wars to make you want to leave their country, not make friends, so that makes it ok?

Personally during a firefight I think the lines are blurred and until combat ceases you gotta make the choices to get yourself and your team through.

But where do you draw the line at dispatching potentially dangerous combatants and executing prisoners? The conventions try to, but they're clumsy and impractical in application, and are apparently ignored by the US.

Everyone thinks they're the good guys so whatever they do is justified..

>>33396638
Does not apply to our current enemies, who are not a well organized professional military and do not have the resources to devote to extracting casualties in the first place

>>33396533
And yet we had an infantry Captain court martialled for putting a mortally wounded Taliban jihadi out of his misery.

Total bullshit. A bunch of brass who never leave their air conditioned offices passing judgment on a field commander responsible for the lives of his men in the worst possible combat environment.

>>33395534
Technically, the dead jihadi is not a uniformed combatant nor a signatory of the geneva convention or any others, so its rules and regulations do not apply to him.

>>33396679
>executing prisoners is necessarily bad or wrong
As long as they aren't made to excessively suffer then ikd, they knew what they were getting into when they shipped off to war

That guy replying in OP's pic has the DOOM marine as his icon, and isn't advocating to rip and tear your opponent's guts out?
You shouldn't shoot someone if they're obviously neutralized, but it isn't your job to stop and help every sorry son of a bitch that you're at war with. Someone will help him, but if yoy're clearing rooms then just leave them after you're sure they're neutralized. If the enemy is known for sacrificing their lives to kill others, then perhaps it may be best to finish them off. I'm not saying that straight up executing them is right, but if you're in the process of clearing a room of terrorists, then maybe a few extra shots isn't a bad thing.

>>33396624
>>33396665

You do know that this is the reason why American's taken as PW's get shit on right?

Canadians taken as PW's in Kosovo? Their captors order them pizza and beer and give them comfortable (by PW standards) living accommodations. Americans taken as PW's in Kosovo? SOL.

Taking care of PW's is partially a selfish act, because you're ensuring that similar respect will be given to your own captured solders. This obviously only applies to humans, so for ragheads it'd be better to just confirm that they're dead, since they're incapable of basic human emotions like empathy, and they'll just take joy in cutting your head off with a rusty knife.

>>33396749
non american warfighters lack the warrior mentallity

File: M1919 2.gif (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>33395534
Jesus, by that dudes standard almost every Marine who did frontline fighting in the Pacific War is a war criminal

Whats the difference between a WWII Marine and an Iraq War one?

>>33396769
At least jap prisoners were cooperative because they saw themselves as worthless for being captured.

>>33396705

Yeah that was fucking bullshit. The guy did a fucking mercy killing out of.. well... mercy. Trying to treat his wounds would have only meant he'd be in pain for a few more minutes than just letting him bleed out... which would have just meant that he'd be in pain a few more minutes than just getting shot in the head.

>>33396750

If there is a civilized, mutually agreed teary such as the Geneva convention, fine and dandy.

If it's against Muslims who are acting out a 1400 year old prerogative of barbarous violence laid down by a syphilis addled pedophile goatherder, who observe nothing but that insipid code, then no. If anything, giving them a quick death is more than they deserve.

Maybe there is something to our code of conduct; if any hostiles are mortally wounded, provide minimal on site aid (after your own people have been tended to) and let nature take its course, however long that might be.

Otherwise I wonder how many of those cocksuckers get Western medical care, a half assed interrogation then are released right back into circulation.

>>33396665
Exactly. You should invade to either restore a previously democratic and stable government, or to annex the land.

Fuck this "Oh thats a bad dude who is doing bad shit, lets gently take care of the populations feelings and try to help them" that should be the UN's role. If I am going to commit the lives of my fellow man to a conflict, I am making sure that this shit doesn't happen again.

>>33396769
>>33396788
also, at least we had the fucking civilians on our side. Pearl Harbor should be considered equal to 9/11.

>>33396745
So killing 12+ year male children in occupied towns is OK then? One that never lifted a weapon but there there when ISIS took over?

>>33396839
Especially somewhere like Afghanistan where the locals will take your aid while lying out the other side of their faces about the insurgents they routinely shelter and supply.

Fuck that. Depopulate the town's. Cut off their logistics. Have night flying drones with FLIR to track anything that moves. Any humans not on your side in the AO get killed.

Definitive. Effective. Easy. Zero risk to your own people.

When the area is pacified move in your own people. The Romans had the right idea. Offer land to retired soldiers and provide them with the necessaries to colonize. Including weapons and munitions for self defense. You expand your territory and tax base without having to dedicate active duty personnel and equipment.

>>33395534
>rules
>in a war
I will never understand this. How can a relative set of rules, that can be broken at any times, and can only be enforced by another human being (and more importantly, are not enforced by the very reality we live in) ever hope to compete with the objective reality of life and death. It is a fundamental example of how powerless our secular ideas and institutions are, as they can be ignored, while reality cannot.

>>33396865
Yes.

Welcome to Darwins universe.

The strongest survive. Usually by killing off the weak.

>>33396839
>Murder everyone
>Install murder-backed government
>Leave
>People overthrow murder-backed government
>People instate some charismatic leader who dislikes foreign meddling
>Rinse
>Repeat
>Refugees for everyone

Yeah.

>>33395534
probably not the poof with an 80's video game avatar he wishes he could be

>>33396906
So why do we even worry about "Rules of War"

>>33396826
>(after your own people have been tended to)

Apparently the rules are that you give them the same priority of care as your own guys. Doesn't seem right at all, especially against jehadis. But that's how you're "supposed" to fight wars nowadays.

>>33396839

The hearts and minds thing isn't necessarily humanitarian bs hindering your operation, it's to prevent the population from turning against you. In an asymmetric battlefield, having "hearts and minds" means that you have snitches that can tell you where your enemies are hiding.

There is a method to some of this madness.

>>33396916
Re-read my post

I said restore a democratic and stable government, not some fucking muslim-brotherhood club. As in, when WW2 happened and the Allies helped to bring back French government or Dutch, some-one that the people already liked...

>>33396949

That's not how democracies work. You'll have to install a dictator.

Anything between an iron fisted dictator and a western democracy is unstable as fuck. There's stability on the ends of this scale from democracy to dictator, but the middle is just fucked.

>>33396916

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired my unintelligent friend.

>Kill foreigners

>Offer incentives to your own surplus population to colonize under the condition that they are making a new state within your nation.

>Also provide incentive for veterans to make up a part of this colony.

>Colony is dependent on nation for logistics for its initial startup and is bound to the same laws and political systems with proportionate representation in government.

>>33396922

If the population turns against you. Kill the population.

>>33396922
Not in these shitholes. They get mad because you try and show them that women are worth more than goats.

>>33396986
I...

I know I'm just frustrated because young guys keep getting killed over there. You're right.

>>33397009

Killing civilians is expensive and time consuming as fuck, even ignoring the morality issues and international condemnation that might come up.

>>33397023

Yeah it's probably not going to work in muslim societies because they're fucked. They're culture is pretty much
>accept bribe with a smile and say there are no combatants around
>either the combatant they were hiding, or they themselves shots at you later, or they get their kid to plant an IED

Rules of war assume that you're fighting rational humans.

>>33396996
I feel like you're angry you missed out on the age of Imperialism...

>Kill foreigners

Theres your problem.
Are you going to level the cities with artillery, chem weapons on civilians, nukes?

>>33396665
"War is not a good way to win hearts and minds, and hearts and minds are not a good way to win wars."

>>33395534
Insurgents aren't soldiers and aren't protected by Geneva. End of story.

>>33395534
brits are liberal pussies, and their opinions are worthless like those of any liberal

>>33396485
>We can't say "double tap"
It's probably just to not confuse iPhone users.

>>33395534
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/586
Eurocucks must comply but U.S. congress never ratified the 1977 terms which outlaws inhumane actions against guerrilla combatants and to soldiers in wars of"self-determination." and therefore the Marine is not at fault in the eyes of USA. Any allegations made would be dropped as the mudslimes killed could be proven as ''fighting a war of self-determination" as Jihad is mudslime doctrine of war.
>tl;dr removal of kebab by U.S. is not a war crime

>>33395534

Doesnt the Geneva convention only apply of the enemy has signed it as well?

IIRC the Russians in WW2 didnt sign a similar predecessor and therefore the bad treatment the Germans gave them was not illegal?

>>33397260
>>33397260
From what I hear from a legal standpoint, if the US does not sign or ratify specific treaties, it is not in any obligation to follow it. It also gives them the ability to freely follow treaty rules on its own territory and freely ignore the terms without consequences as it is not a party to.

>>33397104

>Killing civilians is expensive and time consuming as fuck

Horseshit.

Door to door, room to room. Bullets are cheap.

Encounter a hard target or stiff resistance? Pull back, set a perimeter, then flatten it with artillery.

Rinse, repeat.

>>33397119

Yes.

Your colonists can rebuild from scratch. Placing value on the people already living there and their existing infrastructure is simply being greedy/lazy.

In the long run, it will be far better in terms of cost - both financial and in human lives - to simply wipe away what is there and build your own, better.

>>33397377

What is the mission here? The mission is the most important thing, and this seems like a distraction.

>>33397423

see

>>33396665

>>33397454

That doesn't answer the question though

>>33397504

>What is the mission

Taking over more territory.

Would you like me to draw it in crayon for you?

>>33396665
>Fuck hearts and minds, and taking over populations.
You have a point.
>When invading a hostile nation all inhabitants encountered should be neutralized.
I am not sure if you're serious or trolling. Killing millions of (presumed) civilians in your average country is tangential to your goal, hard to accomplish, costly, bad for morale and bad for international relations. It also ensures that in the next war you fight you will be treated accordingly. In short, a total fucking waste and cruel towards your own forces and your civilians.

Fuck hearts and minds -- that's right. Fuck ideologically motivated conquest and running a world empire for dick-waving purposes. Do thing and either get the fuck out straight away (preferable) or tax them to replay your costs and then get the fuck out (less preferable).

>>33397356
I was speaking of allegations made by the international court against US soldiers. The U.S. signed it but never passed it as law to the citizens and or soldiers during war.

>>33397522
>tangential to your goal,
That is unless you're specifically fighting a war for Lebensraum, I guess.

>>33397513
>try and do this
>other countries band against you because you're a threat
>you can't kill all of them because they have nukes

>>33397522

>hard to accomplish, costly

Again, read the fucking thread.>>33397377

>tangential to your goal

Its directly related to my goal. Securing new territory for MY people.

>bad for morale

Easily solved. Bounty on scalps and free pillage for soldiers. Worked for countless armies throughout history.

>international relations.

Who cares what a bunch of cucks think.

>in the next war you fight you will be treated accordingly

Its straight up Darwinism. Anything less is weakness.

>cruel towards your own forces and your civilians.

??? They'd be directly profiting in the form of pillage and free land to settle. People would be signing up in droves. And I don't care about how cruel it would be to whatever foreign population it is. If they didnt have the ability to stand and defend themselves, then they succumb to darwinism. Such is life. Crying about it wont change the Universe.

>dick-waving purposes

Spreading your people, culture and way of life is 'dick waving'. Maybe for you, you milquetoast girl.

>>33397598

>and they cant kill me because I have nukes

Mutually assured destruction. And there's such a thing as treaties. Including combined invasion with division of spoils. Diplomacy can still be a thing, but the strong will consume the weak.

>>33397635
Yeah, but enlightenment democracies don't do that, and they ROFLstomp every other system of government.

>>33395534
For a lot of us in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it comes down to context.
>You can't take someone alive with a bomb vest
>You need to be sure that a combatant is incapable of further aggression

In both cases, if someone's all bombed up with grenades, has a pistol or access to their weapon and they're still physically capable of using it, that comes down to context of the situation:
>is he moving to re-arm himself?
>is he acting aggressively?

In the majority of cases, if the soldier sees that he's got a risk of the enemy doing those its perfectly legal to neutralise that enemy to prevent harm to himself and the unit. Now, maybe they aren't "correct" and the enemy was moving to cover a bleeding wound, swearing, flopping around or whatever, they still get the benefit of the doubt in a combat situation as 'at the time' the threat was perceived. Because most of the time you're either in some kind of 'zone' of adrenaline, sometimes fear, extreme anxiety and often under difficult sensory circumstances (smoke, smells, noise)
I've been up in front of 3 commissions since I left the army to either give character or witness statements and its quite difficult to explain to civilians about how men respond under combat, some are ice cold, others are a bundle of nerves. Plus majority of them get brought up by a soldier who was unsure of their actions and is going through some kind of guilt complex or moving through that stage of their life and trying to come to terms with it.

Maybe that's a failure on the military side for not helping post-conflict, I dunno.

In terms of training, yep- All you're allowed to do is lie there as still as possible and bleed until we say otherwise. You fuck around, we will kill you in no uncertain terms

>>33397536
International courts probably wont have much of a case. They derive their power from the treaties signed by the parties and the willingness of the party to enforce it. If parties don't enforce it then the treaty is essentially useless.

If the US does not signs it or ratify it and violates the treaty terms despite not being a party to it, then they are in no legal hot water. Only a lot of teeth gnashing and angry tantrums. One great example is the UNCLOS: the US is not a party but observes its terms. They can freely abide or ignore on their own choosing. This gives the US great latitude. China on the other hand is a party to UNCLOS and by ignoring the treaty based on extremely flimsy evidence on territorial claims, they set the precedence that the treaty is essentially useless and staying in the treaty is a losing proposition.

>Toilet Treaty - Everyone shits on the ground, not in toilets.
>Treaty breaker signs treaty and promptly breaks it by shitting in a toilet.
>Everyone else is too poor to buy a toilet and thus they get sick because no proper plumbing.
>Treaty breaker now has an unfair advantage as he no longer gets runny shits. He can now bash everyone else to submission as he is not constantly having cramps.
>Everyone now hates treaty breaker for doing so.

>>33396425
>infirmation thru interweb is mass communicated
>infirmation
Pretty good pun.

>>33397780
>Infirm-mation

I like it too

>british army

>>33397635

So your end state is what exactly? Annexing third world countries by force and just assuming the rest of the world is going to go along with it due to mutually assured destruction?

What are we even talking about?

>>33396377
>iable combatants', i.e those wearing some sort of military uniform or at least uniform which identifies them as a soldier. So surely seeing as talibangs arent uniformed, therefore the rules of the Geneva convention dont apply when fighting them?
That's how the US government interprets (interpreted?) the Geneva Convention.

>>33397806

If I were the US, this is what I would do.

Who could possibly stand against it?

>Sanctions

You want to cut yourself out of the largest 1st world market on Earth, knock yourself out, others would be climbing over you to take your place

>Threat of military reprisal

That's nice dear. Good luck with that.

Any major historical world power - Roman Empire, British Empire, American Hegemony, could have gotten away with this. But didn't due to effete handwringing by individuals like yourself who lack the stomach.

Can you imagine how glorious a planet even 50% populated with White Europeans, all united under the same language, culture and political system would have been?

We'd have gone to the fucking stars long before now.

>>33397851
>Who could possibly stand against it?

The People of the United States.

>>33395534
Insurgents are defined as "unlawful combatants" and are not afforded the same protections under international law as a wounded soldier (protected person).

>>33395534
My drill sergeant taught us that when clearing a room, you put two in the chest. Then as you walk past the body to clear the rest of the room/building, put a quick one in the head. Juuuuuust in case.

>>33396922
>The hearts and minds thing isn't necessarily humanitarian bs hindering your operation, it's to prevent the population from turning against you. In an asymmetric battlefield, having "hearts and minds" means that you have snitches that can tell you where your enemies are hiding.
I remember looking through a US military reading list and there was a book about how the "carrot and stick" method is much better for pacifying populations than "hearts and minds." Personally, I'd like to see us go Genghis Khan on villages aiding and abetting insurgents.

>>33396543
Who's the faggot telling you to do that yet won't do it himself?

>>33396891
The modern rules of war are implicitly built on ideas from game theory. It's a lot like nuclear brinkmanship or international diplomacy in general. If you know a little math, go give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game a look. Game theory tells you what the parties to some kind of a conflict should do to win, but it normally assumes that every party involved (every "player") is rational and, all things equal, wants to live and prosper. For rational players it makes sense to not break certain promises first, like observing the rules of war or never using nuclear weapons, because there is a steep price to pay. A problem arises if your opponent is not rational but self-destructive (for example, he simply doesn't care if he lives or dies). He has no reason to follow the shared rules.

>>33396665
>go to war in Southeast Asia because fuck communism
>better fight this insurgency that popped up
>better start killing civilians because they're potential insurgents
>oh fuck we've been at this for well over a decade, lost 60,000 troops, killed 4 million people, and now we're in three countries instead of one

When civilians know they're going to die, their minds are made up as to whether they're going to wait out an occupation or join the resistance. Why do you think the Russians fought so hard at the beginning of WWII, and the German population resisted so much in 1945? They knew their lives being spared was highly unlikely, and sometimes living in an occupied area was worse than death in combat. There is no country that can field a military large enough to come close to equaling a civilian population in any country, not counting China mobilizing against Timor or some other contrived scenario. Hell, even the few thousand resistance fighters in Warsaw were enough to make the Germans stop for over two months to fight the city. The US had hundreds of thousands of troops rotating in and out of Afghanistan for 13 years, and even with a widely distributed and isolated population of 30 million with only a small percentage of people fighting, we were still unable to complete our objectives, let alone wipe out every single person.

>>33397921

Yeah because they've done a great deal to stop the US' wars of conquest and resource protection over the last 60 years.

Even then the only resistence they offered was to the draft in Vietnam.

You through pillage and free land into the mix, and like any other humans, they will jump at the chance.

Don't be so naive.

>>33398025

>Because vast technological differences wont be a deciding factor.

If the US wanted to wipe Afghanistan clean of life, they could do it. Easily.

>>33398040
Yo dawg get your English up to snuff, naw what I'm saying?

>>33396244

/thread

>>33398059

I know you're emulating a people who have an average IQ of 80 and massive rates of STDs who never even invented the wheel while Pooh-poohing my argument without a lick of actual counterargument. So I'll treat it appropriately.

>>33398077
That's quite funny.

The fact that we as Westerners are sitting here debating the morality of the Geneva convention, and how we adhere to it, while our enemies use mentally retarded children as suicide bombers, roadside bombs, VBIEDs, drone grenades, civic facilities as cover, just goes goes to show the dominance of western civility in the world. The world would be a flaming bag of shit without white people

only person to conquer Afghanistan was Alexander because when he was attacked with guerrilla tactics he leveled villages. it was called Bactria at the time, the area he was in.

>>33396543
>show me how, sir!
cant follow an order you dont comprehend anon

>>33398057
This. We didnt fail because of anything other than sjws

The Geneva Convention is dumb.

War is hell. Treat it like hell and people will avoid it when they can, or finish it as quickly and efficiently when they cannot. Treat it like a game and everyone suffers.

>>33395534
Figures the British guy is a major cuck!
People laying down is not an indication they are "wounded"
People running away is not an indication that an attack is over.
You must make SURE the attack is over.

>>33398114
Too bad Westerners are guilting themselves into cultural suicide for "justice."

>>33397611
What is the difference between your strategy and that of pre-WWII Germany?

>>33397937
This.

>>33397921
Yeah, but they'd get a couple hashtags trending and the military would order guys not to do it. Then the guys would do it and the command would turn a blind eye. That's all, Americans don't have attention span for this, it's not a Kardashian ass after all.

>>33398189
Europeans perhaps.

File: German Civil War.jpg (513KB, 1524x1262px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1524x1262px

>>33398218

My policy wouldn't have been influenced by a Jewish-led coup attempt only a few years beforehand.

And I wouldn't be invading nations with comparable cultural/technological basis.

Go for the low hanging fruit first.

>>33396244
rumsfeld took us off the geneva convention the way nixon took us off the gold standard

>>33397722
>some are ice cold, others are a bundle of nerves.
Do the ice cold ones perform better? Is there a significant difference?

>>33398131
>>33396543

Lead by example. Or get get the ftp to do it.

File: stock-photo-portrait-of-young-pilot-with-down-syndrome-saluting-in-hangar-128394209.jpg (416KB, 1500x1100px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1500x1100px

what a down soldier might look like

>>33398233
And then? Would you apply the same total war strategy to Western nations as well? Or China/Japan/Korea?

>>33398331

Depends. The goal is prosperity and security for my people. Not mindlessly killing everyone else.

Expansionism would be dependent on internal pressures such as unemployment, overpopulation, resource needs and the potential for technological and/or social advancement. The ascendancy of my people.

>>33398313

th-thats a lot of stripes on that downie...

>>33398246
Mostly it comes down to training with your unit.
We did clearance work for the better parts of 6 months and on top of that a variety of open field work as well, after a while it really does ingrain itself in your brain to the point its reflexes and everyone knows what to do. So even if you are a bundle of nerves, that's compensated for by being with the unit, confidence and support there. The latter part and sometimes the most important to being a soldier is combat time being in the shit and it'll show up any character flaws and fears you may still have.

Some people will never get over anxiety pre-post contact and its important to track them, sometimes roster them back out of active circulation for a little while (or permanently) to other duties before they badly fuck up and get someone in their unit killed.
For some of us we lose the fear and simply flick a switch in our head that takes the emotional aspect out of what we do. Civilians don't like hearing that, (psych analysts like it even less!) but at some point they voted in the government that sends us off to step on someone's neck and need to bear some of the responsibility for doing that.

>>33398354
And how you defend against internal assailants? I assume you'd need a military dictatorship to execute your plan. A dictatorship, especially an expansionist one, is going to have enemies trying to take over it for one reason or another. This includes your own generals and foreign spies (not mutually exclusive categories). Kings are protected to some extent by rules about royal blood that their nobles/generals have strong incentives to follow, but dictators don't have this benefit. On top of that espionage and assassination techniques have only been getting more sophisticated since WWII.

>>33398501
And how do you defend*

>>33397611
>Who cares what a bunch of cucks think.

Famous last words of High Lord General Anon.

So you're going to become the sole superpower of the world how? Sunshine, rainbows, jacking off to Hitler and magic? This fantasy is pretty much just cringe.

>>33397611
>>33398040
>>33398689

Stop abusing your enter key.

Is shitting on a deaf jihadis head a war crime lmao

>>33395534
Winner is always right. Loser gets blamed for Holocaust irregardless of his actions.

>>33396922
>The hearts and minds thing isn't necessarily humanitarian bs hindering your operation, it's to prevent the population from turning against you.
Why didn't population turn against ISIS? Or wait they are scared shitless. When one sides promises to kill you and clearly proves their dedication and ability and other side goes "bla-bla-bla democracy bla-bla-bla tyrant is toppled mission accomplished now tell us where ISIS hides we will give you couple bucks (maybe)" you know for sure what side will win hearts and minds.

>>33398854
>maybe
US was always good to its informants, money wise. Extradition wise.... (we did right with a good majority of the terps though. A few poor fuckers got left behind though)

the only thing better than winning is winning with a clean conscience

Well no but if they go and pick up some sort of weapon, you can kill them.
You are not entitled to help them but you shouldn't kill them
Japanese would often carry a grenade while they were wounded or pretend they were wounded to kill a bunch of Americans who were going to help.

>>33396244
I'm not sure of the whole legality of it, but through basic and medic training, we were taught to shoot to kill (obviously). After what we would assume the area is clear, you are suppose to ensure about enemy combatants are dead by shooting as you approach. If you some how miss an enemy, have your back to him, and he's still alive, you must render care for him. If you turn around and shoot him, it's considered "double-tapping" and that's illegal. I would image they would tell you what to expect before you deploy.

>>33396543
You sound like you don't get jokes easily, Anon.

>>33395534
Geneva convention is literally retarded

>"hey guys lets stop from being so effective because those niggers in africa don't stand a chance, we'll kill them all soon"

>>33398453
Psych analysts don't like being told that humans don't have to be insane or specifically psychopathic to kill other humans, or that killing isn't something that is naturally repulsive to humans before training. They're looking to bring out the innate inner good, not find out that humans have no such thing.

>>33396788
We hardly took any prisoners there because they'd fucking chuck a grenade when you got close

>>33395534
what kind of horseshit is a requirement to treat anyone injured whom you come across in a conflict zone?
I smell some bullshit, as I don't think any country would sign off on agreeing to aid the enemy in any case in terms of infantry combat.

even if you have to by the GC, how many motherfuckers did that, realistically? I doubt many GIs in WWII or Nam felt any sympathy for the gooks or jerries injured on the ground.

>>33397272
No. The conventions are an agreed code of conduct that is meant to be followed by the armed forces of a signatory nation, regardless of whether the opposing side has signed or actually follows the conventions themselves.

>>33397937
Correct.
They are meant to be treated as armed criminals, but whether by the local laws or the combatant's is a matter of interpretation.

>>33399182
Dunno if I'd say people have no capability for 'good', but like our capability to be 'bad' it can often have a conditional set of circumstances to it.
Running around shooting up a shopping mall full of unarmed people because you're fucking crazy, is a different circumstance to my unit running down a street shooting it up because its full of people with guns trying to shoot us. End result is a lot of people with bullet holes in places they didn't have them before it all kicked off, but its judged differently to the latter. Some people also can't normally bring themselves to kill animals and other people, which is fine, but at some point we also need to acknowledge that there are the other side of the coin, (which as revolting as it seems to one side) is as necessary to have food on the table and in some cases for warfare to defend yourself.

People can beat about political, religious, psychological and other varieties of navel-gazing ideals in their spare time when they're not being shot at about why people kill. But it really comes down to the simple fact- it happens and its better to be the one still standing at the end of the day.

>well shit, that's enough deep thoughts on it for me today!

I have no respect for the Geneva convention beyond protecting civilians.
Michael Fox is a cuck

Not a surprise that some britcuck is defending killing mudshits

>>33396548
fuck! that's brutal

>>33396425
Bong soldier here, we shot downed towlies all the time

>>33396548
Have you not watched the footage of bong soldiers taking shots at some injured raghead?
Being watched by a US drone, I think the guy pisses himself then gets domed

>>33398360
affirmative action at it's finest

>>33396485
That fundamentally different from shooting a body a second though

the way the lingo gets twisted is such a shitshow

>>33396665
It's hilarious how many people say shit like this despite modern history showing this will earn you a thousand enemies for every one you slay.

Just because war is so complicated it makes your head hurts doesn't mean going full caveman is the solution.

>>33396638
Do you have any facts to back this myth up?

>>33401191
Joey Bob from the LGS, who just bought a bunch of m1a's that he can't seem to sell.

>>33398313
> Downs
>Lieutenant Junior Grade
I could see this in the Navy

File: remove rice.gif (4MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x270px

>>33396769
Really though, if a Canadian putting a shooting a haji who was effectively blown in half is considered cruel and a war crime, then liberals would faint and have a conniption over WWII Marines.

>tfw just finished reading Voices of the Pacific
>Japs being shot on sight no matter what
>Cape Gloucester was practically a Jap death run
>Chesty got everyone online and marched hem into the jungle to "hunt japs"
>1st Marine Division, K/3/5 Hadn't taken a prisoner since Guadalcanal

The things those guys had to do to beat the japs man..

>>33401511
People get outraged over pics of troops posing with dead insurgents, wonder how they feel about marines bringing back jap body parts

>>33395534
Got a surprise for you, in the field, shit happens like that all the time, and no one is getting their panties in a twist over it. you just move on.

File: 1944-vs-2015.jpg (77KB, 668x960px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 668x960px

>>33401608
Everything and everyone was simply harder back then... we are fucking done as humans... I honestly feel like I was born into the wrong era. All I want to do is kill the enemy for my glorious and ever expanding empire nation, is that really such a bad thing?

File: COMBAT.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>33401672
How bad was the whole "shoot a kraut on sight" thing in Europe?

I always figured US Soldiers took more prisoners compared to his counterpart in the Pacific

>>33401672
The conditions of the western world was harder back then
We're adaptable animals, it's what we do, squeeze the pressure and we grow thicker skin
I hate the stupid faggots of today, but I just think it's the side effect of everyone being able to spout their shit all over the place, and living in comparative luxury
If times get hard, people here will get tougher, i've little doubt anon

>>33401698
Well I have no doubt the western European theater was "calmer" than the Pacific one, but especially near the wars end mother fuckers were killing the fuck out of SS. Look at what the Russians did, you almost feel bad for the German grunts at that point.

>>33401777
Must've been shitty, having to shoot at people who looked like you, lived in house like you, and had a somewhat similar culture as you

At least with the Japs we knew they fired the first shot, they were the ones who attacked us first and we responded in turn, did we really have to fight the Germans in WWII?

Couldn't the Germans have left Japan to its own device once they fucked up and bombed Pearl Harbor?

>>33401816
Germany declared war on us you fucking wehraboo faggot
Frogs and Bongs shot and blasted germans in ww1, stop being a pussy and be proud that our people fucked hanz up like you do with all the other nations we've spanked

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

>>33401845
All Im saying is, what if Germany didn't declare war on us and let us fuck the japs up?

They wanted a piece of us and they got it, along with everyone else they decided to go to war with, but it makes you wonder what would've happened if they ditched Japan once they had attacked us.

Surely they must've known that Japan was not going to win a war against us

>>33395534
ever notice when legality is applied to war, which is the ultimate form of unhumanity, it becomes unwinnable for the side who tries to play fair

>>33401858
We continue funding all allied powers billions worth in equipment?
It was inevitable, as was the war with japan after we cut off their main oil supply and started strangling them before pearl harbor

File: 1422715036291.jpg (128KB, 732x584px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 732x584px

>>33401816
Well German's certainly weren't savages to our side like the Japs were (jews no included). But they were fucking nuts and trying to take over the planet. That's why I love the WWII era, every war has some bullshit in it, but WWII is the last war in my opinion to Truly be a "Our side pretty much are the Good guys, and Their side is pretty damn Bad". I deeply respect the men and women of the Greatest generation and all the bullshit they lived with, a great depression AND a horrifying global war against fucking real global conquest villains

File: Patton.jpg (32KB, 395x452px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 395x452px

>>33401901
Honestly the only thing we did wrong was not take the Commies out as soon as the Germans surrendered

>ywn see a mighty American Empire without all the marxist subversion and SJW bullshit

We let Patton down guys

>>33400321
post it

>>33395534
IF the enemies in question were uniformed, lawful combatants who obey international law, Michael would be absolutely right. However, the Taliban are unlawful combatants to begin with, AND they commit what would normally be considered war crimes all the time (mainly perfidy and targeting of civilians), either of which would be sufficient criteria for them to forfeit any protections they would otherwise be entitled to as a civilian or a lawful combatant.

File: tumblr_ma7mt55B3q1qzqt8do3_500.gif (976KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 500x250px

>>33401913
true... but I'm sure everyone was just fucking tired of war by the end. At the very least our Marines are still insane, our Navy is by far the biggest, and we've got better tech. Once Gen Z comes up I think we're gonna have a nationalistic renaissance, and with that comes renewed military pride. Libtards can get bent, having a bitching military is a huge matter of pride and respect when it comes to my patriotism.

>>33395608
Its not a war crime if you are the victor

>>33401182

>T. Fruity cuck

>>33400321
How about the one of the squad of Bongs getting surprised by a raghead hidden in a trench at like 15 yards, gunning him down and then the bong with the helmet cam jumping into the trench and bayoneting the wounded raghead while grunting "Fookin cunt"
IIRC he got in trouble for that one, though

>>33396385

That's what we were taught. That, and if laying an ambush to leave no survivors.

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it'll be over.

>>33402030
>The crueler it is, the sooner it'll be over.
history says otherwise

>>33401816
>Couldn't the Germans have left Japan to its own device once they fucked up and bombed Pearl Harbor?
No, because USA was already opposed to Germany and was always going to be, so Germany needed to support Japan in opposing USA to provide an extra front to weaken USA.

Germany was making itself the world super-power, USA wasn't having any of that, only room for one on the top of the hill. USA was already aiding the allies under-the-table for a long time, Japan attacked USA because it was inevitable that open warfare would occur. There was already a whole bunch of covert naval shit going on anyway.

>>33402052
Clearly Sherman could not predict the MIC becoming as powerful as it is.

>>33401885
>as was the war with japan after we cut off their main oil supply
Is this Germany's oil supply in Iraq or Japan's? I haven't read anything about the latter.

File: 1474093886301.jpg (42KB, 428x960px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 428x960px

>>33402065
maybe with Jap subs spying on Pearl before hand. You forget that America on the whole wanted NOTHING to do with the war and criticized FDR for pushing towards a larger Navy in 1940. If Japan backed the fuck off us, and if Germany had just waited to invade Russia, I have no doubt Germany would have conquered most of the world along with Japan in its Axis to the East. America and Canada both would have to deal with a massive invasion soon after Britain was pacified. Since we wouldn't have given a fuck about defense since Japan hadn't attacked us, it's far too late to awaken the Giant once the German's and Japanese invade in tandem on both coasts. If it wasn't for the Japanese sneak attack and foolish German invasion of Russia in the winter.... guaranteed we'd be speaking German right now. That's how unique WWII was, the entire fucking world was Actually in danger.

>>33396673
In WW2 they basically shot every non-ally corpse they ran across, just to be sure, according to The Deadly Brotherhood

Has the US even signed the Geneva convention?

>>33402695
>Has the US even signed the Geneva convention?
Where were you educated?

Yes, US signed GC. Also Hague but not all of it.

>>33401511
They also took a shitton of Japanese skulls and gold teeth, which is hard to imagine happening today. In turn, the Japanese had few qualms about "war crimes" themselves. Really, reading about the Pacific War drives the point home that war is hell, probably because if you're from the West you aren't as familiar with it as the European theater.

>>33401816
>Must've been shitty, having to shoot at people who looked like you, lived in house like you, and had a somewhat similar culture as you
I've heard this sentiment from Americans before and I believe it to be naive. If there is another Great War the local men in Central-Eastern Europe at least will be a lot more enthusiastic about an opportunity to shoot some fuckers from their neighboring countries than some weirdos from across the globe. European politicians go on and on about "hate" for Muslims or whatever, but the truth is that there is only one TRUE hate in Europe, and it's the Europeans' hate for each other.

>>33396750
What the fuck are you talking about? US prisoners taken by the Serbs were treated well, so good in fact they sent letters back to the guards thanking them.

>>33395534
>a Brit being a cuck
are you expecting us to be surprised?
personally, I draw the line at whether they are white or not

>>33395534
String them up and have the new guys execute them so they get a feeling for shooting a human being and become stronger

>>33398168
The Geneva Convention is there for a reason. It protects both soldiers and civilians. However, the type of enemy we fight do not abide, and aren't protected by the conventions.
It would be perfectly legal to use hollow points (criminal combatants) tear gas, (again) and to WALL the motherfuckers.
There is a reason Hezbollah have uniforms and answer to a chain of command, this grants you protection and allows the Israelis to tell non-com's from fighters.

>>33398501
By having a units of political officers (Commissar's) or having death squads/secret police (SS/NKVD) that have absolute authority over both civilians and military.

>>33406273
Sounds like a shit regime to live under.

The "Marine A" trial invovled them shooting a downed Taliban fighter after already taking the area, and physically moving his body to get out of the way of air observation.

They wound him in the fight and then drag him away and shoot him.

The 11B is talking about extra rounds in downed enemies while they're taking ground.

That brit is dumb and should look up "false equivalency"

>>33397009
>If the population turns against you. Kill the population.
Would you advocate China do that if they invaded the US?

>>33397970

POG-a-licious

>>33398453

Post CAC or 214.

>>33396708
/thread

The mere concept of a 'war crime' is nonsense. I hope the mudslimes burn Geneva to the ground.

>>33401672
you have to be 18 to post here you fucking summerfag