Would you kill a surrendering enemy?

Would you kill a surrendering enemy?

Other urls found in this thread:

liveleak.com/view?i=2af_1477834928&comments=1
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Depends who is surrendering and if my command cares or not.

t. Former ArmyBro

no of course not, that's for later

If they were Chinese

Yes if they were not white.

less baggage, of course kill

>These jap bants

The Ministry of Banter should give you a raise

After some torturing to see if they know anything,

If I kill them, they win

Maybe

White : no
Yellow: maybe
Shit : Right fucking now

Muslims yes
Anyone else no

After torturing them for information that would lead to more captives. Rinse and repeat.

for sure

>White : no
Still believe that?

In the heat of battle if I had been shot at or there was still possibly another enemy around I would shoot, it's kill or be killed.

I would cut their hands off and send them back to suck up all the welfare.

Only if they were commies

Yes, it would be cruel to make them live with the shame of cowardice. Better they die as soldiers than live as cowards.

If AUFer yes

...

i would say its a war crime, but im an American

Why do you ask this everyday OP?

Right on mate ;^)

this right here is what i call cultural appropriation

It depends. Are the International MSM watching?

What are labor and re-education camps?
I think all the lost should be given a chance atleast

if ww2 japs yes
if ww2 jerrys no

only of they were white

Only commies or brown ones... and being brown starts around the middle of Italy as point of origin going south.

If I could get away with it, then yes.

If you still think all white people are good, then you need to get out more.

no, its dishonorable.

I would shoot them in the legs and the gut and leave them to die slowly.

see
Tagged the wrong person

Depends on who's with me and who are the ones that surrendered.

Ordinary boots get a free pass while officers get the lead.

>my grandpappy was a farmer and one time the communist bandits went down and rummaged for food
>Gramps gave them what they want but he refused to give the gold ring he had
>One bandit shoots him on the leg and takes it
>Recuperates for awhile then leads fellow farmers
>Actually drives away bandits
>Catches bandit that stole his ring
>Demands his ring back
>Bandit says no
>Gramps shoots him on both of his legs
>Gommies never bother their barrio again

At least he gave me his M1 carbine before he kicked the bucket.

No, when a guy surrenders he's out of it there's no need to make war already worse than it is

If they were nazis if would beat the shit out of the and fuck them to death after that

Depends on the time and place.

In the middle of enemy territory and all you have is a squad?
Yes, we can't support them with our supplies and if they escape they'll tell their commander and kill us. I'd give them a last worldly comfort, say a prayer for them, and do it quick and painless.

In your territory?
No, we'd capture them. Your enemy is not the people of other nations, but their governments. Just like our own.

If White, no

>Depends who is surrendering
This. If they killed my buddy I would be too pissed.

yes
fuck paperwork

depends if they were drafted or if they willingly signed up

Really really depends on who they are and why they're my enemy, how hot my blood is at the time, impossible to answer

you catch more flies with honey, so yes.

depends if it's safe to do so. if theres a chance it isnt going to be in the best interests of the mission and your team, fuck it. but if you want to win a war you should take prisoners as a long term strategy.

taking prisoners is good for information, to make it far more likely that your enemies will surrender in the future it helps to appear as though you will treat them well. it also disrupts enemy battle plans in a big way because they become compromised when you take their people alive, they dont know who is going to go turncoat. great for propaganda too.

Reminder we have this thread every fucking day

Keep them alive for "questioning."

>Officers get lead
Instead of interegation? Are you retarded?

No, that would be a cowardly act.

No, that only encourages others to fight to the death when word gets around that you don't accept surrender. Assuming you meant a war scenario, of course.

If it was a commie/leftist/liberal or a jew, definitely. No reason for them to live anyways.

liveleak.com/view?i=2af_1477834928&comments=1

>What are labor and re-education camps?
Why not use that on brown people as well then?

those are czechs :^)

>Finland
>not admitting your hatred for commies trumps national socialism and that your finnish SS unit was one of the most deadly combat units on the eastern front

If I can get away with it, yes.

You can't just try to kill me, then call 'time out' when it doesn't go your way. If you're going to surrender, do it BEFORE shooting at me. If you try to kill me, fuck you, you're dieing if you lose. Don't want to die? Don't try to kill me or the people I'm with, then.

WOW LOOK ITS THIS FUCKING THREAD AGAIN
-EVERY PAGE 1 THREAD FOR THE PAST WEEK

You should try your best to not create an enemy who has nothing to lose.

Kek bants

>every soldier in a communist army is a communist

you will kill a closeted christian

If he's non-white.

No.
Lets be white about this, please.

if your a soldier you have to kill people anyways so it doesnt really matter, imo they're just added tallymarks and the more tallymarks you have the faster you win the war

Only after using them to build a train track or two of course.

The Spartans never did because they wanted to encourage more people to do it.

Question NCO's and above then execute.

All ranks below get sent to labor camps.

true

Depends.

But in most circumstances, not at all.

Depends if they are really my enemy

I wouldn't have the guts, too empathetic

No. If you kill them, they win. It's a trick.

Keyword "enemy"

You should have said "would you kill surrendering innocent dindus who just happen to have made a few bad choices in life and would like to immigrate to america to find a better lot in life and give you a hug"

No. Mercy and hospitality are virtues of western culture. We shouldn't allow people to take advantage of these virtues but nor should we abandon them.

Of course.

No one surrenders, they just dropped their weapons.

commies: with extreme prejudice
non-whites: yes
whites: never

have a rare sniper for your trouble

This. If they are obviously evil or need to be killed, kill them.

>Brazillians
>empathic
Go ahead Pedro, pull the other leg.

...

Communists, Hungayrians or Mudslimes i would shoot them right on spot no mercy.

But the white christians would have you executed without blinking, for killing the peope who want to kill them. Because they fear nothing more than one of their own.

I won't kill my brothers in arm

It depends entirely on the circumstances.

Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
Let them live user. Is that lowly soldier, who has no idea what he is fighting for, the real enemy.

In an open battle?
Yes - to encourage people to surrender faster in the future.

After a taking a defended location?
No - kill them all to encourage people to surrender faster in the future and not engage from a defended position.

The purpose of accepting surrenders is to make things easier on yourself in the future by being known as someone who takes surrenders. An enemy with no option to surrender will fight harder (sun tzu's death ground).

On the other hand strong defensive fortifications are a REAL hassle to an enemy, and assaulting them are often a major cost. To discourage this sort of behavior any defensive position will receive an offer to surrender at the outset, if they dont take it you kill everyone inside, no exceptions. While this will cause the assault to perhaps be even more costly in this instance, it was already going to be costly and the benefit of some such positions surrendering outright in the future - particularly if you have a reputation of treating prisoners well - will save you more resources in the longrun.

Hahahahha you have been reading too much of the jew book. If someone tries to kill you do you give them a second chance at doing it? That's just stupid. Enjoy heaven, loser.

are they jewish?

This plus gypsys i would kill those fucks,no matter if they are women,children and even no threat i wuould still kill them.

(czech'd)
it's better to kill an innocent guy than to leave a commie alive

Gypsies are the worst scum in the world. They leave huge messes were ever they go, they breed like rats, steal, rape and murder form their host countries.

Probably not. Unless they had a track record of betrayal.

>not politics related

It's really about perspective, if I completely hate him, his nation, and his ideology then yeah. But if he has the same view for me then I'm forced to kill him.

That's the issue with religious and ideological wars. It's different if it's between two democrarcies/kingdoms/empires they are most likely just doing their job, same with me.

>Would you kill a surrendering enemy?

...

Matthew is in the New Testament. I would hope you would enjoy it as well.

OK.

Kill two in horrifying fashion and send the other home to spread word.

This

Not if I can take them prisoner. Even then, there may be a method they can use to communicate with a larger group. I'm reminded of the SEALs who came across a goat herder in Afghanistan and decided to let him go, which ultimately led to an ambush. So I would definitely take them prisoner, completely search them, interrogate them, and see if I can extract them. If I can't, then I have to kill them. You can't take chances with things like that. With today's technology who the hell knows - maybe they are being tracked by their side, maybe they are deft at escape. Too many maybes. In wartime unfortunately you may have to kill them.

Yes. The enemy is eternal. Only death makes sure they'll never fight you again