Would you kill a surrendering enemy Sup Forums?

Would you kill a surrendering enemy Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XvHEUxIok00
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

All the more reason to

I have respect for the Geneva conventions, my man.

If they were muslim because you cant take the risk of a fucking suicide bomber

No degenerate move

Not if they're French.

In some situations it could happen.

Depends on so many factors
A defensive war? Yes
Blowing up someone else's country? No
Traitor/spy? Yes
Commie? Yes

I'm gonna find myself in a saving private ryan situation, so yes

I'll do what I'm told, but if it's capture alive I'd do that. If whatever waste em.

>tfw everybody here is in the einsatzkommando

I won't hurt you either when you tell me to cover your retreat and let me deal with the enemy alone.

If it is a commie, helicopter ride.

I'd tell them to lay down so I can fulton

depends if they are human or an ape or a parasite

In the heat of battle yea. If it is clear victory then no.

It depends entirely on the circumstance.

Sometimes you can't afford to take any prisoners.

If they're White or Asian?
No.
Because they're much more likely to behave.

Nigger or Mudslime?
Kill on sight.

Hispanic?
Case by case basis.

It depends entirely on the context of the situation and, even then, I won't be the same person I am now after fighting in in war for any period of time. I have no idea what I'd do. If I thought the person was a threat to me or any of my allies, and I was already shell shocked, I might do it even if it meant gunning down a child soldier.

No. That's just a bitch move.

He just surrendered.
Why waste ammo on a non-combatant enemy?

are they human? or nigger/muslim?

Of course. War is war and they made the decision to fight, I would expect the same treatment

>shoot them

The stock of a rifle is strong enough to cave a mans head in

As long as food and shelter are not in short supply an enemy would be more useful alive and anyone who disagrees is a moron.

>Suicide bomber
If you weren't sure you should have already killed them.

Pssshhh, no.

Depends on my orders, if I couldn't feed them probably.

Killing anything surrendering, regardless of who or what it is, is a savage and barbaric move.

Depends. I would make a WWPD? (What Would Punisher Do?) check.

Of course. I'm in the "with your shield or on it" camp. If he's such a coward he'd surrender he'll be a disgrace when he gets home.

Are they Lawful combatants? IE have a Uniform and are answerable to their own military command and by extendsion their government?

in that case no I would not kill them.

Everyone else is getting a foot of cold steel though.

A soldier from a European country no, unless he is a commie or a traitor.

If you can't feed them, you have to let them go.

I worked for the ICRC, bitch.

>you have to let them go.
Says who?

If I did not have the means or the manpower to capture him and continue on with my objective, as is more often than not the case in real war.

I'd like to think I would, but it's an unfair to judge.

I've been listening to Hardcore History, Ghosts of the Ostfront specifically. It made me really think that most of use are absolutely capable of committing the worst things imaginable.

Non-combatants = Civilians [Basically]

I hope you're not implying killing civilians.

Seriously and unironically: it depends.

But for the most part

If you kill surrendering enemies, it becomes a lot harder to have other enemies that know of you to surrender.

For example, Erwin Rommel fought a "war without hate" and even thought he lost the North African campaign, he lost it gracefully and is remembered as a decent person.

Prisoners cost resources and time. War has need for the conservation of both.

Nothing wrong with killing civilians. We wouldn't have won ww2 if we had current ROE holding our military back.

The 3rd Geneva convention, Part II & III.

This, not gonna run the risk of getting killed for my generosity. Safer to kill them.

Don't be nasty, they got some french out of the beaches too.

>Nothing wrong with killing civilians

That was before 1949.
Things change, laws are made.

If they are non-combatants then I wouldn't need to have them surrender or not in the first place.

I should Also add that even if they are Legal Combatants the safety of myself and my troops takes priority over accepting surrender. If I cannot in good conscious believe that I can preserve my men by taking the surrender of those who would do my men, then I won't and they will have to be killed or have the threat they represent neutralized in some manner.

Who gives a shit what that has to say? It's not like some park ranger will emerge from the bushes in the middle of a warzone and arrest you for not following a specific set of rules and etiquette for battle.

>it becomes a lot harder to have other enemies that know of you to surrender.
So, it will teach your enemies to fight honorably? Good, it's a lesson they should learn. No soldier of any worth would surrender. A soldier fights, either until he dies or the fighting is over.
And who gives a shit about that?

> Reverse img search
> Soldier (1998)

What's that from op?

Your country signed that convention.

We're not fucking beasts.

In general no, but there are situations where you can't take the risk.

That's silly. Many veterans say that they could have wiped out terrorists in Iraq if they had been allowed to really fuck shit up. But they couldn't because "muh civilian casualties"

War is war. Why not go all out and prioritize American lives over foreign ones? What's the worst that will happen?

No, because then they'd win.

If it was a Muslim yes

If it was a 1st/2nd world countrymen than I probably wouldn't

>Americans justifying killing civilians
kek It's always an American.

Why do you want innocent people suffer?
They're not even combatants, they just civilians.

Just think this way, the next time it could be you. You deserve dignity, even in war.

War is merely politics by other means. To commit violence outside of that scope is cold and meaningless and would hurt politics outside of the scope of war.

>War is war. Why not go all out and prioritize American lives over foreign ones? What's the worst that will happen?

There is no punishment for committing a war crime except this: reciprocity.

A nation that consistently follows the laws of wars, in general, can expect to be treated according to them.

If a country is truly invincible, it needs no regards for this.

But unironically, unedgily, the United States of America is not invincible.

But on the other hand, breaking those laws can be entirely valid if the enemies are going to be savages anyway.

But I think in general, you ought to respect the laws of war when fighting an enemy similar to you.

If strictly hypothetically the United States fights Canada, I think it would make sense to follow the laws of war.

>fight to the death

In most cases that would be a waste of resources, you would be burning up human capital that takes literally decades to produce for in most cases minimal gains. with Modern weapons of war there cannot realistically be another Battle of the 300.

Better to allow the other side to surrender so that you don't have to murder all of them to get them to stop fighting; if you can gain temporary overwhelming tactical superiority over an enemy force and surrender is on the table then you can remove that enemy force from the field of battle with minimal losses to your own troops and use of your own military supplies.

>this nigger doesn't know to always leave a way of escape open for his enemies so that they flee rather than fighting to the last man and causing you a lot of unnecessary attrition

I want to end their suffering, not prolong it. We're talking about simple euthanasia here ese.

Besides, look what happens to US troops when they get captured. Fight fire with fire, I say.

I think our current rules are dumb. I hear stories of dudes shooting at marines with RPGs and the next day are smiling and waving at them. The marines aren't allowed to kill them. Like wtf?

No, as much as I'd like to, but if nothing else, mercy is the greatest act a man can do and be compared to God.

Well, terrorist aren't covered under the Geneva conventions

Because some civvies shouldn't get in the way of our military campaigns. I'm not talking about going out and killing them but not being afraid to level a city BECAUSE they will die

BOYS

Yeah, I can see a distinction.

Nuking a city to utterly flatten and destroy it, killing everyone inside as a consequence, by some measures, I'm "meh" with it.

But what I really trying to say is that go out of your way rounding up random non-combatant people and killing them "to make an example" to the rest of the populace - I think in the long run, there is no purpose to it except imaginary catharsis and wank.

Agree with all that you say, but to win wars you must break the will of your enemy.

That is the ultimate goal in any battle, at any tactical, strategic or 'grand strategic' level making the enemy population submit is the endgame. Not the Army, not the politicians, but the people as a whole must give up.

You cannot end wars if you only ever target the replaceable males being sent tot he front, the population back home must directly feel the costs of war for them to truely surrender. And this is why we will not beat Radical Islam with our current RoEs. Until we (The West) force Islam or any other militant ideology to face the certainty of its own annihilation if it does not change its path then we will never win, Islam has not changed for 1400 years, if they were going to change on their own they would have by now.

It will take bombings of their cities, not a couple smart bombs, but Dresden 2: Extra Big Kaboom to force Islam into its Reformation.

And if they will not change with that Threat hanging over them, then we kill them all and rest easy knowing they they had no hope of changing no matter what we did or said and the world is a better place without any of them.

No if enemy is White.

Yes if any other race.

If he was a jew, then yes.

Depends on the enemy

And I agree with the general spirit of that: you must break their spirit.

The question is, how do you break their spirit?

After two nukes, Japan has been a friend and ally to the United States, but in contrast, when Japan did the Nanjing Massacre, to this very day, China and Japan hate each other so much it affects politics.

You must break their will in such a way that reason, not bitterness, floods them. If you must commit atrocities, you ought to make them impersonal.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese went full "Shou ga nai", "nothing could be done."

But after Nanjing, the Chinese hate the Japanese more than dogs.

But back to the main topic of the question, I think in general, if the enemy is an average person merely forced to pick up arms against you, it would not be ideal to slaughter him in surrender.

So if terrorists get killed, I wouldn't complain that much.

But if it's a militia that is there to prevent looting of their neighbourhoods or just want to be left alone, we ought to respect their surrender.

Probably depends on how much combat I've seen/how pissed I was at that moment.

Depends how many of my Brothers he killed.

...

Agreed, there is a difference; the Japanese did more than just kill all those chinese, they gave a face to the hate. Compared to Bombings where at best you can see a plane; when you have troops marching neighborhood blocks out and raping and murdering them, you see the person who is doing it, you have a face upon which you can fasten your rage and fury and hate.

When engaging in 'total war' it should still be as impersonal as possible, you should minimized any personal contact between your soldiers and the enemy population.

If people are forming Militias then that means the war was over (the militias would have been folded into the military and given a uniform), ditto for looting.

But I agree on accepting surrenders on people who just want to be left alone, but who do you prove that?

If they're white.

Happy to help if you could hold the line for 5 fucking minutes

Based on the facts and circumstances of that particular case; not every gun owner in the United States keeps them to fight an invading army, but merely to protect their homes. So it really depends.

Of course I would. The history of my country has taught me that no matter how nice you are to your enemy, if you lose he'll screw you over.

> no matter how nice you are to your enemy

> starves and beats Russian POWs

Not only was that an unnecessary jab to make at me, but I'm legitimately hurt that you'd reply to my kind statement like that.

Next time I won't be airdropping you any Sten Guns.

That's what your bayonet is for

Plz don't post Shay or his family on here. They are better than us all.

Assholes
That's why I won't join the army, faggots like that exist

All of this, as well as your supply line. Can you afford to feed them? If not, might as well kill them quickly than let them starve.

Yup. No problem

I'don't expect to be treated well by AIPAC controlled burgers or slaveshits (or the nignigs of swedish caliphate).

so no.

But thanks to the advent of Fulton Recovery, you can now extract men from the field.

These men will be at Mother Base waiting for assignment once you've returned.

>checks flag

Excuses, excuses.

Depends on whether or not they're the enemy or the opponent.
Muslims, for example, deserve no mercy.

>kill a surrendering enemy

Needs context. This isn't black or white, it's a wide-spectrum gray scale. There are circumstances in which I probably would. Other circumstances, I would never.

Just about the most basic question that would need to be answered: Just how sincere is the act of "surrender?" Someone using it as a ruse or a deception, I'd lose a whole lot less sleep over it if I killed him.

If you're talking about civilians, then men, or women, or children or elderly or wounded ... context is everything. That's what makes us human (or not). I like to think that I'd still be human enough to make solid judgement calls on context & circumstance.

If I' d just watched an enemy soldier execute some of my wounded comrades, then he turned to me, threw his weapon down and held his hands up with a white flag, chances are pretty high I'd snuff him on the spot without twitching or hesitating.

If I found a wounded enemy soldier who was unarmed and trying to help one of our guys who was wounded - or even if he was armed and made no effort to go for his weapon or present a threat - I'd judge he was still a human & accept his surrender.

As you can imagine, there are a shitload of other circumstances that you may or may not be aware of, You just have to make your best judgement.

Saw a movie once, can't remember much, but a bunch of "our guys" were behind enemy lines. During their mission they ended up wearing enemy uniforms to complete the mission & otherwise survive. At the end, only 2 guys are left alive, and their position is being over run by "our guys." They wait until the main combat passes them, make sure they don't have any weapons, then step out in front of a U.S. soldier with hands up & in plain English say "we surrender." Then the U.S. soldier mows them down with a machine gun burst.

It's a movie, but I can see that scenario as more than possible on any battlefield. I'd always be keeping that in mind. And, POWs are an intelligence resource.

I was going to make fun of you, then I saw you were a surrender monkey.

>Blowing up someone else's country? No

even if you're blowing up roachistan?

Cross of iron.

youtube.com/watch?v=XvHEUxIok00

2:28

>someone else
Are you implying roaches are people?

Depends what they did. If they just came out and surrendered no. If they just got done killing my mates than fuck em

Because if you target civilians you loose your moral high ground and become a fucking terrorist.

War is just terrorism between states and on a grand scale.

(((Geneva)))

Yes but if shit gets to drag for years to the point where taking POW isnt a viable option, mite as well shot them to not cross them .

Oops i meant "No but if..."