Would you kill a surrendering enemy /pol/?
All the more reason to
I have respect for the Geneva conventions, my man.
>>77783331
If they were muslim because you cant take the risk of a fucking suicide bomber
>>77783331
No degenerate move
Not if they're French.
>>77783331
In some situations it could happen.
>>77783331
Depends on so many factors
A defensive war? Yes
Blowing up someone else's country? No
Traitor/spy? Yes
Commie? Yes
>>77783331
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
>>77783494
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
>>77783331
depends if they are human or an ape or a parasite
In the heat of battle yea. If it is clear victory then no.
>>77783331
It depends entirely on the circumstance.
Sometimes you can't afford to take any prisoners.
>>77783331
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.
>>77783331
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.
>>77783331
No. That's just a bitch move.
He just surrendered.
Why waste ammo on a non-combatant enemy?
>>77783331
are they human? or nigger/muslim?
>>77783331
Of course. War is war and they made the decision to fight, I would expect the same treatment
>>77784102
>shoot them
The stock of a rifle is strong enough to cave a mans head in
>>77783331
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.
>>77783331
Depends. I would make a WWPD? (What Would Punisher Do?) check.
>>77783331
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.
>>77783331
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.
>>77784310
If you can't feed them, you have to let them go.
I worked for the ICRC, bitch.
>>77784720
>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.
>>77784399
Non-combatants = Civilians [Basically]
I hope you're not implying killing civilians.
>>77783331
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.
>>77783331
Prisoners cost resources and time. War has need for the conservation of both.
>>77784992
Nothing wrong with killing civilians. We wouldn't have won ww2 if we had current ROE holding our military back.
>>77784918
The 3rd Geneva convention, Part II & III.
>>77783946
This, not gonna run the risk of getting killed for my generosity. Safer to kill them.
>>77783764
Don't be nasty, they got some french out of the beaches too.
>>77785070
>Nothing wrong with killing civilians
That was before 1949.
Things change, laws are made.
>>77784992
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.
>>77785178
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.
>>77785030
>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.
>>77785178
And who gives a shit about that?
> Reverse img search
> Soldier (1998)
What's that from op?
>>77785296
Your country signed that convention.
We're not fucking beasts.
In general no, but there are situations where you can't take the risk.
>>77785269
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?
>>77783331
No, because then they'd win.
>>77783331
If it was a Muslim yes
If it was a 1st/2nd world countrymen than I probably wouldn't
>>77785495
>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.
>>77785328
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.
>>77785495
>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.
>>77785328
>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.
>>77785328
>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
>>77785728
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.
>>77785735
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?
>>77783331
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.
>>77783415
Well, terrorist aren't covered under the Geneva conventions
>>77785728
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
>>77783814
BOYS
>>77786206
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.
>>77785735
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.
>>77783331
No if enemy is White.
Yes if any other race.
>>77783331
If he was a jew, then yes.
>>77783331
Depends on the enemy
>>77786442
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.
>>77783331
Probably depends on how much combat I've seen/how pissed I was at that moment.
>>77783331
Depends how many of my Brothers he killed.
>>77783370
>>77786824
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?
>>77783331
If they're white.
>>77783764
Happy to help if you could hold the line for 5 fucking minutes
>>77787617
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.
>>77783331
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.
>>77788058
> no matter how nice you are to your enemy
> starves and beats Russian POWs
>>77783764
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.
>>77784102
That's what your bayonet is for
>>77783415
Plz don't post Shay or his family on here. They are better than us all.
>>77783370
>>77783595
>>77783563
>>77783640
>>77783814
>>77783917
>>77783946
Assholes
That's why I won't join the army, faggots like that exist
>>77783595
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.
>>77783331
Yup. No problem
>>77783331
I'don't expect to be treated well by AIPAC controlled burgers or slaveshits (or the nignigs of swedish caliphate).
so no.
>>77783814
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.
>>77788255
>checks flag
Excuses, excuses.
Depends on whether or not they're the enemy or the opponent.
Muslims, for example, deserve no mercy.
>>77783331
>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.
>>77788255
I was going to make fun of you, then I saw you were a surrender monkey.
>>77783595
>Blowing up someone else's country? No
even if you're blowing up roachistan?
>>77788634
Cross of iron.
>>77785356
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvHEUxIok00
2:28
>>77789173
>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
>>77785495
Because if you target civilians you loose your moral high ground and become a fucking terrorist.
>>77789973
War is just terrorism between states and on a grand scale.
>>77783415
(((Geneva)))
>>77783331
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 .
>>77791451
Oops i meant "No but if..."
>>77783331
Of course not!
That would be called executing. I would execute a surrendering enemy.
>>77783331
A westerner? No. Unless they were a lefty. Can't trust those.
A mudslime? Yes. Can't trust those. The moment they think they can they're going to try and kill you.
>>77783949
>Asian
the mother fucker is probably booby traped
you've learned nothing from WW2 and Vietnam
>>77788255
like the army needs you
>>77783331
literally only if they were a muslim since then I'd be worried they'd set off a suicide vest when I went to secure them
Depends on how the surrender-er acts
If they're acting calm and just casually surrendering then i'm gonna shoot 'em because they're plotting some shit
If they're panicking and showing visible signs of distress and has the look of "please don't fucking kill me" then i'll spare 'em, of course i'd tell them to drop the weapon and run for their fucking life, so i'm watching my own back
>>77788255
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKtCVblxDRc
Your ancestors are ashamed.
>>77789581
btw later in the movie the captain makes two prisoners in a hole, and they try to stab him when he lowered his attention
Depends on how much they took from me.
>>77792585
damn
108th post, best post
>>77783331
Look I washed for supper.
>>77783331
Not if they're white.
Hell, at this point I would refuse to fight fellow whites at all, there will be few enough of us as it is.
If they're a commie, partisan, traitor, or come from an uncivilized country such as Russia or China, shoot them on sight.
If they're from a civilized country that will follow established protocols on PoW treatment, then no.
Of course this is in conventional war, there are no surrenders in a race war.
>>77788255
Don't worry, you'll always be on the surrendering side.
>>77785379
>your country
>we're not
O.o
>>77792732
I'd exclude leftists from that, otherwise I agree. We may hate each other quite often but ultimatively we're all under attack by the same leftists, globalists and outsiders and we're all in tremendous danger of outright vanishing.
>>77793890
>I'd exclude leftists from that
Dude I bet most of us here where leftists until accidentally discovering the truth. Tell the extreme left who is the real oppressor, what the end goal looks like and the will become 14 88! Make leftists watch tgsnt and I bet 80% can be converted! They are only leftists because of (((lies))) about a fake utopia
>>77783331
so many fucking kids in this thread
you autistic faggots wouldn't kill shit
90% of you would pussy out even if you intend to do it
and if some of you morons are stupid enough to actually kill the surrendered enemy then you are just bringing shame to your country by committing a crime and you are sentencing your own captured comrade to death who you could have traded in prisoner exchange
>>77794109
Which is why Breivik is a retard.
>>77794268
Serbia speaks the truth
>>77794444
that's because we've tasted war unlike some wannabe soldiers here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFI0283dVZg
>>77794444
checked
quads confirm
>>77783331
only if ordered
just like how every soldier decides what to do
>>77794751
>US soldiers are ordered to rape and murder civilians and pillage towns
doubt it
>>77794109
We were but we came around on our own, which doesn't hold true for them. If they don't come around on their own and way before it's a situation where you about to shoot them because they tried to murder you and sided with another group in a war then they're lost causes.
You can't save everyone, trying to do so only makes you lose those whom you could save also.
>>77794268
This only works if you're fighting humans, in most of the future conflicts YOU AREN'T. Mudslimes for example, you rather want to be shot than to be taken prisoner by them no matter your gender. Take a moment and look at ISIS.
Same goes for leftists, these people aren't simply fighting for their country and people. They're fighting for an ideology. An ideology which will never stop, never be peacefull, never try and subvert everyone you love and care about and destroy it.
They wont let you live, they'll march you off to a Gulag and simply kill you slowly. While they set about their tasks of destroying everything that isn't them without you around.
>>77783331
Yes, no need to spend resources and manpower upkeeping them.
>>77788255
T'es bien naïf mon coco.
Je suis militaire et je préfère me tirer un balle plutôt que capturer par les talib ou des gat.
De toute façon, c'est toujours mieux que se faire décapiter sur al jazeera
>>77783331
If it was a leftist, nigger, commie, invader, traitor, muslim, jew or shitskin than yes.
>>77783331
Well I wouldn't turn my back on them if I had nothing to constrain them with like cuffs or something, so I probably would kill them.
>>77795080
As I've always said, you never know what your enemy will do to you, either don't partake, or die if you're in a bad bad situation.
>>77783331
"perfidy"
google it and think about why it's a bad thing to do it.
I mean, I could make an internet tough guy American post and be like
>"Oh, I'd just 1-shot them with my tactical katana to save ammo...hardyharhar"
but honestly, no. They'd have to keep approaching me after I told them to freeze, or do something weird like that in order for me to kill them after they'd supposedly surrendered. Not that I'd actually be in the government's army, acting as an extension of "The Beast", but even in a civil war or if (not gonna happen) the mainland were Red Dawn'd, I wouldn't be a total cunt.
The only way I'd kill prisoners is on a mass scale, in a command position. Let's say, we don't have the food or resources to keep them, or it's a matter of psychological warfare.
>>77795184
So, you're in the military and civil war breaks out. The government says they're foreign-backed separatists but they say they're fellow Americans against a tyrannical government. One comes out with his hands up (he's white with a small ski-jump nose)
What do you do?
>>77795534
separatists aren't human
>>77783331
>Would you kill a surrendering enemy /pol/?
depends on the enemy. if i fight against a civilized European nation, I will respect geneva conventions..if i fight against radical muslims, i would not respect geneva conventions..
>>77794268
Thank you, Serb-bro. We go on and on all day and night against cucks that and Jewish shills this and then turn armchair tyrant in one post. It's like in the past year, /pol/ turned into Joffrey Lannister with a bottle of Mountain Dew and an undeserved internet connection.
>>77795664
So, you choose Muslim immigrants, globalism, cultural, ethnic and gender destruction? You choose The Beast? Bear in mind, in the coming years Hillary Clinton WILL be President.
>>77783331
true story but I did not partake
>be me in afghan 2012
>roll down to afghan police station
>fuck off 117 radio on muh back
>LT is off talking with police chief about captured tali
>cop comes up to us
>point in room hits his knuckle to his palm
>I'm on radio, boys go in and brake their jaw and ribs with hard knuckle Oakley gloves on
>police gonna kill them anyway
>LT comes back with terp and one cop tries to rat us out
>"HAHA SUREEE my guys did it, thats complete bullshit one of your cops did this.
>mfw muh boys got away with war crimes
>>77795869
>if you choose one thing then you also choose the other
nice straw man, i don't have to like globalism or mass immigration to hate '''people''' who betray their country.
>>77783331
What kind of enemy?
>just a soldier
i would take them prisoner
>a commie
>an islamist
>a rapist
>a child killer
bullet in the head for ya
>>77796013
It sounds like if the government steers away from the interests of the people, betraying them for international or foreign interests, and then enacts laws contrary to the ideals and values of that country, it's actually the government and status quo who are the traitors. Now, to kill those hypothetical rebels would be an act of support for the other side. So, yes, that's what you're supporting.
>>77783331
If they were white, no
If they are not, yes
>>77796158
you can't kill something that isn't human. you simply dispose of it.
>It sounds like if the government steers away from the interests of the people,
there isn't a single government on earth that cares about the interests of it's people, chimping out and killing other average joes in a pointless war is about the stupidest thing you can do to combat that.
>>77788255
>France
>The post
I might stab them in the stomach. If it's a nigger I'm beating their head into a pulp.
>>77796020
What about a downed bomber pilot, when you just saw the result of an air raid, a destroyed apartment building with dozens of civilian casualties? Bear in mind, he tells you that he was told it was a fortified position full of your guys.
If they are cowards, kill/capture them.
If they look me in the eye with respect, they live to fight another day.
>>77783814
You're bringing him?
>>77796230
But in a Civil war, these are your countrymen. Even if they're foreign, they're still human. Now, a government doesn't have to care but it is obligated to make peace with being beholden to the people. If it won't, then rebellion is necessity. Ultimately, the people decide if the government is fit or not.
Now, you're the one talking about killing "average joes" for being separatists. These guys want the government deposed, not normal folk like you. You're countrymen, bear in mind, this is a civil war.
By your logic, we're not human for being Americans, and were in hte wrong for choosing self-representation over colonial status. I disagree.
>>77796301
You leave him to the civvies.
Whatever's left goes to the dogs.
>>77796301
Not if he doesnt fit any of the above categories. For example, if he is a turk he is probably lying anyway
>>77795247
upravo tako. kratko i jednostavno.
>>77783331
Only in Skyrim cause these assholes never really surrender
>>77796491
I tell you, when it comes to war, it's like you guys have the only constructive commentary.
>>77796494
Fair enough. I think it was Canadian pilots were using in Libya, they were told to bomb what they knew were civilian structures, and told their command to fuck off. Ironically, the quiet little Danes dropped more bombs for us than anyone else.
>>77796013
But by that logic you should side with the people trying to overthrow the government. Because similar to most European ones, yours is currently acting AGAINST the very country and it's people. By aiding them you're i the one betraying your country and it's people.
>>77796020
>t. greek scum
>surrender
>implying this is acceptable behaviour
>implying an 'enemy' can truly surrender
>implying the threat can neutralise itself
yes
>>77783331
>implying i'm shooting the soldier and not the equipment he's wearing
Destroy and deny, naturally. :^)
>>77786824
I think this mostly has to do with China winning a defensive war and Japan losing it. The Chinese government had decades to portray the Nanking massacre in propaganda, whilst the Japs were occupied and were forced to take over the American narrative.
>>77788255
A
FUCKING
FROG
>>77783331
If it was a non-white enemy
I will never fight against my white brothers. We have done enough of that
>>77783331
Depends on the situation.
When you are in combat and some fag wants to surrender while under fire hell no, you are in bigger danger dying yourself by getting shot at.
Do they all surrender and a fight doesn't happen in any close proximity and your life isn't really endangered, absolutely.
