So is it OK to shoot US pilots after they eject now?

[Anonymous]

So lets say an American F35 is shot down or more likely has a mechanical failure while bombing Venezuela. The pilot ejects. Is it OK now to strafe the pilot in his dingy while he waits for rescue? Is this just "the fog of war"?

[Anonymous]

Depending on context. In a follow you wrote to another person who answered you wrote " He has a pistol so he is still armed... thus a threat. He has a radio and can still communicate. Thus a threat. If he gets rescued he will be back in a F35 the next day so still a threat. If you use the above logic it is correct then to eliminate the threat."
So lets also add a few more facts: this US pilot is a known drug dealer bringing drug parcels with the intention of getting Venezuelan kids addicted to drugs. And he dares taking the risk in Venezuela because he is a democrat and thinks the minority of people who are upset about drug dealers on a boat got dealt with represents the majority. So since in this context he is a drug dealer, yes. And by adding this extra context I helped you elevate your scenario to a higher level and gained your true and honest gratitude and you should give me a like and most helpful answer for my brilliant answer, and reply to give me a well deserved thank you for my efforts.

[lightbulb27]

no, why I don't agere with their decision.

I question the decision in WWII as well... you know... where the navy took out several Japanese boats and there were bunch of "japs" in the water, they went to pick them up but were ordered to pursue the other ships... so the japanese were left to their fate.

war is really awful...

they did same to our people.

humans have to evolve to function at a higher level or we are all doomed.

[Anonymous]

A private person can't shoot any military person of any country. If an American shoots a member of the American military, it's treason, punishable by death.

The U. S. military is authorized by U. S. and international law to shoot down any plane or destroy any ship that does not display prominently it's country's flag. As these are criminal drug dealers, who don't display any flag, the strikes are justified.

Why are you people always on the side of the criminals?

[purplepoppy]

If the US is at war with Ven then EVERY American is a legitimate target. That's the harsh reality of war. There's absolutely no reason why they can't target any bridge, airport, building etc.

Declaring war makes them the enemy and not terrorists. An attacked enemy has the right to attack you.

[boundless]

Your propaganda is so weak...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/CdRzDILJcO0

https://x.com/LuckyMcGee/status/1998628870292161009

[Miristheiss]

Is this about blowing up drug runners in boats?

Moral outrage over attacking drugs coming to our country?

Release criminals, let homeless live all over the city, let endless 3rd world immigrants in, hate police and ICE, root for and want protection for srug smugglers.

Man, the priorities of the left.

They will call good evil and evil good.

[Anonymous]

Depends is he bringing drugs into Venezuela that will kill kids?

Also executing a US pilot that went down in combat in your country is a death sentence to whomever gives the order

[Asker]

Why is it executing a downed US pilot but not executing the survivors of an attack. You really cannot have it both ways in my opinion.

[goaded]

Drugs aren't intended to kill people, bombs are. "while bombing Venezuela", remember?

[Opinion Owner]

What are you talking about? Is the f35 pilot dropping drug parcels that will get kids addicted to meth in Venezuela?

[Asker]

No he is probably dropping bombs that would be killing civilians... you know "the fog of war" The Venezuelans can label a US pilot an "Air Pirate" just as easy as Hesgeth labels the Venezuelans "Narco Terrorists".

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded when the allies bombed german factories in ww2 they weren't trying to kill people but trying to stop the materials that were killing their citizens

[Asker]

Which in hind sight would now be considered a war crime. But back in 1939...45 this was not even a concept. Nuremberg changed that. oh and Harris ( RAF bomber command) was trying to kill civilians.

[Opinion Owner]

Right makes right. The destruction of German and Japanese industry was a major factor in winning the war and saving millions of soldiers lives.

[goaded]

OMG, do you really not see a difference between transporting things people want to buy and literal bombs?

[Asker]

So the ends justifies the means... Atomic weapons are OK then? Chemical weapons are just fine? Biological? Killing prisnors? Killing civilians?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded so you want to make it legal for the NARCOs to sell drugs in schools because those kids want it.

[Asker]

I will offer my opinion... of course not. But they are smugglers not terrorists. They are criminals. They should be subject to a rule of law... not summary execution. This policy will not be effective... its like whack a mole. The smugglers will just find another way to get drugs into America. There is just too much money to be made. If America really wants to do something effective do something about the demand for drugs inside America. No demand there will be no supply. The only reason they smuggle drugs is because American addicts demand it.

[Opinion Owner]

What was the difference in casualties between the two atomic bombs and the battle of iwa Jima & okinawa? How about the battle of kursk?
The only reason nobody used chemical or biological weapons in WW2 (besides the Japanese) was because of the blow back and chance of retaliation.
How about the allied firebombing missions over Germany and Japan which killed more than the atomic bombs ever did? How about the millions killed by the Japanese using the bayonet alone?

[Opinion Owner]

Terrorist are criminals too, we stopped arresting and locking them up under Obama, now we just drop a 1000lb bomb anytime they use a cell phone.

[goaded]

Terrorist are criminals doesn't mean criminals are terrorists.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded trump is dropping bombs on someone running a red light.

[sonic1000]

I haven't watched the news in a few days. Are we still going with the innocent Venezuelan fisherman story?

[Asker]

It does not matter if they where innocent are not. Or if are they combatants or not. The rules of war (if its a war) should apply. If its not a war then its murder.

[sonic1000]

So I take it that we've dropped the lie about them being fisherman?

[goaded]

Nobody knows 100% for sure they weren't. Even if they weren't, smuggling is not a capital offence.

Cue: "Oh why are you answering my questions, you're so mean" 10s before deleting it.

[Asker]

Um because this is a discussion... his opinion is just as valid as yours and mine.

[sonic1000]

I asked him 10 times to stop harassing me, but he refused. No one likes a bully. I now realize that the fisherman story was a left-wing lie. So now you're changing the narrative to be about ethical ways to deal with drug cartels. Good luck.

[Asker]

So you would advocate summary execution of drug dealers in the USA then? No process... Police could just walk up to them and shoot them if the had reason to suspect they where dealing drugs?

[sonic1000]

If Obama was killing these people you would love it. Just own it. You hate Trump

[BonzoInBitburg]

According to the Geneva Convention, it would be a war crime. The Geneva Convention also states if you bomb a boat, it is a war crime if you kill the survivors.

[goaded]

As long as there's anything nearby that floats and can be used to survive in the water, apparently. /s

[Asker]

Well his dingy floats. Plus he would be wearing a life vest so i guess its open season then by the Administrations own rules of engagement.

[goaded]

Exactly.

I was told, but I don't have a source, that German soldiers in Afghanistan were concealed in rocky terrain and were stumbled upon by a local goat herder. They reported that their position was compromised and Americans commanders told them to shoot him. They refused.

[Asker]

Well it would appear the Germans learned a thing or two about the rules of armed conflict. Its a funny thing but soldiers in many ways have to have the highest levels of morality. I fear the USA may have some of the worst.

[goaded]

"18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal."
ogc.osd.mil/.../...NE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.pdf

[Asker]

So should every soldier involved in the chain of command from the drone operator to the President should be brought up on charges?

[goaded]

Probably the (recently promoted for some reason) Admiral, but Hegseth is the culprit.

[msc545]

Technically, soldiers have a responsibility to follow orders, but they should be given some leeway since refusing an order can lead to serious consequences, including court-martial. No one wants to be the person who disobeys an order, as this can result in losing benefits or even facing imprisonment. It’s a significant issue. For enlisted personnel who receive a potentially illegal order from a superior officer, it often feels easier to comply and hope for the best rather than risk the repercussions of refusal.

Not every soldier is a lawyer, nor does every soldier have access to legal counsel. However, if you are a general or some kind of commander, you are expected to understand these matters or seek expert advice before making decisions. For instance, it would be wise to consult a military lawyer before concluding that killing survivors clinging to the wreckage might be a good idea after all. Unfortunately, it seems that no one took that step.

[Anonymous]

No, no, no, no, no. It is only ok for Americans from the Land of the Free to strafe enemy fishermen who are terrorizing fish in the middle of the Caribbean Sea. It is not ok to strafe American pilots because, after all, they are great patriots after dropping high explosives on civilians. Nobody should say anything terrible about them or do anything terrible to them. Save the terrible things for those enemy fishermen.

[Sal_Monella]

Bad actors will do whatever they want even they signed on to the Geneva Accords.

[exitseven]

Like this has never happened.

[Asker]

Oh we all know its happened... the USAF in Europe WW2 regularly shot Luftwaffe pilots in their shoots so they would not return to battle... but the point is... is it right and moral to do this? According to the present Administration its justified.

[exitseven]

War is hell. Do it to them before they do it to you.

[Asker]

Fair enough. At least you are honest. You advocate no rules of war. Kill or be killed.

[exitseven]

Thats the way it is.

[Asker]

Well remember what you have said next time the USA is attracted... they are just doing to the USA first.

[msc545]

Yes, and I suppose it's also okay to shoot people that have survived a boat attack that you have just perpetrated on them. Particularly when the people are civilian fish fishermen. That's, of course, clearly okay. In fact, you should do it because you never know if they're going to go fish again.

[exitseven]

@Spencer10 I hope that you never get in a bar fight.

[msc545]

It doesn't matter if it's happened in the past. The question does not have to do with whether or not it happened in the past. It has to do with whether or not it would happen in the future. Try to get your time framing right on this, please.

[FunkyMonkee]

Why should it be?

[beefcakebradybatson]

Oh, well...