Would you kill a surrendering enemy combatant? Why or why not?

Assume the answers are meant to be the other way around.
Question was if you would kill them, not spare them.

you are not allowed to call no quarter

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter

"it is especially forbidden ... to declare that no quarter will be given". This was established under Article 23 (d) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land.

Yes, unless the mission specifically requieres prisoners.

Too bad most wars are fought with PMCs, and those do not listen to conventions.

youre on Jow Forums mate these people dont care about laws and shieeeet

Take a page from Cao Cao. Offer surrender at the beginning of a confrontation, if they refuse you take no prisoners.

Attached: cao cao behead.png (640x356, 216K)

Why would you not? Not only are prisoners a pain but there is no place anywhere for a coward.

If you wage war against me, it means to the death.

Yeah, I'd let them live if they surrendered without any resistance. Otherwise I'd just shoot them. Even the ones who surrender later on get shot. The wounded and dying will simply be shot again. Then you walk around with a knife in one hand and your pistol in the other an jab every corpse with the knife. If they move, you shoot them in the head.

Attached: 1529449708797.gif (500x281, 552K)

no, beacuse i might find myself in the same position later.
id just tortue the living shit out of him.

I'll check if they're jewish first.

No one from an Islamic country is spared. Suicide by grenade is too risky.

Depends. Are they white?

Horrible strategy.

It depends, in any normal war I would absolutely treat a surrendering enemy with some ounce of respect. Regardless of what we're fighting about, it takes some amount of balls to participate in something which has a chance of you dying or being horribly maimed. On top of that, everyone has a camera now a days.

If we're talking about a race war or day of the rope scenario, I wouldn't hesitate to kill anyone who surrenders.

Depends on what he did before he surrendered.

Without hesitation.

What is my situation? Does it jeopardize my objective to capture him?

Depends on my mood.

Yes, depends on the situation.
But it would be
Ivan
Gooks
Roaches
South American Thugs any nigger

Why let your enemy's live to fight another day

Don't care who it is, it just depends on the situation. They surrender tired of war? Sure have a cigarette even. Shot six of my guys and threw up your hand to not die? Fuck you

hell yeah. line em up

>laws of war on land
>laws of war

Pro tip: In a real war, there are none

Attached: 1523874959922.jpg (473x699, 50K)

>enemy's

The idea is to capture your surrendering enemies and imprison them in POW camps. They actually tend to hold some measure of diplomatic value that way.

No because we might be able to get actionable intel out of them that will help me find more enemy combatants so I can kill them, meanwhile the one we captured can be tortured and die in prison.

Yes and just for larks
Or no and because fefe's

fuck off brad pitt

Sure! And then I'll spend the next 50 years in Leavenworth! Great idea! Fuck yeah!

Yes. War is war and your enemy is your enemy. Every soldier that surrenders might carry a bomb or worse. Never trust your enemy.

A leaf in combat? Good one

War crimes are just a means of punishing the losers anyway. How many civilians have we and others bombed? Geneva Convention goes out the window when it's convenient.

A burger with a knowledge of history? Oh wait, you proved my point.

In the words of the great Tom Barry "keep firing and don't stop until I tell ya" ........some lad

youtube.com/watch?v=x998_xo7e9s

Attached: download (1).jpg (195x259, 8K)

>Would you kill a surrendering enemy combatant?
That depends whether he is a legal or illegal combatant. Illegal combatants have no protection and they don't follow the rules of war which is a death sentence.

yes bc lol fuck your surrender

Yes.

I would kill him.

Depends if I have the resources to hold and maintain prisoners. Depends on the status of the enemy, what my losses are, the numbers on both sides, the resources held on both sides. As well as the history of the combat. There are so many factors to consider. Please be more specific.

Who burnt your White House down burger?

Given that Canada was founded in 1867, I'm not quite sure what your attempting to imply here you dumb abbo cunt since the White House fell in 1812.

Sniffing that petrol again ain't ya boy?

no
the whole point of surrendering is not to get killed
so if i kill him it's like I'm missing the point, I don't want him to think I'm stupid

Attached: 1516259482914.png (625x773, 143K)

no, prisoners are irrelevant now. I can learn more from your iphone contacts and browsing history than waste my time interrogating you.

Take a page from the Islamic State. Only reason to offer quarter is to lure them into surrendering so you can quickly kill them.

Modern Ruskies or Soviets?

The UK

Only if they're commies

Modern. I'm imagining a WW3 scenario where Russia is the new Germany and China is the new Japan.

>Would you kill a surrendering enemy combatant? Why or why not?
If they are really surrendering then no, but today it seems like there are a lot of fake surrenders happening.

Prisoners of war can be useful. Soldier can switch sides in a conflict. Especially in a civil war or other similar situation. It really depends on too many factors. If there was a specific situation. I could tell you for example: an ISIS soldier surrendering to NATO... I'm going to kill him. If it's a Russian soldier surrendering to NATO... most likely I will take him prisoner but not trust him enough to use him or allow him a gency. (Assuming I have adaquit resources to hold prisoners)

If it was a racial struggle, obviously the goal is to extinguish your enemies to achieve racial supremacy so extermination of all combatants and subjegation of noncombatents is crucial.

If it was a civil war you can take prisoners and depending on the cause of the war get them to fit for you.

>unconditional surrender
But if they surrender, and they must be quartered, it's not unconditional; they'd surrender on the condition that they are quartered. Thus, they are either surrendering conditionally, in which case the prohibition doesn't apply, in which case we are not obligated to accept their surrender, or they are surrendering unconditionally, in which case we can slaughter them all, since quartering was not a condition.

So in either case, the law still permits us to slaughter them all, even if we don't offer them the chance to conditionally surrender beforehand.

>inb4 mental gymnastics
It's called being a lawyer.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-06-19 at 10.28.34 PM.png (984x782, 1.11M)

If protecting the prisoner or transporting them would cause undue risk to me or my unit, then fuck it, they're dead. If there's little risk, I'll allow them to surrender unharmed.

I dont have time for niggers so do head shot

>Too bad most wars are fought with PMCs, and those do not listen to conventions
This isn't Metal Gear m8

No because it's against the laws of war.

No, that's niggerdry.

Great answer

Give them a chance, then make an example of them.

Yes but first I rape the pooper.

how the fuck would you prove otherwise?
>he pulled a gun on me!

As Patton would say that's Semitic.

>not raping the pooper after you kill him
Fucking leaf.

I would suck his cock and then feed him food/water. Let him fuck my wife, etc.

War should never be fought until it is absolutely necessary. When war is necessary it should be total war and you should exterminate your enemies

>Would you kill a surrendering enemy combatant?
no

>Why or why not?
because by waving the white flag, he's joining my side

You would be the expert on waving white flags

No. If there is a possibility you have to surrender having the reputation of executing pow would make enemy emotions kill you whilst surrendering. It isn't cowardly to surrender in a 1 v 5000 battle if you can definitely take out two grunts and no more it's stupid and a waste of potential.

Yes. Blood for the blood god.

I would make him hold his rifle by the barrel with a bare hand and if he dropped it I would kill him.

Attached: 1528959402616.jpg (552x573, 43K)

that's the joke, leaftard

Attached: trudeausmaniacsonthefloor.jpg (618x491, 84K)

By having standards and a self respecting society.

Nukes flow around surrendering people....

Attached: 200.gif (355x200, 908K)

Leftists? Every time. Scum needs to be exterminated.

Kill all Jews and pedos whether they are surrendering or not.

Fellow american fighting against me in a civil war? He's smoked like a pack of Kools. No second chances EVER to undermine the people I have chose to fight for.
Some poor sap sent here by his nation who would rather be home raising rabbits? Maybe. He'll have to roll the dice to find out. Prolly remove trigger finger and send home on a boat. Find one without finger fighting later? He done.

Allowing the defeated party to surrender can prevent unnecessary losses of your forces. If you show the enemy you will kill in cold blood those who surrender they will fight hard to the end. Unless they are muslims cue ISIS videos

Attached: 1487551017730.jpg (1280x720, 657K)

The only thing good to come from your country is Belgian chocolate

the only good thing about you is that on the day of the rake, your kind will be exterminated once and for all

Attached: leafpile.jpg (559x500, 158K)

SAGE Dudes a pimp!

Attached: 1502350276678.jpg (780x776, 142K)

Are they nigger?

If you teach the enemy that surrender will not be accepted, expect to lose men fighting battles that may otherwise have been avoided through surrender.

Are they letting yall on Jow Forums now? I'm seeing more and more China flags and I've been off the grid for a while

Preferably not. It's better to develop a reputation for accepting surrender and humane treatment of POWs than to be known as cunts who slaughter everyone they can get their hands on. You can seriously reduce the amount of bloodshed if the enemy is tempted to pack it in.

Attached: 1528380892902.jpg (735x851, 82K)

Mate. PMCs are indeed in every theater of war. Specially in late wars in Syria and Iraq, one side is almost exclussively PMCs, guess what side is that.

Yes.

Odin says to give my enemies no quarter.

I never signed that.

I would tell them to surrender before combat, and then take no prisoners

No. A regular or irregular war, either in North America or in Europe are good men on the other side fighting for what they believe in

Unless you know, it's outside either of those geographies. Those heathens deserve the rope.

>Canada 49% White
>America 56% White
>We're all brothers

Attached: 1525324015277.png (629x626, 694K)

Good. Only prefferable answers. The no prisoners thing is for guerilla attacks usually by a named group. And use it as a psychological attack to the enemy, lower the morale of the troops passing by the specific area or near that group.

I will the slaughter the Jews and pedos so badly that they will kill themselves out of fear.