So you say that snipers doing headshots on helpless soldiers and chute shooting are both wrong. You also say that all killing is wrong. But what if there is no choise? What if a sniper gets a chance to do a headshot on terrorist who takes just a few steps too much away of the bomb trigger which could kill 100 hostages? At times merciless killing is needed, we can agree on that?

Now the disagreement part is that for some reason I can't understand why fighter pilots enjoy of the privilege to just shoot planes down. No need to do anything else, actually if you do more you are frowned because it would so much suck to be the chute pilot shot down. And who the hell would shoot helpless victims! Or bomb civilians! We have some moral standards!! Imagine for example artillery dudes, what bastards! We fighter pilots are not coward bastards, we don't shoot chutes because we could get shot! And we have been trained to only shoot planes! We are Knights of the Sky. We let the chute pilot live so we could live - and could not care less what happen on the ground!! This be our sandbox! If you get bombed by chute pilots we did not shoot down, we don't care! It is freaking our honour and sandbox war vs ur life. Get a clue which matters more.

There is so many so ridiculous contradictions and double standards I can't think anything else having so many so ridiculous contradictions. Not even in war.

Yeah, I know. I call those "don't shoot in ur leg while maintaining holier than thou image".

That is exactly one reason why those pilots who shooted chutes sacrificed so much for their country and people.

Jeez.. you are hard work. Even if killing someone is justified it is still wrong.


I can't even tell what your point is.
Are you saying that killing pilots in thier 'chutes is right? Or Justified.
And again it comes down to what the individual choses to do at that specific moment.

For the record if I don't think that shooting pilots in thier parachutes is a good thing to do. Other people did, and did so.
Stop trying to lump it all together in one moral lump because you can't. Your argument seems to contradict itself because it's an impossible argument. You can only really say if you agree or disagree, comparisons of one murder against another are pointless.

My point is as I wrote it:

Those who shooted chutes made the real sacrifice. They stopped playing a wargame and begun to do their best to eliminate the enemy. In the process they sacrificed their humanity, their principles of not shooting helpless, their respect as seen by enemy and comrades (honour stuff), and their safety of not getting shooted at in a chute by themselves. They sacrificed possibly everything we can imagine to stop the war and minimize casualties. They had the choise, and they made the sacrifice.

There is no words about right or wrong, good or bad, or anything like that. It was all about unseen sacrifice some pilots did, and which makes a very good example what kind of madness the war was in real even though it can be looked with rose coloured eye shades.


Edit: They gave everything, not just risking their lives and health. And Knights of the Sky just call them "scum". Oh well, but I know that is difficult to understand. There has been times when people could not understand how a black man could possibly use same toilet as white man. So anything is possible.

What sacrifice did those that shoot chutes make? That sounds like a murderer makes also a sacrifice. I differ between stopping someone from fighting on and killing him out right. You make it sound like a butcher is someone doing something honourable........can it be you have just been playing too many shooter games? Your line of thought is just a step away from saying well to stop the enemy one must also prevent new soldiers from coming, so kill also any civilian in sight as that is a potential new soldier or could raise one....... I think you would have a hard time in the military, only a gamer talks like that.

Any soldier knows he might be at the receiving end sometimes.

Murderes have a choise. Soldiers don't have a choise, at least we don't begin to argue about that did they have a choise or not.

If you are a soldier and don't eliminate the enemy when you have the best chance, then you just failed. Elimination can be killing or capturing the enemy.

And don't take honour into this. I haven't written about honour. Stay in line.

Forget it you are hopeless. I know many soldiers that would boot you for that kind of attitude. Pointless in carrying on.http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...pillepalle.gif
It also shows you know little of military tactics, a dead soldier is done with, a wounded soldier binds more man power reducing the enemies fighting ability. But sure put a bullet in the persons head big sacrifice pulling the trigger.

Your comment suggests that my opinion that it can be right to shoot enemy parachutes would change if I was in the chute. No it wouldn't. I think if you're a foot soldier, it's right that the enemy shoots back at you. I wouldn't like them shooting at me, but I'd understand that's the way it has to work, and the same goes for chute shooting.

You also say that all killing is wrong. I disagree. If someone is walking round killing civilians, and you can't stop them without killing them (they have body armor), you say it's wrong to kill them - I disagree.

We're all entitled to our views, and it's interesting to read how others feel about these things, but it seems moilami and I have the same views.

Very well said. There would have been nasty people on both sides who shot at chutes for fun - I'm not talking about them. There would have been those like the RAF Polish who shot for revenge, or anger - I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those that don't like killing, but recognised that a job had to be done, and as moilami put it, sacrificed their own humanity. I also appreciate that many pilots wouldn't want to make that sacrifice (I certainly wouldn't want to), but I think of those pilots as humans like me, not as honourable knights.

So it was frowned upon, big deal. This is about understanding how nasty war is, and looking at the bigger picture. Shooting the enemy is not savage. If they are over your territory with little chance of evading capture, that's different, but if they can return to fight...

Er, what war are you talking about? When London, Coventry, Berlin etc were bombed, were they military targets? Did the Atom bombs hit a gun placement in Japan?

If it was less people killed, I'd agree with you - but it's not. When you don't shoot a bailed airman, and they later bomb your city, how is that less people killed? Gunther Rall was shot down 8 times I think - if he'd been shot in his chute the first time he wouldn't then have shot another 240 ish allied planes. So bravo to any chivalrous knight that let him parachute to safety (and I really mean no disrespect to either Gunther or the allies that let him live, but I do question the logic).

This is your opinion and I respect that, but it is not a fact. I'm not actually sure what you mean by the word 'wrong' when you say something is justified. It doesn't matter, we are allowed to disagree.