Surprising quality gun camera footage from japanese theatre.

[moilami]

Originally Posted by winny

You didn't read what I said. Both are wrong. And I'm not the one comparing them, you are, and it's not a fair comparison. It's about justification, and personal choice.

If you are just comparing any type of killing with any other type of killing then what's the point? It's ALL wrong..

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.

[moilami]

Originally Posted by Biggs [CV]

In a way its the code of honor that fighter pilots are supposed to live by. There are written rules of war and there are un-written rules of war. Killing a helpless pilot in his cute is just something that fighter pilots are not supposed to do. Infantry live by a differant set of rules, similiar, but differant.

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.

[winny]

Originally Posted by moilami

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.

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.

[moilami]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

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.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by moilami

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.

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.

[robtek]

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

[moilami]

Originally Posted by Wutz

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.

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.

[Wutz]

Forget it you are hopeless. I know many soldiers that would boot you for that kind of attitude. Pointless in carrying on.
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.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by winny

All this 'I'd kill a guy in a chute' talk is fine until it's you hanging from the chute.
...
I said nothing about the rights and wrongs of it, I mearly pointed out that if you were hanging from a 'chute and an enemy aircraft was approaching you'd be thinking 'hope he dosn't shoot me'

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.

Originally Posted by moilami

Hmm, how is sniping different? In air combat one of your missions is to eliminate the enemy.

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.

And I have seen many think something like air combat would had been some sort of glorified game with some sort of rules (moral code) which makes the difference between "us" and "them" e.g. good and evil.
...
Shortly said there was a war going on, and in war you have certain responsibilities. Like protect your people and defeat the enemy. The faster and more effective you are in your responsibilities, the better. Now imagine a war where Knighs of the Sky are playing a game while the rest are burning and torn by explosions and gunfire. How much does that make sense? Are pilots privileged to only shoot "planes" down and not people? Or if they only shoot planes down does it make them better pilots (especially when they don't shoot chutes down because of the fear of getting the same fate from enemy)?

I know what people think with that glorified Knights of the Sky illusion. However that is sandbox war. Real war is not sandbox war.
...
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.

Such is war. Total madness. And it is best to see as it is.

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.

Originally Posted by Wutz

That is one opinion, but certainly one that I would not give any respect for.
I have had the honor of meeting a few former airmen of that time, and they all said those who shot at parachutes where frowned upon. I know you will say that is not backing 100% the war effort, many exmilitary will say that is the differance between being human and a savage.

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...

Originally Posted by winny

Bomber pilots were hitting targets and the civillian casualties were secondary.

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?

Originally Posted by Sven

Always a difficult subject, the not shooting of shutes is just common accepted among pilots and therefore will mostly not fire upon them, I'm just glad that there is such a thing, less people killed.

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).

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by winny

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

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.