Honor or Dishonor

rofl ash at least i am a hyprocrite on purpose rofl u seem to believe shooting a medic is fine and that is the most disturbing thought to come out some far by far.

Might as well act like london police and start shooting unarmed civilians cos he looks dodgy.

The idea of war is to supress not to take revenge or genocide and it should only ever be in defence not a WMD excuse ...

Edited by Allied General, 24 November 2005 - 08:47 AM.

The very concept of being involved in a war brings about the notion that shooting someone at all is fine.

Comparing my opinion of shooting a medic to rampaging against unarmed civilians in peacetime, or exterminating disabled people is, for want of a better word, total BOLLOCKS, and therefore I kindly request you not to patronise me as such.

I would NEVER actually condone going around with a gun, however this is a warzone of which we are currently speaking. Therefore normal rules of morality generally do not apply. After all, any normal morality would see to it that we all actually sat down with a cup of coffee or beer (whatever's your poison) and actually discuss the matter. However, since we are at war, that particular option is totally out of the window.

It's kill or be killed in a war. The idea of actually stopping and thinking about it only serves to give the enemy a millisecond longer to shoot and kill me. Even if he is a medic, I'd rather be safe in the knowledge that he is NOT going to kill me than squint down the end of my gunsight and think: "Hmm...wait, is that a red cross on his helmet? Oh shit I'd better not shoot him!"

I don't have time for your toffish and impudent attitude, AG. Your argument has utterly been destroyed, so while what I say might sound hypocritical, it has sound judgement behind it. Don't talk random bollocks like: OMG Ash is a nazi because he thinks you should shoot medics, but he's also a hypocrite because he thinks shooting disabled people is bad!2
Because it's bollocks. Totally different situation calls for totally different mindset.

rofl itu r been SO OFF TOPIC at the moment this has nothing to do with facism its the fact you claim to be have high moral ground yet it only suits your situation or what a suprise

so rofl ash

I don't get what you mean AG.
This topic was about to kill or not to kill the medic, I think Ash was perfectly on topic there.

Yeah, so I'll ask what's going through everyone's mind. The fuck you smoking?

Considering the vast majority of infantry units never see action, and those who do rarely see live action or fire anything more than suppressing fire, you're unlikely to come across a medic. However, if you do, and he is identified as a medic, you are bound by the Geneva Convention to only act in self defense if he is an imminent threat to the safety of yourself or others. I think that's pretty much how Geneva describes it, it's pretty clear cut.

Right. Fine. We've established that. I'm aware of it, and have been since your first post. However, the Geneva convention is as malleable as, say, the highway code. It only works if it's upheld by all combatants. And I, for one, wouldn't trust my enemy to uphold it.

And AG, if you want to continue to campaign to make my moral and ethical standpoints look bad, go ahead. While shooting a medic may not be ethical, I've justified my reasons for thinking it. It just makes you look stupid, and also shows that I must be doing well if the only bone of contention you can throw at me is the fact that I might shoot a medic in wartime, yet on the flipside I would not kill a disabled person in peacetime.
So ROFL AG

I still have to go back to the idea that if you disabled an enemy combatant and the medic is rushing to save his life, why shoot him? The enemy is already neutralized.

And this same "enemy" medic could be saving your life if you're shot and your position is overrun.

Right. Fine. We've established that. I'm aware of it, and have been since your first post. However, the Geneva convention is as malleable as, say, the highway code. It only works if it's upheld by all combatants. And I, for one, wouldn't trust my enemy to uphold it.

And AG, if you want to continue to campaign to make my moral and ethical standpoints look bad, go ahead. While shooting a medic may not be ethical, I've justified my reasons for thinking it. It just makes you look stupid, and also shows that I must be doing well if the only bone of contention you can throw at me is the fact that I might shoot a medic in wartime, yet on the flipside I would not kill a disabled person in peacetime.
So ROFL AG

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

rofl i didn't say i would shoot a disabled guy i just said they should have a choice to end there life and rofl that u take me seriously.

Hostile said my view. The aim of war is to WIN not to murder. If you have shot someone, if they die, well bad luck, if they live, good for them. It's unlikely they would return to the battlefield very soon if ever. As for a medic, how can you shoot someone doing their job? Its difficult in soldier to soldier fighting but medics aren't really fighting, they are trying to save peoples lives. There is no need to take their lives, murder is sickening whatever view you look at it. Even in war. But then, war is war. People will die, as they have always. Solution is not to have any wars.

to stick up for AG it was me that started the whole "kill medic but not disabled person"

so dont have a go at him for that.

and i pretty much doubt that a medic would have time on his hands to grab a gun and start firing upon you. he will be to busy u know saving lives....what he is there for.....

Shooting the medic, but not shooting the disabled person is killing them both :/ The disabled person needs the medic to patch him up and get him on a transport copter to the nearest field hospital to survive...

Exactly.

The reason I'm against making a medic into Swiss cheese is the fact he is a non-combatant. He will not shoot at you, and there is no reason to shoot at him. Unless he is blindly patriotic and does shoot at you, but that wouldn't happen. Medics put saving lives over their nation. There is no reason to shoot him, or even shoot at him. Just let him be, and he will probably leave you be. This is because medics are neutral. They will help anyone on the battlefield, friend or foe.

There are, of course, exceptions. If you are fighting in the streets of his home town, he will not be so friendly. However, that is not this scenario.

Edited by crave22, 26 November 2005 - 01:01 AM.

Or irregular armies may provoke gunfire. Best example is Somalia, often medics would need to protect the wounded lethally.

unless the medic is shooting at me, no reason to, that bullet would be better off used on someone who was shooting at me.