General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: killing the enemy is no atrocity
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: June 30, 2001 02:38PM
<HTML>Your answer was without respect. But I will respond calmly anyway.
No one in the situation noted above (IJA troops swarming ashore in the Solomons campaign) had laid down their arms - they were not surrendering at all. Just because a soldier has dropped his weapon, or doesn\'t have one conveniently handy does not mean he is a non-combatant. The term \'laid down their arms\' means to have surrendering and passed into the control of the enemy as a POW, not that one is temporarily away from his weapon, but desperately trying to rejoin the fight.
Do infantryman hesitate to fire on the enemy because they have their back turned? Or dropped a rifle? Or are busy loading a weapon? No.
Your comment show a shocking lack of knowledge of how major wars like WWII were really fought, or the definition of non-combatant.
A uniformed soldier behind his own lines is a combatant. Just becuuse he is a helpless at the moment does not make him a \'non-combatant\'.
What you are saying is that it is only fair to kill an enemy soldier when it is \'sporting\', when he has a chance to fight back. Poppycock! He is fair game right until he surrenders. Which none of the troops in this case, or related cases, were doing.
This thread, and the ones like it, are degenerating into name calling exersizes in America bashing.
If you want to talk about WWII sub warfare, let\'s do that, and avoid name calling.
I do, no matter how much I differ with your opinions. Please extend the same courtesy. </HTML>
No one in the situation noted above (IJA troops swarming ashore in the Solomons campaign) had laid down their arms - they were not surrendering at all. Just because a soldier has dropped his weapon, or doesn\'t have one conveniently handy does not mean he is a non-combatant. The term \'laid down their arms\' means to have surrendering and passed into the control of the enemy as a POW, not that one is temporarily away from his weapon, but desperately trying to rejoin the fight.
Do infantryman hesitate to fire on the enemy because they have their back turned? Or dropped a rifle? Or are busy loading a weapon? No.
Your comment show a shocking lack of knowledge of how major wars like WWII were really fought, or the definition of non-combatant.
A uniformed soldier behind his own lines is a combatant. Just becuuse he is a helpless at the moment does not make him a \'non-combatant\'.
What you are saying is that it is only fair to kill an enemy soldier when it is \'sporting\', when he has a chance to fight back. Poppycock! He is fair game right until he surrenders. Which none of the troops in this case, or related cases, were doing.
This thread, and the ones like it, are degenerating into name calling exersizes in America bashing.
If you want to talk about WWII sub warfare, let\'s do that, and avoid name calling.
I do, no matter how much I differ with your opinions. Please extend the same courtesy. </HTML>