[Oxymoron]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7d_1240819390


Cool video about US world war 2 weapons

[Thunderhawk]

^ I see nothing.

I suspect a corrupted link or a killed youtube video.

[Thunderhawk]

It works for me now.

[MB.]

I like the scene where the GI shoots at the descending paratroops which is a violation of the Geneva convention. I also enjoyed the scene where the GI throws WP on a kraut and the announcer makes it very clear that enough WP is mad lethal.

Also this video must have been after WW2.

[Oxymoron]

like the scene where the GI shoots at the descending paratroops which is a violation of the Geneva convention

The Geneva convention is such a waste of paper.

I also enjoyed the scene where the GI throws WP on a kraut and the announcer makes it very clear that enough WP is mad lethal.

.

Also this video must have been after WW2.

Why do you say that?

[War Angel]

I like the scene where the GI shoots at the descending paratroops which is a violation of the Geneva convention.

The Geneva Con. was in 1949. WWII ended, as you well know, in 1945. There was no Geneva for WWII troops to follow.

[MB.]

War Angel you obviously don't know anything about the history of the Geneva accords.

That said, I cannot actually locate a clause from the pre-1949 documents that prohibits the targeting of descending paratroopers.

[Oxymoron]

Why would they ban shooting Paratroopers?

[Thunderhawk]

Why would either size abide by it?

Besides, wasnt part of the catastrophe that was market garden, because the Germans were ready for allied paratroopers and massacred them as they descended from the skies?

[War Angel]

War Angel you obviously don't know anything about the history of the Geneva accords.

No, I don't care much for it. I just know it was signed in 1949, and that WWII ended by 1945. A soldier from 1942 cannot follow a convention that only came to be about 7 years later. It is physically impossible - unless you wanna step into the realm of time-travel, etc.

Besides, wasnt part of the catastrophe that was market garden, because the Germans were ready for allied paratroopers and massacred them as they descended from the skies?

Correct.

[Oxymoron]

I believe many German Paratroopers exprienced similar events at Crete.

[MB.]

Why would they ban shooting Paratroopers?

Because it's not sporting. The paratroops can't shoot back.

[Oxymoron]

Because it's not sporting. The paratroops can't shoot back.

Neither can ducks and thats a sport.

[Douglas]

I just know it was signed in 1949, and that WWII ended by 1945.

Well then what you know is clearly wrong. the 1st convention was signed way way back in 1864, the second in 1906 and the 3rd in 1929. You may want to take note for future references that those dates are before 1945.

It is physically impossible - unless you wanna step into the realm of time-travel, etc.

Or ummm...... actual fact and not your bullshit lies and ignorance.

[War Angel]

Well then what you know is clearly wrong. the 1st convention was signed way way back in 1864, the second in 1906 and the 3rd in 1929. You may want to take note for future references that those dates are before 1945.

I did not see anything about paratroopers in those articles of the Geneva Convention - which sort of makes sense, since they didn't drop people from planes in 1864 and 1906, mostly because there were no airplanes. As for the third convention - I'll have to look into it. I don't think there's anything about shooting paratroopers there, though.

There is a prohibition on shooting downed air crew members, since they are usually un-armed and helpless. Paratroopers can still technically fire from the air, though they usually prefer to control their descent.

Or ummm...... actual fact and not your bullshit lies and ignorance.

Dude, WTF? Ignorance, maybe... but lies? Why the hell would you accuse me of lying? That's kind of sinister.

[Douglas]

I did not see anything about paratroopers in those articles of the Geneva Convention

Yeah they're not mentioned, and you are allowed to shoot at them. That wasn't really my point though was it?

I don't think there's anything about shooting paratroopers there, though.

Nope it's about POWs.

There is a prohibition on shooting downed air crew members, since they are usually un-armed and helpless.

Is there?

Dude, WTF? Ignorance, maybe... but lies? Why the hell would you accuse me of lying? That's kind of sinister.

Well it was either that or ignorance. You're choosing ignorance, fair dos. It had to be one or the other.

My point was that your claim that "I just know it was signed in 1949" "The Geneva Con. was in 1949." "There was no Geneva for WWII troops to follow." was really really wrong.

[War Angel]

Yeah they're not mentioned, and you are allowed to shoot at them. That wasn't really my point though was it?

Yes, that WAS the whole point of this argument, and why the convention was brought up in the first place.

Is there?

Yes.

Well it was either that or ignorance. You're choosing ignorance, fair dos. It had to be one or the other.

It was an honest mistake, and as we can see now - not really a mistake, either. The 4th treaty WAS signed in 1949, and the three others are simply irrelevant to the matter of paratroopers.

[Douglas]

Well the 4th geneva convention doesn't talk about paratroopers either. So I don't see how you can bring that up as some kind of defence.

While discussing a totally fictional rule of law in wartime you claimed that "The Geneva Con. was in 1949." "There was no Geneva for WWII troops to follow."

and as we can see now - not really a mistake, either

Yeah it was. You said there was no GC for them to follow, there were in fact 3 at the time. You could try and claim "but I actually meant the 4th" which talks about the treatment of civilians and so is just as irrelevant.

Yes, that WAS the whole point of this argument, and why the convention was brought up in the first place.

But it wasn't my point. My point was that you claimed there was no GC at the time of the second world war, which you have to admit is clearly bollocks.

Oh and as for the whole downed aircrew thing I can find no specific mention of them anywhere.

[War Angel]

As for the date - that's just being technical. 1864, 1906, 1929... it doesn't matter. Shooting down paratroopers was allowed in WWII, which was my point.

Oh and as for the whole downed aircrew thing I can find no specific mention of them anywhere.

They are 'out of the fight' or 'hors de combat', incapacitated and harmless. They pose no threat, and are therefore a 'protected person' under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They should not be shot at, but they can be captured.

[Douglas]

As for the date - that's just being technical.

No it's not just a technicality, you tried to make your argument out of that non-fact.

Shooting down paratroopers was allowed in WWII, which was my point.

It's always been allowed.

They pose no threat, and are therefore a 'protected person' under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Is that ever stated in the 4th? From what I recall it applies only to civilians.