Do you really think the Russians would have hesitated to shoot Syrian rebels in a similar or equal position? The Russian army and the so-called rules of war have never really been close bedfellows.WWII vet Richard Peterson explains why you don't Shoot a Parachuting Soldier
[video=youtube;Q8LVlYJ5eJU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVlYJ5eJU&feature=youtu.be[/video]
Disclaimer: I have not read the 7 pages of this thread.
This is why we have no business supporting any of the savages here. They will drag us into a hell of their own making. Isolation until they gain some semblance of sanity is the only good option. Staying 'engaged' only makes us vulnerable. Now, to the point of global oblivion. But it is the path our misadministration would take us down...and still has a year to do so.
It's creating an interesting dynamic. What happens when Russian/American/Turkish/Saudi etcetera fighters end up in the same airspace on different missions? It would take very little in the way of a miscalculation to see things go very bad very quickly.
What happens? I would assume that nothing would happen, since any aircraft in the area can safely be assumed to be a "friendly", (or at least not an enemy). IS does not have an air force so it is safe to say that the air combat participants won't be firing on each other.
It's not really a "war crime" if your rebel band is not a signatory to the conventions prohibiting it...
Exactly. Russia is world power, again, at the expense of its people.
It's not really a "war crime" if your rebel band is not a signatory to the conventions prohibiting it...
You mean like when the Nazis were charged with war crimes they weren't signitures to.
Putin is a horrible world leader.
Nope, not like that at all. Maybe you should go back and research of the legal underpinnings of the Nuremberg trials before you try to compare the two.
Are Americans war criminals if they use expanding bullets, even though they are signatories to the conventions that prohibit them?
Most of the time yes, but not always. Either way, we aren't a signatory to the Hague conventions in question so I want to know if you still think we are war criminals for violating an agreement we never agreed to?But they use ball ammo overseas.
Most of the time yes, but not always. Either way, we aren't a signatory to the Hague conventions in question so I want to know if you still think we are war criminals for violating an agreement we never agreed to?
Once again, you really need to do a bit of research on the legal underpinnings of Nuremburg. It really had nothing to do with Conventions, especially since Germany was a signatory to most/all.if we lose a war, and they convict us of war crimes, then guess what...
Agreed. But he knows what he wants, doesn't take crap from anyone, and won't back down.