Why didn't <PERSON> (prepare and then) raise true flags?
Note: This is edited to address answers and comments. I find that the answer is perfectly valid regardless of the version. I have still yet to make another edit based on 'Temporary Note' below.
Scenario (in ATLA) :
Hypothetically, if the concept of 'false flag' war crimes exists in ATLA, then based on S01E17, <PERSON> is ostensibly a war criminal. See the reddit discussions on <PERSON>'s war criminal status and <PERSON>'s potential status.
Context (from our world) :
The International Committee of the Red Cross defines the Practice Relating to Rule 62. Improper Use of Flags or Military Emblems, Insignia or Uniforms of the Adversary:
According to custom, it is permissible for a belligerent warship to use false colours and to disguise her outward appearance in other ways in order to deceive an enemy, provided that prior to going into action the warship shows her true colours. Aircraft are not, however, entitled to use false markings.
From false flag Wikipedia page
In land warfare, such operations are generally deemed acceptable under certain circumstances, such as to deceive enemies, provided the deception is not perfidious and that all such deceptions are discarded before opening fire upon the enemy. 865
Similarly, in naval warfare such a deception is considered permissible, provided the false flag is lowered and the true flag raised before engaging in battle.
Question:
Viewing the ATLA universe from my real world lens, why didn't <PERSON>, say, prepare Water/Earth/Air Nation flags and then raise them before counter-attacking the Fire Nation during the Battle for the Northern Air Temple?
Guess 1:
I forgot the episode...was there actually no need to do so even if <PERSON> were to hypothetically try to follow this law eg was it perhaps infeasible given the impending nature of the particular attack or something?
Guess 2:
Or are such rules actually really infeasible to apply to the ATLA universe for some universe-specific reason like how it's illogical to make all firebending in war a war crime?
Temporary Note:
I think I can make a better question if I know the intention behind this true flag false flag thing. So far I'm given only incentives like 'If you lose while attacking under true flag, then you get to be treated as POW '
If anyone knows the intention, then please consider answering in the Law SE question linked above and then modify this SciFi SE question accordingly. I would like to know what is 'inhumane' about true flag false flag like why not do it assuming there were no incentives. After which, I'd ask here on SciFi SE, 'It seems inhumane for <PERSON> to do this because (...) and so why did <PERSON> do this?'
I hope to ask not merely 'Why didn't <PERSON> follow this rule?' (cheap conventional, stage 2 of 3 in <PERSON> moral development theory that causes reactance like 'There's no Geneva/UN in ATLA. What are you talking about?') but really 'Why did <PERSON> do this seemingly inhumane thing?' (which would be postconventional, stage 3 of 3 in moral development).
I think the problem right now is people (rightfully?) think there's no reason (instead of that there's not necessarily a reason) <PERSON> should follow a certain causing people to (rightfully?) have reactance. However, if I discover what is truly inhumane about attacking with false flags, then I can substitute reactance-causing stupid rules for the very direct source.
(Of course the answer is already given below. I'm asking for the sake of genuinely improving the question, no longer to get an answer since an answer was provided.) 950