Whenever it isn't used in defense of that army's country, like say a war for resources or territory.
At what point does military action cross into murder?
- Thread starter MakerOfRoads
- Start date
Recommended Videos
MaxTheReaper said:
War tends to accomplish alot of things. Like Nazis. And Japanese Imperliasm (yes, I know America is guilty of it to). Also it founded several countries. Again, I'm not saying its a good thing, but its there.
War, battle, whatever, is defined by "killing the enemy" or "killing the aggressor", where murder is "killing the innocent".
It baffles me that you see no difference and would sooner defend a serial killer than a soldier. I'm starting to feel that you're just fucking with me.
In the usual sense, it would be considered murder. But that's why rules of engagement exist for our soldiers on the field. Everything our soldiers do is an act of self-defense against the taliban and/or other militant groups. If our soldiers get shot at then they have to do whatever it takes to defend themselves (including killing armed civilians). But, that's only if they can verify that the target is a threat. Our soldiers have to painfully decide if this opposing force is actually a target or not. No matter what, they have to follow the rules of engagement, unless told otherwise.
However, it is never justified when these rules of engagement are broken and many civilians are killed. But it is important to note that in many cases that civilian casualties caused by US troops is just propaganda created by the taliban or whatnot to downgrade our war efforts. In other words, their liers. If there are civilian casualties caused by US troops, then it's due to bad Intel, bad communications, and bad calls.
In past wars there are instances where US troops did commit murder in the Vietnam War, Korean War, and so on. But those were orders. Blame the soldiers carrying it out if you must, but the real blame goes to the leadership who thought it was necessary to take those lives.
Remember: "War is Hell". It's confusing, messy business. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether a soldier's actions is justifiable or not. It all depends.
However, it is never justified when these rules of engagement are broken and many civilians are killed. But it is important to note that in many cases that civilian casualties caused by US troops is just propaganda created by the taliban or whatnot to downgrade our war efforts. In other words, their liers. If there are civilian casualties caused by US troops, then it's due to bad Intel, bad communications, and bad calls.
In past wars there are instances where US troops did commit murder in the Vietnam War, Korean War, and so on. But those were orders. Blame the soldiers carrying it out if you must, but the real blame goes to the leadership who thought it was necessary to take those lives.
Remember: "War is Hell". It's confusing, messy business. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether a soldier's actions is justifiable or not. It all depends.
There is no difference, its clear cut, kill another human being and its murder.
The truth of it is, would you rather kill someone or let them kill you?
When choosing between being a murderer and a corpse most would choose the former.
The truth of it is, would you rather kill someone or let them kill you?
When choosing between being a murderer and a corpse most would choose the former.
Well, soldiers are people that kill for their country regardless as to whether their victim is guilty or not. I guess by that logic it's always murder in the military because the soldier has no remorse regardless of the situation, right? They don't care whether it's deserved or not so long as they receive their paycheck by the end of it.
In terms of conduct as generally agreed by the more civilised nations, murdering people pretty much means killing people who aren't trying to kill you. That means you don't deliberately kill non-combatants of any sort, including prisoners of war (although if they accidentally get in the way of your justifiable attack on a military target, that's acceptable.)
If you think some guys in civilian clothes might whip out an AK47 and start firing them at you at any moment, that's your problem - it doesn't give you a licence to shoot anyone you feel like.
If you think some guys in civilian clothes might whip out an AK47 and start firing them at you at any moment, that's your problem - it doesn't give you a licence to shoot anyone you feel like.
Pretty much anytime anyone goes up against the US military.
And I say that with the deepest respect for my country; we're just too fucking good at blowing shit up.
And I say that with the deepest respect for my country; we're just too fucking good at blowing shit up.
Good answer.SamuraiAndPig said:
The reality is that the world views civilians as off-limits because they are not carrying guns, wearing distinctive uniforms and actively in the field trying to shoot you in the head. Even when they work to produce for their country that's at war. Even when we bombed ammo and tank factories in Germany in WWII, we weren't aiming for the people who could work in these factories, just the buildings and their contents themselves.
Guerrillas make it harder to discern civilians from fighters, but care is still needed.
I'm the guy who said in that other thread that carpet bombing civilians tends to make the world view the carpet-bomber as a mass murdering fucktard. In a world where allies are fickle and few. War is political and economical as well as physical, and the way you behave in war is often a good indicator on how well you can be trusted in other arenas. If you want people to trust you with trade and peace, you have to prove you aren't going to burn the world down around them. Carpet bombing civilians just shows you have no patience, no moral character and no capability to target the right people in war. Thus your allies often bail on you and become your enemies later.
Google's definitions of murder:
# kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"
# mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language"
# unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
The first definition would agree with Glefistus that it's murder every time.
The second definition is when an American (read: English First Language) tries speaking any other language.
The third would mean that, since it is war it would only be murder if against the Geneva Conventions.
Basically, murder in war is fairly open to interpretation.
# kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"
# mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language"
# unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
The first definition would agree with Glefistus that it's murder every time.
The second definition is when an American (read: English First Language) tries speaking any other language.
The third would mean that, since it is war it would only be murder if against the Geneva Conventions.
Basically, murder in war is fairly open to interpretation.
