At what point does military action cross into murder?

[The Kangaroo]

Bloody Sunday 1972. That's the best example I can come up with.

Was that when British soldiers opened fire on a buch of Irish civvies or was that bloody Monday?

 

[Novan Leon]

Morality is black, white and neutral. The imaginary gray area (unless you mean neutral) is only there for people who don't know whether it's black or white (or don't believe in absolutes, period).

Murder is unjustified killing. Black.

Military Action can be either black or white depending on the circumstances.

Like individuals, a nation (many people) has the right to defend itself.

What exactly constitutes a justified cause is widely debated.

 

[Terramax]

Okay. How about all the American soldiers just quit their jobs. Hang up the hat, go home, and just defend their own asses from now. I'm sure nothing bad will come from it.

Ever.

Yeah, right, I'm not being funny here but when was the last time America defended against an invastion on their own turf? Bottom line is America doesn't have a military for defence purposes.

Murder is the crime of killing. Killing the innocent, the unthreatening, those not involved in a conflict.

Last time I checked it's been America that's gone around murdering innocents in the streets and farm fields of foreign countries more than anyone else in the last 50 years. That's what arming your country's soldiers have done. Do you mean to tell me that was all 'defensive action?'. As max said "it would end a few pointless wars." if they hadn't been. Although more accurately, it wouldn't have started a few in the first place.

That's where war-crimes come in, like the Holocaust. War is when warriors and soldiers from opposing sides meet on the battlefield.

So in your opinion would you say then that the American military (along with any other countries involved) should be arrested for warcrimes for their acts in Vietnam and the Iraqi wars?

Murder is killing for "personal" reasons (Revenge, Sex, Psychosis, Money, ect.). In war, two soldiers on opposite sides of a fight have no personal connection, and nothing to gain from killing a specific person. Therefore, it is not murder to kill someone in a war or war-like context.

Yes. This is exactly it. I consider people in the army noble, not because they are willing to kill, but because they are willing to die.

Bollocks! The person who invades a country is there exactly for reasons like revenge and money. Under the context of an invasion not both sides can be noble.

Secondly, even those defending may not be doing so to protect the innocent. They can be just as driven by revenge, money and enjoyment as much as their enemies.

Not to say all wars are like that. There are those that have defended i.e. the allies during WWII. But it's not as common for one side to be pure and the other to be evil. Take the 2nd Iraqi war. That ***** English soldier who tied up prisoners to chains and took degrading photos of them. Why, she's no better than any terrorist she was supposedly fighting against.

And if soldiers in circumstances such as Iraq are willing to do so much, then how come they're all only too willing to take a plane ticket back home the first chance they get? It's because they're will to join the military when they're paid to do nothing more than sit on their arses all day, but as soon as they have to do their actual job, but want out when they're expected to use their guns.

I don't like soldiers as a general rule. People who follow orders strike me as feeble-minded, and I see no real need to think of them as people.

I fully agree with this. So many have this nonsensical rule that just because soldiers kill under the command of their higher-ranking officer, or politician, they are exempt of responsibility for any murders/ killings they?ve commit.

In actuality, anyone who signs up to a military is signing a declaration stating they're prepared to kill whoever, for whatever purpose, noble or not, for their country or organisation. That makes them murders by default.

 

[Skeleon]

Er, no, actually.
I've never seen the it.

Wow... I... wow...

Why wouldn't you take advantage of every possible way to inconvenience your enemy?

Because if you want to avoid creating terrorism wherever you go, you have to try and keep the civilian population out of it.
You'd only kill civilians if you're a) trying to commit genocide or b) are too incompetent to avoid it.
And in both cases, you'll fuel guerilla- and terrorist-resistance.
If you want to actually conquer and win, you must not only defeat the enemy's army but also win the enemy population's loyalty.
That's what the Americans did with Germany after WW2 (in the aftermath of horrible bombing runs, though) and that's why creating a stable democracy actually worked back then (in contrast to Afghanistan or Iraq today).

 

[The Kangaroo]

Bloody Sunday 1972. That's the best example I can come up with.

Was that when British soldiers opened fire on a buch of Irish civvies or was that bloody Monday?

Aye, thats the one. I did an essay on how it was basically the epitome of military murder. Got an A +.

I know I think 1 person threw a brick or something and they just opened fire

 

[Captain_Caveman]

The question I want to know the answer to is, at what point does killing someone in an act of war change from being just that, to being murder?

I think a key point to be factored into this question is the existence of guerilla warfare (ala vietnam, iraq, etc.) where even seemingly innocent people can become lawful combatants in a moments notice with the production of a hidden weapon, and the concept of Total War, where not only those with weapons, but civilians as well, aid the war effort of a specific faction.

This was brought on by another, separate topic, something about carpet bombing ppl, and how that would make the offending country mass murderers.

murder doesnt happen very often. what youre describing would be manslaughter.

as far as killing people in war, if they're firing at you first it's not murder.

 

[Mray3460]

Murder is killing for "personal" reasons (Revenge, Sex, Psychosis, Money, ect.). In war, two soldiers on opposite sides of a fight have no personal connection, and nothing to gain from killing a specific person. Therefore, it is not murder to kill someone in a war or war-like context.

Yes. This is exactly it. I consider people in the army noble, not because they are willing to kill, but because they are willing to die.

Bollocks! The person who invades a country is there exactly for reasons like revenge and money. Under the context of an invasion not both sides can be noble.

Secondly, even those defending may not be doing so to protect the innocent. They can be just as driven by revenge, money and enjoyment as much as their enemies.

Not to say all wars are like that. There are those that have defended i.e. the allies during WWII. But it's not as common for one side to be pure and the other to be evil. Take the 2nd Iraqi war. That ***** English soldier who tied up prisoners to chains and took degrading photos of them. Why, she's no better than any terrorist she was supposedly fighting against.

What I meant in my original post was that in war (as opposed to murder) the soldier has nothing to do with the person other than that they are killing them (he doesn't know the person's name, feelings about the war, or any other information other than that they are a target). The same kind of thing happens with professional assassins or hit-men.

"It's not personal. It's business."

 

[SamuraiAndPig]

Morality is black, white and neutral. The imaginary gray area (unless you mean neutral) is only there for people who don't know whether it's black or white (or don't believe in absolutes, period).

And this is exactly the problem with the word "moral." It has no room for any exception whatsoever, and that completely undermines the entire question. Essentially we're asking whether killing a fellow human being is acceptable under a certain set of conditions, right? How can you even begin to approach that when the answer is Thou Shalt Not Kill and that's just the end of it? This type of black/white thinking would only apply in a world where these is no war and no crime, and therefore you could treat every ten year old who stole a pack of gum like he's Al Capone.

Of course, the fact is that we don't live in a perfect world and killing is pretty commonplace. Therefore you need an ethical, as opposed to moral, system to deal with the varying degrees in killing. This is why lawyers fight it out in court over things like motive and mental competency.

It's not that people on the ethical side of ethichs v. morals don't believe in absolutes - in fact, I'd say ethical thinking believes in more absolutes because it takes a wider array of facts into consideration. The difference is that separating people into Killers and Not Killers would put alot of killers in the not pile and a lot of nots in the killer pile. I know this is getting a bit off topic but I do think it undermines the disucssion when vastly different terms like morals and absolutes are used interchangably with ethics and facts.

Additionally, morality by it's very definition cannot be "neutral." That is more like anarchy mixed with apathy, and the idea of morals is that they provide some type of social structure. You can't say that structure is defined by having no structure.

 

[The Kangaroo]

Bloody Sunday 1972. That's the best example I can come up with.

Was that when British soldiers opened fire on a buch of Irish civvies or was that bloody Monday?

Aye, thats the one. I did an essay on how it was basically the epitome of military murder. Got an A +.

I know I think 1 person threw a brick or something and they just opened fire

Killing 14 people and wounding another 13 in the process, I think that's the definition of an overreaction. I think my father was quite justified in helping burn down the British embassy in dublin the next day.

Didn't that kill civilians as well?

 

[Haunted Serenity]

War is a conflict in which two or more sides think they will gain something from the lo0ss of human life. As my C.O told me when i first reported in
"If i order you to kill, assume it is not murder and you will lead a happier life. As long as a soldier is following orders he is not murdering someone, thats what the world decided thousands of years ago"

i believe that

 

[generals3]

War is a conflict in which two or more sides think they will gain something from the lo0ss of human life. As my C.O told me when i first reported in
"If i order you to kill, assume it is not murder and you will lead a happier life. As long as a soldier is following orders he is not murdering someone, thats what the world decided thousands of years ago"

i believe that

Indeed , thats exactly my opinion as well. I think at that point the only ones u could blame of murder are the ones giving the order. The soldiers were trained to obey and joined the army to obey orders, thats what they do , no matter what the order is . The only thing you could blame a soldier for if he killed innocents while ordered to is him being a good soldier.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

War is a conflict in which two or more sides think they will gain something from the lo0ss of human life. As my C.O told me when i first reported in
"If i order you to kill, assume it is not murder and you will lead a happier life. As long as a soldier is following orders he is not murdering someone, thats what the world decided thousands of years ago"

i believe that

Indeed , thats exactly my opinion as well. I think at that point the only ones u could blame of murder are the ones giving the order. The soldiers were trained to obey and joined the army to obey orders, thats what they do , no matter what the order is . The only thing you could blame a soldier for if he killed innocents while ordered to is him being a good soldier.

i obeyed my orders, i don't have regret because i knew that i was doing the right thing. When i reached my now current post i still don't feel regret because i'm making sure theres no chance that i'm hitting the wrong target

 

[brodie21]

never, war involves killing people and leaders should really ask themselves if it is worth it before calling in the troops. there is no such thing as a civilized war

 

[Haunted Serenity]

Killing 14 people and wounding another 13 in the process, I think that's the definition of an overreaction. I think my father was quite justified in helping burn down the British embassy in dublin the next day.

Didn't that kill civilians as well?

No, they sensibly evacuated before the huge crowd of angry Irishmen turned up.[/quote]

LADF
Liberal Application of Disaplined Firepower in a circumstance heading out of countrol and fast. If they hadn't opened fire what do you think might have happened?

and how many of the 14 killed and 13 wounded wern't part of the brick throwers?

 

[ArcWinter]

Well, you see, when is military action in war not murder?

You kill someone, it's murder. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE. I believe what you mean is, at what point are you persecuted for it.

My response: You should be held to the consequences of your actions - killing someone is killing them, no matter who, when, where, and under what circumstances. I think taking away your firstborn and slaughtering them, then using their feeble body for dog food would be adequate if not over the top punishment.

Then I'm pretty sure nobody would kill anyone.

 

[Mekado]

Always or never

Always because killing someone *is* murder, whether it's ordered, justified or whatnot.

Never because murder is defined by law.Military organizations are the "armed" branch of countries, so technically speaking, they make their own law.It's easy then to bind the law to your need and will (no trials,summary arrests and detainment etc)