At what point does military action cross into murder?
- Thread starter MakerOfRoads
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It is my understand that that's manslaughter. It also relates to the reason why "serial killers" are not called "serial murderers," but that's beside the point.shewolf51 said:
The main thing that I was trying to convey in my original post was that in war, to use a famous quote, "It's not personal. It's business."
Exactly. We're already on the end of a thread, let's not make it worse. Britain, India, most of the EU, Egypt, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Canada and Mexico are all our allies, and they're starting to be more critical of our strategy. We don't want to lose their support economically and politically.MaxTheReaper said:
Indeed. But we are your allies, and the US government is (finally) starting to make decisions we don't mind backing. The problem before was we can't really oppose the US when they invade a country past complaining about it - else it'd spark a world war in the worst case scenario.MaxTheReaper said:
Doesn't matter whether whether you knew them or not. There have been intentional deaths in the streets because one drunken yob has knived an innocent person he's never met in his/ her life. That's murder.Mray3460 said:
And it doesn't matter whether it's personal or financial either. As a soldier going to war, you go with the intention of killing the enemy. Soldiers don't kill enemy soldiers by accident.
To kill, or to have been killed, is to describe that someone has died either by an accident of another/ unknown party. Killing is more associated with manslaughter.
But it wasn't really your post I'm upset about. It's the guy who honestly thinks that soldiers are 'noble'. That's what I was swearing about.
In my mind its when soldiers stop fighting with the sole aim of protecting the unarmed that acts of war become murder. If people are trying to attack you with guns, you have a right to fire back, unless you started it without it being a matter of saving lives, in which case you are the monsters! But actions like bombing civilian areas with the full knowledge that civilians might be there, even if the enemy are armed and in the area, is murder. There is no excuse for killing civilians, deliberately or as a consequence of defeating the enemy, because it goes against the entire point of having a military, which was originally to protect the nation and now should, in the modern globalised world, be used for peace-keeping and protection of the human rights of people everywhere. Of course, you could argue that a military was designed to protect YOUR nation and still be used solely for that role, but in my mind, thats just nationalist drivel. You'll protect a Briton with your life, but neglect to do so because the person happens to be Iraqi or Afghan? Piss-poor argument for the kind of shelling that the NATO forces (Note that I said NATO and not American, the Americans are not the only nation involved in Afghanistan.) get up to these days. The way I see it, nations are basically administrative areas. We know now (after centuries of nationalist, religious, ideological and racist conflict) that humans are fundamentally the same wherever they are and that it is a matter of background and education that makes the differences (aside from the occasional nutjob) so my attitude is that arms should only be used to protect the unarmed, all unarmed. Wherever they are. What a pity this ideal is a far cry from what actually happens.
To paraphrase Carth of KOTOR: "We're not warriors. We're soldiers. Warriors attack and steal. Soldiers exist to protect people, usually from the warriors." Warriors are whoever tries to use force to abuse the fundamental rights of people to get on with their lives without harassment. Soldiers should protect from those people. (That was a rather crappy attempt to simplify my argument with symbolism.)
On a civilian note, equally, anyone who is trying to attack a non-combatant becomes an aggressor. In my mind, these people are as legitimate a target as an armed soldier whose orders include yours or someone elses death. So yes, the mugger with a knife who is trying to stab that homeless guy for the few coins in his begging cup should be as legitimate a target as a hostile on the battlefield. As long as that knife is in his hand and that hostile intent is there, he should be fair game. After all, in the ever-childish but sometimes valid argument, he started it. (And yes, I've heard stories of people stabbing homeless people for their money, and in some particularly sick cases, for no reason whatsoever.)
Of course, things get complicated in insurgencies, where a warrior may be a civilian five minutes later. It is not unheard of for IRA and Iraqi militants to shoot a peace-keeping soldier dead and then run off, throw away/hide their rifle, and come out in changed attire claiming to have never been in battle. The temptation to crack in these situations must be immense, but to keep the moral high ground soldiers must keep the rule that you only shoot the enemy with a weapon in their hand. Anything else, and your enemy can simply turn around and say "you're no better than we are."
Its also complicated by the "Them and Us" nature of human conflict. Both sides will feel they were the ones in the right. Who decides? I guess this is why we need a UN that is unbiased and works, so there is an authority on these matters bound only by the geneva convention and the charter of human rights. We have solid rules on military force, it is a matter of getting the world to adopt and enforce them.
I'm overcomplicating. To put it simply, killing an unarmed man is murder. Killing an armed man who means no harm is murder. The only justifiable case of killing is if someone is trying to kill you or someone else, and you kill him first. I apologise for the wall of text.
To paraphrase Carth of KOTOR: "We're not warriors. We're soldiers. Warriors attack and steal. Soldiers exist to protect people, usually from the warriors." Warriors are whoever tries to use force to abuse the fundamental rights of people to get on with their lives without harassment. Soldiers should protect from those people. (That was a rather crappy attempt to simplify my argument with symbolism.)
On a civilian note, equally, anyone who is trying to attack a non-combatant becomes an aggressor. In my mind, these people are as legitimate a target as an armed soldier whose orders include yours or someone elses death. So yes, the mugger with a knife who is trying to stab that homeless guy for the few coins in his begging cup should be as legitimate a target as a hostile on the battlefield. As long as that knife is in his hand and that hostile intent is there, he should be fair game. After all, in the ever-childish but sometimes valid argument, he started it. (And yes, I've heard stories of people stabbing homeless people for their money, and in some particularly sick cases, for no reason whatsoever.)
Of course, things get complicated in insurgencies, where a warrior may be a civilian five minutes later. It is not unheard of for IRA and Iraqi militants to shoot a peace-keeping soldier dead and then run off, throw away/hide their rifle, and come out in changed attire claiming to have never been in battle. The temptation to crack in these situations must be immense, but to keep the moral high ground soldiers must keep the rule that you only shoot the enemy with a weapon in their hand. Anything else, and your enemy can simply turn around and say "you're no better than we are."
Its also complicated by the "Them and Us" nature of human conflict. Both sides will feel they were the ones in the right. Who decides? I guess this is why we need a UN that is unbiased and works, so there is an authority on these matters bound only by the geneva convention and the charter of human rights. We have solid rules on military force, it is a matter of getting the world to adopt and enforce them.
I'm overcomplicating. To put it simply, killing an unarmed man is murder. Killing an armed man who means no harm is murder. The only justifiable case of killing is if someone is trying to kill you or someone else, and you kill him first. I apologise for the wall of text.
When you start killing non-combatants.
Otherwise, it's not murder imo. Anyone who chooses to enter into combat in a war puts their life at risk, and they know this when they do it.
Otherwise, it's not murder imo. Anyone who chooses to enter into combat in a war puts their life at risk, and they know this when they do it.
You are seriously justifying a large military force opening fire on unarmed civilians that posed no threat to it?Furburt said:
The reason the soldiers opened fire on the civilians was because they were jumped up and scared, and in doing so they jeopardized any goodwill they had built up in Northern Ireland and spent the next ten years fighting the IRA. The British army took 150 dead the rest of that year alone. And in answer to your question, if they hadn't opened fire, nothing would have happened, it was a peaceful civil rights protest and all members were unarmed. LADF wasn't even applied because the soldiers just emptied their magazines at them and then took one body and planted explosives on it to make it look like he was a terrorist, the British army took no casualties that day and made up a story about gunmen firing at them, which was conclusively proved a lie.
Everything that happened on Bloody Sunday 1972 was the fault of the 1st Parachute Regiment of the British Army and not of the innocent civilians they shot and it's impossible to spin it any other way, a clear example of military murder.[/quote]
so you believe that the british planted bombs on a body to make it look like a terrorist? All crowds of people can be a threat. If bricks were being thrown, how long do you think it would have taken before they threw fire bombs or actual explosives? And no offence but i'm pretty sure i can spin it that both parties were at fault for the loss of life.
At point 1. That is to say, it's always murder. Government sanctioned killing is no more acceptable than any other murder.
Anybody that has a job follows orders. The president, down to Joe over at burger king takes orders from somebody. To imply that the majority of humans on the plant are feeble minded and not even people, is simply an arrogant and generally stupid remark to make. But, coming from you I'm not surprised.MaxTheReaper said:
People who kill for a profession whether that be in the military or somewhere else also get something out of their work as well (in fact, they get two things):MaxTheReaper said:
1- They get paid for what they do and...
2- They don't die in the line of duty (which would get in the way of them doing their job)
At the end of the day when it comes to war you have to accept killing as a nessercary evil (it's a war for a reason), it's not pleasent and isn't moral but when have you ever heard of a war that was?
Welcome to the world, we hope you enjoy your stay.