Is murder in the name of war still murder?

[dephdiddy]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

The military doesn't fight for some grand evil. It fights for its civilians. When GIs die in Iraq to protect America, they literally die to protect the average American's right to have cheap oil and a KFC at every block.

I agree with pretty much your entire post except this tidbit about chicken.
When we import chicken, let me know. When our freedom / ability to grow chickens is in danger let me know.
Otherwise, spot on man.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by dephdiddy

I agree with pretty much your entire post except this tidbit about chicken.
When we import chicken, let me know. When our freedom / ability to grow chickens is in danger let me know.
Otherwise, spot on man.

You might be surprised how much petroleum it takes to make chicken.

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Lanny

The relevant part there being "unlawful", not "premeditated". I agree, I'd say most killings during war are premeditated, at least for a few moments. But they're not unlawful as far as the soldier under the jurisdiction of their military is concerned.

Of course that also means that Jewish extermination in WWII was not murder, at least as far as Jewish German citizens are concerned. Clearly the difference between killing and murder is not the same as the difference between moral/immoral killing.

There is no doubt, the exterminations were legal and not murder, until the lawyers came along after the war and retroactively made them illegal and hung those who had carried them out (which by the OED definition, is murder).

So if a German had killed Hitler during the war it would be murder? What if an allied soldier had done it? Would it have matter if he had entered the country legally or illegally?

Aren't soldiers in uniform entitled to the protections of the Geneva convention? So could an American soldier have parachuted into Germany and killed whoever he wanted, legitimately?

Lawyers are a bizarre lot.

Kinda related:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/wor...last-germ,979/

[Retard Synrdome]

Well... It's pretty much a justification for murder.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Lanny

A lawful murder doesn't exist because... like... by definition it can't. How can you not get that . Maybe you mean lawful killing. Lawful killing does exist in the form of capital punishment, and (obviously) in the case of war. Declaration of war implies (maybe it even says it explicitly, IDK) that soldiers won't be prosecuted. That's what makes the difference between murder and killing.

po-tay-to / po-taa-to

There is no difference between murder and killing. Capital punishment is no exception. We make up 2 different words for the same act because we can't cope with guilt.

Originally Posted by dephdiddy

I agree with pretty much your entire post except this tidbit about chicken.
When we import chicken, let me know. When our freedom / ability to grow chickens is in danger let me know.
Otherwise, spot on man.

The food industry needs oil. Especially the insanely huge fast food industry. It guzzles on the black gold.

[Lavender Lilac]

Originally Posted by Pee Vee Proots, M.D.

Insects are no more than biological robots responding to environmental stimuli. So because something is biological it's sacred? That's bullshit. Do you consider Roombas to be "alive" because they move around and respond to their environment? Like bugs they have no theory of mind, no thoughts, no sentience. Even you pointed out that there's nowhere to draw the line here - microorganisms? Exactly. And why is it that plants are exempt? Because they can't move? They're still alive and are just as sentient as a cockroach.

Now animals are a bit trickier. Admittedly it's kind of fucked up that we basically feel completely normal about waging an eternal genocide against chickens and cows, but we've already established the line of morality here is blurry. Chickens and cows are more complex than insects, but why does their life have some inherent value? Why is that value so great that I can't increase my quality of life by eating them if I so choose without being labelled a murderer?

Anthropomorphism is bad because you're ascribing traits to things that are literally incapable of possessing them. An insect nervous system isn't capable of supporting something as complex as thought or feeling. Some animals might be capable of feeling, but those feelings would not necessarily be comparable to anything a human feels. Animals feel and think to different degrees. Life in all forms feels and thinks to different degrees. There's no one type of life that is more or less alive than the others by your way of thinking, right? One word: Plants.

That's life, Zek. You can't avoid killing. If you're going to anthropomorphize, at least do so consistently - if life is so sacred, stop eating entirely. Kill yourself. You literally cannot live without taking or preventing life. You aren't actually respecting life, you're respecting life that has the ability to move itself around. That's kind of hypocritical. Don't even mention fruits/nuts/seeds - that's like eating a fetus you sick fuck.

See? You vegans just draw the line where you please. I was going to say "where it's convenient for you", but being vegan is a massive hypocritical inconvenience and it's all for some delusional moral highground. Either all life is sacred or you're giving arbitrary value to certain kinds of life, which is exactly what us murderous meat eaters do. Only we're aware enough to understand we're taking a life for our own, and you delude yourself into thinking you're living a moral, good life by only murdering helpless plants who can't even run from you.

I don't remember ever saying that plants were any less sacred than I am. Even so, your argument is weak.

What I try to do is limit the amount of suffering in the world, to the best of my abilities. Many limitations of this must be kept in mind, as I am certainly not willing to give up ALL that I have and enjoy in life to make a relatively small contribution to the cessation of pain and suffering in the world. As far as I know (and I have done some research), consuming meat is bad for animals, as we all humans (mass production of meat is harmful to the environment). Purely from an energy expenditure standpoint, more energy is used to maintain an omnivorous diet than a strictly vegan one, in humans.

From what we know so far about botany and plant biology, plants are much less capable of feeling emotions and hurt than many animals. I'm unsure how cockroaches and the like fare when compared to plants, but it's much easier to avoid killing a cockroach than it is to starve to death for the sake of plants. Plants may very well experience hurt, and I do hope in the future we find a way to maintain optimal human health and nutrition without causing any hurt at all. But we're not there yet, and that may not even be possible.

At least some of us are trying. You act as though there are only two non-hypocritical ways for a person to live, each one an extreme. Either you starve to death and try not to move much, for fear of killing microorganisms, or you kill any and everything in sight and eat it wastefully. The line I have chosen to draw may seem arbitrary to you, but at least I have drawn a line and am working toward what I hope will be a better future for all involved. I'm no more innocent than anyone else; living entities suffer and die for me and my way of life. The difference between you and I is that I try to do something about the injustices that I see.

We're not very far along the path to the wonderful future that I hope and pray for, but most huge changes start out very small. I eat plants, and that may be immoral, but we all have to pick our battles carefully. A glaring problem I see right now, one that I can do something (if small) about, is the terrible atrocities that our animals face in the name of making money and giving into our hedonistic desires.

You could do something, too, like reducing your meat intake by half. This would be commendable, and I would applaud you. What I wouldn't do is scoff at you for drawing the line in such an arbitrary way. Every little bit helps, and everyone has their lines. We don't have to choose between being strict carnivores and living in hippie communes.

Middle way.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

po-tay-to / po-taa-to

There is no difference between murder and killing. Capital punishment is no exception. We make up 2 different words for the same act because we can't cope with guilt.

Clearly there is a difference. Murder is unlawful, while killing can be lawful. Those are two different things. That's like saying taking a bath and public nudity are the same thing. Just because you limit yourself to the physical actions involved in killing doesn't mean that some killing has different implications than other killing.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Clearly there is a difference. Murder is unlawful, while killing can be lawful. Those are two different things. That's like saying taking a bath and public nudity are the same thing. Just because you limit yourself to the physical actions involved in killing doesn't mean that some killing has different implications than other killing.

It's a morality issue. Would you considering shooting a terminally ill person in the face who wants to die a murder? A lot of people would. Some people consider abortion murder. Dropping bombs from B-52 over cities with the intent to target a military complex will without a doubt have civlian casualties. Is this also murder?

It just confuses the shit out of everyone. Just use one word. Killing. That's what's being done. To the person being killed, it makes no difference if he died because he got stabbed by a crazy person or if he died as colateral damage in a war. And his peers will want revenge none the less.

Oh yeah, there we go. Vengeance. It's all about revenge. That's what this thread is really about. Guilt and revenge and fear. We wage war on everyone for hundreds of years for no other reason than resources and literally destroy hundreds of millions of lives. And now we feel guilt and are fearful of vengeance. If a terrorist bombs your shit, is that killing or murder? It's neither. It's just stuff happening and you pretty much didn't get lucky that day.

Let me ask you this. Would you rather get killed or murdered? Still think there's a difference?

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

It's a morality issue. Would you considering shooting a terminally ill person in the face who wants to die a murder? A lot of people would. Some people consider abortion murder. Dropping bombs from B-52 over cities with the intent to target a military complex will without a doubt have civlian casualties. Is this also murder?

It just confuses the shit out of everyone. Just use one word. Killing. That's what's being done. To the person being killed, it makes no difference if he died because he got stabbed by a crazy person or if he died as colateral damage in a war. And his peers will want revenge none the less.

Oh yeah, there we go. Vengeance. It's all about revenge. That's what this thread is really about. Guilt and revenge and fear. We wage war on everyone for hundreds of years for no other reason than resources and literally destroy hundreds of millions of lives. And now we feel guilt and are fearful of vengeance. If a terrorist bombs your shit, is that killing or murder? It's neither. It's just stuff happening and you pretty much didn't get lucky that day.

Let me ask you this. Would you rather get killed or murdered? Still think there's a difference?

But there's clearly a lot more to it that what the person who's killed wants. I mean I've even said, a much more relevant question is in regard to the morality of the act, but the correct answer to OP is "no", as I have demonstrated. Am I saying that killing in war is good? no. Am I saying the definition of murder is good? no. All I'm saying is that killing in war, be it right or wrong, is unquestionably not murder.

[moron]

Originally Posted by whocares

and it's called collateral damage

George Carlin on Soft Language - YouTube

George Carlin on Soft Language - YouTube
Video: click to display

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Murder is just a word. It means very little. Murder means to kill someone. The details are irrelevant. It's a stupid thread made to cause bullshit and it's nonsensical. That being said, we could talk about murder and conflict. I like to watch videos of gunships, awacs, jets, bombers, etc that specifically engage human targets. It's relaxing to watch. Those little ants are strolling around doing their guerilla stuff and then a couple hundred pounds of explosives, a cruise missile or heavy caliber machinegun fire is dropped on them like the wrath of God itself. It cheapens death and makes a mockery of humanity while at the same time glorifying our infinite sadistic might.

The thing is that OP has no reason to complain about "murder". If it wasn't for conflicts, we wouldn't have what we have. America wasn't built on it's over glorified constitution. It was built on the resources of Africa, the Middle East and South America. Resources that the "Western Coalition" takes and grabs. We are many. And resources are little. So we fight. You don't really have a right to bitch about that, because if you do you're a hypocrite. You enjoy Western life. Now there's even more people on the globe and there's even less stuff to go around, so you'll be enjoying Western life a lot less than the generation of your parents was. Tough shit. Now you start to complain. Well, you really can't complain.

The military doesn't fight for some grand evil. It fights for its civilians. When GIs die in Iraq to protect America, they literally die to protect the average American's right to have cheap oil and a KFC at every block. Because without the war that has been waged on the Middle East since forever, America would have very little.

That's not something to be ashamed of. It's not something supernatural. It's just fact. It's humanity. If we didn't do it, someone else would have. A ton of Africans right now will live or die whether we choose to aid them or not. I guess they should have been smarter and more aggressive than us. It's never a good thing to be at the mercy of others. Maybe one day, the human race will find a way to co-exist and build a society that isn't run by aggression and the rule of the strongest. But it will take a long time. Either we find an "external" enemy to fight so we all are forced to work together. Or we kill each other off and go back to the stone age. Or we become slaves of some system like a bee hive. The 3rd option at this point in time is the most likely. One world government, no right to property, very limited reproductive right, etc... That's the sacrifice that is required in order to give up conflict. Most people are not ready to make that sacrifice. But we might get it anyway. Because the people that lead are getting tired of everyone's shit it seems.

Maybe we all just need to man up and accept reality for once. Our forefathers had no problem with it. Conflict was always a dirty business but at least it used to be honest. Now it's all lies and hipocrisy. Because some fat bitch sitting in some New York hipster condo can't cope with the guilt of eating half the world's food. That's how Rome fell, remember.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

It's a morality issue. Would you considering shooting a terminally ill person in the face who wants to die a murder? A lot of people would. Some people consider abortion murder. Dropping bombs from B-52 over cities with the intent to target a military complex will without a doubt have civlian casualties. Is this also murder?

It just confuses the shit out of everyone. Just use one word. Killing. That's what's being done. To the person being killed, it makes no difference if he died because he got stabbed by a crazy person or if he died as colateral damage in a war. And his peers will want revenge none the less.

Oh yeah, there we go. Vengeance. It's all about revenge. That's what this thread is really about. Guilt and revenge and fear. We wage war on everyone for hundreds of years for no other reason than resources and literally destroy hundreds of millions of lives. And now we feel guilt and are fearful of vengeance. If a terrorist bombs your shit, is that killing or murder? It's neither. It's just stuff happening and you pretty much didn't get lucky that day.

Let me ask you this. Would you rather get killed or murdered? Still think there's a difference?

right on

this is why i love these forums

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Lanny

I have demonstrated.

As you have demonstrated? You haven't demonstrated shit bitch, you just quoted from the dictionary, and we don't give a fuck what the Oxford chappies think, since they aren't the ultimate arbiters of what goes on, languages are fluid, not revealed to us by Oxford chappies, and the word murder predates the dictionary by hundreds of years.

murder (n.)
c.1300, murdre, from O.E. morðor (pl. morþras) "secret killing of a person, unlawful killing," also "mortal sin, crime; punishment, torment, misery," from P.Gmc. *murthra- (cf. Goth maurþr, and, from a variant form of the same root, O.S. morth, O.Fris. morth, O.N. morð, M.Du. moort, Du. moord, Ger. Mord "murder"), from PIE *mrtro-, from root *mer- "to die" (see mortal (adj.)). The spelling with -d- probably reflects influence of Anglo-French murdre, from O.Fr. mordre, from M.L. murdrum, from the Germanic root.

Viking custom, typical of Germanic, distinguished morð (O.N.) "secret slaughter," from vig (O.N.) "slaying." The former involved concealment, or slaying a man by night or when asleep, and was a heinous crime. The latter was not a disgrace, if the killer acknowledged his deed, but he was subject to vengeance or demand for compensation.
Mordre wol out that se we day by day. [Chaucer, "Nun's Priest's Tale," c.1386]
Weakened sense of "very unpleasant situation" is from 1878.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=murder

Legit killing in war may well be regarded as murder. "Murder" is killing done right. None of this namby pamby fighting back, pretending to be all honourable, stalk the bastard like a beast and shoot him when he doesn't expect it.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Issue313

As you have demonstrated? You haven't demonstrated shit bitch, you just quoted from the dictionary, and we don't give a fuck what the Oxford chappies think, since they aren't the ultimate arbiters of what goes on, languages are fluid, not revealed to us by Oxford chappies, and the word murder predates the dictionary by hundreds of years.



http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=murder

Legit killing in war may well be regarded as murder. "Murder" is killing done right. None of this namby pamby fighting back, pretending to be all honourable, stalk the bastard like a beast and shoot him when he doesn't expect it.

. As a legal term it's clearly defined as unlawful killing, at least in the US it is. The OED does its best to capture common usage, so you've got that going for it too. I mean if you want to use the word to mean something different then fine, but to most English speakers "Murder" means an unlawful killing.

[Malice]

Shut the fuck up you goddamn retards. Arguments over semantics are among the worst wastes of time.

[perryoxide]

The Bulk Hulk wrote:

"If the country was invaded, then it is not murder, it's self defense.

If the country is invading, then all the soldiers are murderers."

Yep. That is the essence of international law regarding war: the aggressors, the invaders are in violation and the victim, the invaded, have the right to defend themselves. Unlawful killing is murder.

[ShutMeUp]

Originally Posted by Malice

Shut the fuck up you goddamn retards. Arguments over semantics are among the worst wastes of time.

semantics is important

[Malice]

Shut up, bitch.

[Malice]

Fucking hell, fuck you.

[Fetish69]

War sanctifies murder and enobles it,.....War is God ...

[perryoxide]

Originally Posted by roasted

Is killing an enemy soldier during war murder?
No. Even though a lot of firefights dont end with a casualty, its a "his life or my life" proposition. Murder does happen during war, but between willing combatants, its not murder.

It's not like the difference between rape and consensual sex! If you're attacked you have the right to defend yourself. The aggressor is the only "willing" party and he is the one in the wrong.

Originally Posted by roasted

Also, most soldiers come to have a certain mutual respect for their adversaries. ie: I respect the Taliban soldiers who were brave enough to stand up and fight like men. Those were some fanatical dudes: living in caves for months, miles from running water, sleeping on rocks, etc. A lot of combat vets from all wars come to respect their adversaries.

You should respect them. They are respectable. You cannot do what they do, they are far tougher than you. Invading tyrants are not respectable, I doubt they respect you one bit.

Originally Posted by roasted

But most will draw a distinction between those who pick up a rifle and fight with honor; and those who build a IED and leave it there for some kid or innocent person to find.

Those who pick up a rifle with honor? Who are you to define what's honorable when the person has picked up a rifle, gone halfway around the world and fired it at people who never did him a bit of harm?

Originally Posted by roasted

If you want to talk about murderers during war, lets talk about Iraqis that build a car bomb and take out 30 Iraqis to kill 2 Coalition soldiers. Or a Taliban that buries an IED in a road that ends up blowing up their neighbors instead of denting a MRAP.

You hate IEDs because you're afraid of them and you're afraid of them because they work. If it's beneath you to plant a bomb to kill your *invading* enemy, how low is it to carpet bomb, to deliberately target a country's sewer treatment plants, to embargo medicine and food? How respectable is the coward who drops those bombs secure in the knowledge that he is nearly invulnerable there at mach speeds, at 20,000 feet? He's hardly picking up a rifle and dueling with his equally willing opponent. Even more cowardly and despicable is the drone "pilot" who is nothing more than a robotic death-dealer.

For every person accidently killed by an IED intended for an invader, how many thousands of "unintended" people are incinerated or blown to bits or simply maimed into lives of pain by the noble, righteous, murdering invader?

Originally Posted by roasted

Those are examples of murder in the name of war. Shooting an Afghan pointing an AK at me isnt murder.

Sorry, it is murder. The fact that you know he's trying to defend himself with an AK doesn't do anything but make you more of a sonofabitch. Self defense is honorable, repelling an invader is commendable. Murdering innocent people to further the political aims of people who would just as happily have *you* killed (and your children) is insane at best. You can test what I say by exchanging places with your victims. How admirable would it be were the situation reversed?

[Fox Paws]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Of course that also means that Jewish extermination in WWII was not murder, at least as far as Jewish German citizens are concerned. Clearly the difference between killing and murder is not the same as the difference between moral/immoral killing.

The extermination of the Jews was murder because it was genocide, which is illegal according to international law.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by Fox Paws

The extermination of the Jews was murder because it was genocide, which is illegal according to international law.

I don't doubt that they existed, but out of curiosity which law(s) are you referring to?

[Fox Paws]

Originally Posted by Pee Vee Proots, M.D.

I don't doubt that they existed, but out of curiosity which law(s) are you referring to?

Now that I think about it, it's possible they didn't have those kinds of laws back then. But I'm sure there was such a thing as a "war crime" in some sort of capacity at least. I'll look into it

Edit: Apparently there was no legal definition of genocide at the time of the Nuremberg trials and they didn't start drafting international laws about it until after WWII. In fact most of those laws were created in response to the Holocaust

[moron]

Originally Posted by Fox Paws

most of those laws were created in response to the Holocaust

yay learning!