NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so im in school thinking about nothing educational blah blah.. well heres a question.

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?

Ok, so im in school thinking about nothing educational blah blah.. well here a question.

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?

k, school bell thing ringing soon

see ya
No.

Father said no too. Its not a sin. Its all good. Not that's its encouraged, or anything.

Ok, so im in school thinking about nothing educational blah blah.. well heres a question.

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?

If he died of natural causes, no.

Ok, so im in school thinking about nothing educational blah blah.. well heres a question.

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?

No. Murder is a violation of the social and legal contract - soldiers sign up accepting the risk of being killed in combat.

If a person kills another person, it's murder.

If a person kills a ton of people, it's mass murder.

If a bunch of people with no ties to the government kill a whole lot of people, it's a massacre.

If a member of the US military kills someone, it's his duty.

If a member of the US military kills a ton of people, it's heroic.

If a bunch of members of the US military kill a ton of people, it's a victorious battle.


To summarize: everyone loves a man in uniform, even if he does the exact same as a man not in uniform.

(It should also be noted that the people with no ties to the government will be called terrorists, while all the people in the US Military will be praised for protecting us, even though they're probably murdering people just as innocent as the people the "terrorists" killed.)

It's really quite simple.

Murder is not simply killing. Murder is unlawful killing.

Since it is not illegal to kill people designated as enemy combatants in a war, (which an enemy soldier most certainly is), it cannot be murder.

I love War...


Got tickets to see them in two weeks....

Oh...
that's not what this thread is about?



Nevermind.

But since I'm here, the correct answer is.. It depends on who killed him. If it was a uniformed member of a nation with an active declaration of war against the soldiers country then international law says no.

But people die from all kinds of crazy shit during war...
and some of them are murder.

*strolls off whistling "lowrider"...*

No - it's someone being killed. Whether that killing is immoral or not is entirely a different matter, but it is never murder because murder simply means killing which is against the law.

If a person kills another person, it's murder.

If a person kills a ton of people, it's mass murder.

If a bunch of people with no ties to the government kill a whole lot of people, it's a massacre.

If a member of the US military kills someone, it's his duty.

If a member of the US military kills a ton of people, it's heroic.

If a bunch of members of the US military kill a ton of people, it's a victorious battle.

Arguably whilst being soldiers, they are absorbed into the state machine briefly, so any massacres are blood on the hands of the state rather than the individual.

If a member of the US military kills someone, it's his duty.

I don't want to be bitchy or anything, but if a US soilder kills a UK soilder it's not their fault and no one is to blame-- nothing to do with them at all. (Sorry, but i'm anti- Gulf War II and the friendly fire in that war was sickening...but there is a time, place, and more importantly another topic for that discussion).

But like what many of you have said here, a soilder's job is (in a way) to kill people in defence of his home country. If he kills or is killed in war then I don't see it as murder- those noble men knowingly and willfully signed away their lifes on that dotted line..and they bloody well meant it.

Now THAT is patriotism in the act.

In short, killing a soilder in war isn't murder.

To summarize: everyone loves a man in uniform, even if he does the exact same as a man not in uniform.
Wow, way to over simplify an issue, while maintaining a steady level of ad hoc fallacy. The fact that the man is in uniform has nothing to do with it, the motives of the man are the thing.
If a soldier simply put on his uniform one day, and then shot up his whole family, would you honestly expect him to be viewed as a hero?
When the man puts on a uniform and kills people, he is doing it for his government because his govenrment decided that the people he was shooting needed to die.

The way I see it is that killing a soldier in combat isn't murder because he's very likely trying to kill you himself. And you trying to kill him because he's trying to kill you is why he's trying to kill you. And so on and so forth. A shitty deal all around.

War! Goog god! What is it good for? Absolutely NOTHIN'... Oh, sorry, got a bit lost.

I guess not, but then again, what would I know? My country hasn't fought a war for 200 years...

War! Goog god! What is it good for? Absolutely NOTHIN'... Oh, sorry, got a bit lost.

I guess not, but then again, what would I know? My country hasn't fought a war for 200 years...

Must be nice. I myself was involved in one just 2 years ago.

Ok, so im in school thinking about nothing educational blah blah.. well heres a question.

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?

Yes

(you need a poll)

War! Goog god! What is it good for? Absolutely NOTHIN'... Oh, sorry, got a bit lost.

I guess not, but then again, what would I know? My country hasn't fought a war for 200 years...

Damn, beat me to it.

Really depends what you mean by murder.

Legally?

If they're killed in a battle, no.

If they're captured, put in a POW camp, and then a few weeks later are dragged out and shot, yes.

Plenty of examples for either way.

Ethically,

IMHO, it depends on the reason that the war is being fought.

Ok, so im in school thinking about nothing educational blah blah.. well heres a question.

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?

depends how he died. if he's killed by an enemy soldier, then no. if he's killed by a soldier on his side, or by some random civilian, I suppose murder is as good a word as any.

Except betrothed. You couldn't really say he was betrothed by the civilian. Just wouldn't work.

I think it depends on the soldier who killed the other soldier.

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?
According to whom?

According to whom?
According to.. you? I mean.. he died doing his job, but it was another person who killed him.. do you blame the job, or the person?

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?

Nope, dying, no matter the circumstances is not murder. Murder is unlawful killing, not unlawful dying. ;)

Killing in war might be murder under some circumstances.

This soldier in question was a coward and deserved it.

WAR! *huh* what is it good for? ABSOLOUTLY nothing. Say it again...









..sorry, just had to.

Good god y'all, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOHHH!? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Kreitzmoorland did it first, but I did it better. >_>

Kreitzmoorland did it first, but I did it better. >_>
And Sonaj did it before both of you. That makes you both his bitches.

And Sonaj did it before both of you. That makes you both his bitches.nah, beat this:



WAR! *huh* ...YEAH....

What is it GOOD FORRR?

Absolutely nothin. ...say it again

killing an enemy soldier-no. a combo of self-defense and duty
killing an ally: in most cases, no. it is usually an act of unintentional friendly fire, whether it be a case of mistaken identity, hardware malfunction, "shell shock", etc. Note, I said usually and not always, people looking for an excuse to hate the (insert government/military here) troops.
killing a "civillian" ie. not really a civillian: most often no, as these are often terrorists or enemy troops hoping to help a "cause".
killing a civillian, ie. a real, unarmed, not trying to kill you civillian: yes and no. sometimes, it's similar to friendly fire. sometimes it's foul play.

War ... what is it good for?

War ... what is it good for?
Well, if you and your entire nation is 100% communist supporting blackhaired, brown eyed African Hebrews in wheel-chairs and Nazi Germany invades. Then, if you have a military as strong and overpaid as the current US military, war is better than the gas chamber alternative.

Well, if you and your entire nation is 100% communist supporting blackhaired, brown eyed African Hebrews in wheel-chairs and Nazi Germany invades. Then, if you have a military as strong and overpaid as the current US military, war is better than the gas chamber alternative.

So it is good for self-defence. But why start it in the first place?

As an addendum to that thought. Even if a military is created purely for self-defence, to defend its country's borders against potential invaders, how long before it starts intervening in other countries, in order to protect that country's interests abroad? How long before it becomes a powerful interest group that keeps advocating for more and more money to be spent on it, sapping its country's lifeblood on an ultimately futile and destructive activity?

Ok, so im in school thinking about nothing educational blah blah.. well heres a question.

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?

No it is not murder, its like when the government takes your taxes they are not stealing.

It’s one of the poorer translation jobs of the Middle Ages to the Old Testament and in particular the Ten Commandments. The correct translation was Thou shalt not Murder, not Thou shalt not Kill. This mistake, intentional or not, has resulted in a lot of confused people when they look at all the military actions in the Bible.

Ok, so im in school thinking about nothing educational blah blah.. well heres a question.

If a soldier dies in war, is it murder?

It depends on what killed him, whether the soldier was of any importance, and whether he was on the winning or losing side. After all, history is written by the victors!

Regardless, most history-writers are generous to their enemies and say no... provided that the enemy uses conventional tactics. :)

Whoooaaaa.... Like Deja Vu....

This thread comes back from the grave and I just got tickets to see WAR in concert again....