What, if anything, distinguishes war from murder?

2015-03-30T07:53:22-04:00

"War is murder."

That is an opinion expressed over the weekend by a member of RallyPoint.

He is not alone -- I have heard a similar sentiment expressed by many pacifists. In addition, looking at a lot of today's entertainment (movies and books), it is readily apparent that a lot of people (to include a lot of veterans) do not see any difference between the conduct of war and mass murder.

Do you agree that there is no difference? If you disagree, how would you explain the difference? Does the form of war make a difference -- e.g., is it somehow less murderous when your enemy has a more sporting chance?

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2015 8:00 AM

2015-03-30T08:00:55-04:00

Killing under the Law of Combat is legal and murdering someone is not legal?

Majority of the time you are killing the enemy defending yourself or one of your fellow Soldiers. Even conducting an offensive operation like an attack or raid you are killing in self defense, predetermined strike on an enemy that intends on doing harm to you or your fellow Soldiers.

You can argue justification all you want but when you get down to brass tacks, it's kill or be killed.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2015 8:12 AM

2015-03-30T08:12:22-04:00

Theres a difference in that in war you are killing to defend yourself or your brothers in arms

Response by TSgt Kevin Buccola made Mar 30 at 2015 8:20 AM

2015-03-30T08:20:23-04:00

Murder isn't simply the act of killing someone. It's a legal term that defines an unlawful killing. The adjective unlawful makes all the difference. One person shooting another on the streets may be murder, but on the battlefield it's condoned.
In a war in which the involved parties have all openly declared hostilities, killing enemy soldiers on the battlefield is legal. Since murder is illegal by definition, killing a soldier on the battlefield in a war can't be murder. A soldier who kills an enemy under the rules of war isn't a murderer.
It's important to remember the rules of war. There are conditions under which a soldier could be charged with murder during wartime. The Geneva Conventions are a famous set of rules that govern what is and isn't legal during war. The rules of war dictate that it's illegal to fire upon a surrendering, unarmed or otherwise helpless enemy, or to attack any building used as a hospital.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Mar 30 at 2015 8:22 AM

2015-03-30T08:22:59-04:00

Nonsense. If you don't study history, and you don't believe in the concept of a nation-state, and you don't recognize that some philosophies and ideas (ie, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, liberty, freedom of speech/religion/press) can only be gained through a society governed by these ideas, then maybe war is murder.
Study history. It is full, completely full of horrible, bad centuries. Centuries of oppression, murder, rape...rule by force and violence...lives of survival and death. There are ideas worth fighting for, even going to war over, if it prevents a return to those bad old days.
Study "Just War Theory". Not all wars are just...and that is a debate worth having. This idea that war is murder is promulgated only by those who have never studied history and believe nothing is more valuable than their own skinny lives. They would rather be slaves than fight for their children to be free.

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Mar 30 at 2015 8:29 AM

2015-03-30T08:29:14-04:00

If they were the same, we wouldn't be prosecuting Soldiers like SSG Bale for murdering people during war. While there are similiarities, the difference is the rules we play by. In war, you have rules of engagement and a moral standing. Mass murders don't care who they kill.
Troops kill in war in self-defense, defense of fellow troops, or in the defense of the nation to save lifes. Even when we take the offensive in war, we kill armed people who we will be mass murders of our friends and family if we dont kill them

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2015 8:40 AM

2015-03-30T08:40:27-04:00

We don't murder people. We kill them.

Response by SSG Dwight Amey MSA, MSL, BS, AS made Mar 30 at 2015 8:42 AM

2015-03-30T08:42:27-04:00

1LT William Clardy, I disagree they are not the same.

I will illustrate this by comparing washing your car with soap and water, or letting rain wash off the dirt.

The purpose is the method to get the dirt off the car. Soap is the preferred way because it shines better. This is what I call self defense or protecting those you love. I love my country at all times. (Iraq, 50 months total). I did not care about the combatants or locals if they were in the act of killing or harming me and my fellow brothers and sisters or any other Americans civilians too.

I am saved from my sins by the Blood of Jesus Christ and He did not come to earth and kill anyone. However, I believe He allows us to protect ourselves. (I)/or We cannot expect to allow people hell bent on killing ALL Christians, Jews, and other Arabs that do not follow their version of their religion? Or do we? Can you reason with a starving wolf? No he wants to eat that what he is going to do.

When we were attacked on 9/11 what was the message sent to our people? I interpreted the message.. beware we will strike and kill as many as your Noncombatants in the highest numbers as often as we can and nothing will stop us.

They use our media against us because we claim the right to know everything and they need free air time to put forth their very effective propaganda. This makes me SICK.

We are a country at war and if our country had this approach to responding to it in 1941 we would all be speaking Japanese or German as our primary language.

Washing your car with the rain and no soap. This is murder. 9/11 was murder mass murder.

Are we so deeply naive to believe that speaking and trying to reason with our enemies will get a cease fire and peaceful resolution? I would hope so without a doubt. Indeed, some of our enemies we can accomplish with this methodology.

However, in my view, with the enemies like the 9/11 attackers only one option, only one communication, we have to kill first or be killed assuredly.

Response by Cpl Justin Sowell made Mar 30 at 2015 8:45 AM

2015-03-30T08:45:26-04:00

I guess in a way war is like large scale gladiatorial games. It is basically murder with rules. In some cases it is just, and in others it is not. At the end of the day it is two or more groups trying to kill the shit out of each other due to politics, religion, land, resources, people, and so on. I believe it can be a necessary evil. Although in many cases there's neither a good or a bad side. Look at WWI. Nationalism hit its peak, the European royal families were all related, and it was the common man that paid the ultimate sacrifice. The winners held the losers fully accountable when they were just as much to blame for it, and it just put everything in place for WWII to kick off less than two decades later. 11+ million people died because of a family dispute that ended up haunting the world for the next century.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Mar 30 at 2015 8:50 AM

2015-03-30T08:50:05-04:00

To me war is not a game where you give someone a "sporting chance". In war it is a matter of survival, where I've been a "sporting chance" means you were dead!!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 30 at 2015 9:06 AM

2015-03-30T09:06:17-04:00

War is the application of politics through Force.

That can include Killing, and it can include Murder but it does not make it Murder.

It is a logical fallacy trap (False Equivalence).

But let's start at the micro level vice the macro.

Are the two statements below equal:

"Thou shall not kill" and "Thou shall not murder"

I say not, because sometimes killing is justified as in the defense of self, others, or hunting for survival. Those things do not make someone a murderer. Just as killing to eat is not murder, nor does it make a hunter a murderer.

Now, can murder occur in war? Yes. However, US Policy has always been to minimize loss of civilian life. Not all countries share the same philosophy however.

What it really boils down to is an oversimplification of a very complex subject. "War is murder, and it isn't"

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Mar 30 at 2015 12:26 PM

2015-03-30T12:26:38-04:00

Bottom Line.

1) War is a terrible thing no one should have to experience. - War as Murder is incredibly descriptive but not correct terminology.

2) The difference between War and Murder is quite simply that one has an Illegal Personal Motivation and the other is a Legally Sanctioned Government Activity.

Response by PO2 Bruce Mckay made Mar 30 at 2015 2:30 PM

2015-03-30T14:30:08-04:00

Lt, my point is this if you feel that way why did you take the oath?
Look at history only a few. Take the oath. And remember it has no expiration date.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2015 2:06 AM

2015-03-31T02:06:39-04:00

Murder is the deliberate termination of a human life for reasons of personal satisfaction and/or advancement.

Because murder is inherently confined to a level of individuals the two can never be the same. Murder may be part of war as something that takes place during the conflict, but it is not equivilent to war or even an inherent part of war.

War is the direct imposition of will through force, it can be initiated or used for good or evil purposes, but it is not inherently evil. It is inherently destructive and just as war and murder are not equivilent, neither are destruction and evil equivilent.

Murder is both inherently evil and destructive because an act of murder is one in which the murderer decides that their life is worth more than that of another human and they terminate that life for their own satisfaction.

To attempt to crudely simplify these complex actions down to a rudimentary "war=murder" equation is a short-sighted attempt at misdirection and manipulation that is barely worth the breath needed to demonstrate that it is false and a pointless distraction from the real moral and ethical issues associated with wars and murders.

I believe that I have made my position on the matter clear but if there are any questions I'll be happy to keep typing until some more words manage to make sense.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Mar 31 at 2015 5:27 AM

2015-03-31T05:27:53-04:00

I disagree however, that does not mean that one can not "murder" another human being during a time of war in a war zone. Murder requires two elements, one being the actual act, and the other is the mental intent. The mental intent is the afore thought of malice which manifests into an overt action or premeditated actions which set standards for different degrees of murder. Some questions I might ask myself after I took a life in a war zone after mission might be:

Was my life in danger?
Did I follow ROE?
Was he pointed a deadly weapon at me?
Was he pointed said deadly weapon at me in a threatening manner?
Did I have the perception that my life and safety was in danger?

If I can answer all of those questions, I believe I am not a murderer. I think this is the best I can answer the question.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2015 8:05 AM

2015-03-31T08:05:44-04:00

I wonder who would way such a foolish statement. This goes in line with another discussion, "how do we define the enemy?"

When you become sympathetic to the enemy you don't see them as an enemy either through they clearly wish death and destruction on you. If you recall the sense from Saving Private Ryan where Upham doesn't attempt to assist his fellow soldier, Mellish, and lets the German kill him. That is because he didn't see him as the enemy and didn't want to murder him.

As an Army in general we have killed many people in war. Some were enemies but some were not. Sometimes civilians die in war. It is not out intent but if you Drop a J-Dam sometimes people die that weren't supposed to die.

If you think war is murder than your vilifying our military. You are going to make it harder for that veteran that had to make a difficult decision. If civilian died when he attacked an insurgent to prevent harm to other soldiers then you are going to part him in a dark place. Taking a life isn't a easy thing. I have seen some deal with it with great tragedy. This is not what we do as soldiers.

Saving Private Ryan (6/7) Movie CLIP - Upham Fails Mellish (1998) HD

Saving Private Ryan movie clips: http://j.mp/1uvAl4X BUY THE MOVIE: http://amzn.to/uAEFMq Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6pr CLIP DES...

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 31 at 2015 9:57 AM

2015-03-31T09:57:52-04:00

War is a large encompassment of a nation state exerting their beliefs either in offense or defense in order to obtain a result. It can be used as a negotiating or nation building (or destroying) tactic.

Murder is generally a selfish act that specifically benefits the individual committing the act. More often than not, committed through some emotional choice.

I can see the points that they may be similar, but I do not agree.

Response by MSgt Allan Vrboncic made Mar 31 at 2015 1:03 PM

2015-03-31T13:03:07-04:00

Defending your Country or an Allie's Country against a threat to one's existence is not murder.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Mar 31 at 2015 1:09 PM

2015-03-31T13:09:11-04:00

Sir-

The difference is a fine line. This is probably why many people don't see a difference, when the differences are small enough, people will throw out any sort of gray scale point of view.

The question you posed influences the answer. So I will just throw in more relative tidbits that I think helps the answer. Its all about how a person sees the world, at the end of the day.

War as WESTERN POWERS have defined it through many centuries of blood shed is usually backed by a state-government, has a definable start (although these days, no definable end), some political or ideological purpose (see Clausewitz), and warfighters that can be reigned in and called home when objectives change. With all that taken together, killing in war is not murder because its not without some broader nationalistic purpose in mind (the legal aspect).

War as Islamic nations have defined it can be generational in scope, no defined beginning or end, can go with or without a state government sponsoring it, its difficult to get people mobilized for war (formal armies in the Middle East have never done well), but difficult to call in the dogs of war once they have won or achieved their objective (hence the Mujahideen won in their objective in kicking out the Soviets, and became the Taliban after they won). The legal aspect is not there, but the religious aspect is. Truthfully, unless Muslims aren't by and large convinced they are killing for some higher cause, they can't be roused to do anything but the bare minimum. I've seen this with the ANA, it was absolutely difficult to get them off their butts to 'fight for Afghanistan', not their tribe or war lord, because to me it was clear their tribal chiefs had a lot more buy-in with the average Afghan than their officers or nco's.

But this is difficult to accept for Americans educated in formal public schools, since public schools have done a good job of brainwashing kids from being able to understand and digest other ways of obeying authority. At this point, it would be laughable and ludicrous for Americans to consider a tribal authority, but we forget for most of the world this was how it was done.

War is murder- shows the view point that our elected officials have done a poor job of defining why we should fight. People who take that view point just don't have any buy-in with the official rationale for fighting. If they take the point of view Killing in combat isn't necessarily murder, then its different.

But no matter who they are or what culture they are from, most people will take the view point that war is murder unless they see a clear reason to get up and fight.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 31 at 2015 8:32 PM

2015-03-31T20:32:17-04:00

I guess the first thing I would say is where are the facts to support your premise that "a lot of people (to include a lot of veterans) do not see any difference between the conduct of war and mass murder". Is there some support on this assertion? A survey, poll, news story from a credible source etc?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2015 10:58 PM

2015-03-31T22:58:17-04:00

Good grief,..... War: Someone is trying to kill you, simply kill them first. This equals "justification". Murder: Non combat/ life threatening situation and taking a life without reason. This equals "without justification". I can see the difficulty in seeing the difference for these people ... :I

Response by MSgt Jim Pollock made Mar 31 at 2015 11:21 PM

2015-03-31T23:21:35-04:00

"War is murder" is a nonsense statement. War is a political status between states. Murder is personal act. Two very different things.

That said, killing is a component of war. It may be justified, or it may be murder. The Law of Armed Conflict was developed to make that distinction. Clearly, our recent conflicts with non-state enemies has blurred the interpretation of those rules--and there are heavy consequences for getting it wrong. In other words, it is much easier to be a wartime murderer than it used to be.

Fort Leavenworth houses several folks that learned this lesson the hard way. In some cases, justifiably, in others, well, I'm not the judge.

In part, this has something to do with our real-time, smart phone/Go-Pro society. Every act is scrutinized and often documented. In the past, combatants might have gotten away with what today will be prosecuted as murder. It's an unfair burden for those charged with fighting battles at the very pointy end of the spear, but every wartime action must be taken with an eye toward the possible consequences.

Be careful out there and know your ROE.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 31 at 2015 11:49 PM

2015-03-31T23:49:12-04:00

It's very simple to prove this wrong. There's a book, just came out. It's called the dictionary.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Mar 31 at 2015 11:51 PM

2015-03-31T23:51:59-04:00

I'm curious as to which of our illustrious members you are referring to. ;)

I think a lot of this comes down to some rather nebulous concepts. The Law of Land Warfare comes to mind and what is considered a "War" in that context. For that matter, what is considered "War" in the context of the American Constitution, legislation and American jurisprudence.
There may very well be an argument that America has committed no war crimes since the cessation of hostilities of WW II. Why? because since then, America has not "declared war" for any of the conflicts we have participated in since.

So, is war murder? Lawfully engaged in war that is conducted according to the conventions and accords accepted by the international community and meeting the "Just War" criteria, is not murder. Col Joseph Lenertz does an exemplary job of explaining that.

Is the Soldier, acting on the will of his nation, a murderer? No, because he is not entering into the conflict for the specific purpose of causing the death of people who mean him or others no harm. Several other conversations in this thread introduce "intent" as the distinction between the conduct of military/police/war operations and murder. The Kantian ethics of Duty apply, and regardless of the effect (consequentialism), intent is the deciding factor to the ethics of the action.

At what point does a death occurring during a conflict or in the battlespace become a war crime or murder?

More than anything else, this is the real question to me. If the Soldier believed the war he fought to be a just war, his intent was not murder, and therefore he is innocent of that charge. If the Soldier's government entered into military operations knowing that the "war" did not meet the requirements of a "Just War", is his government guilty of murder for those that die from the Soldiers actions? If so, who is to be held responsible?

And that is the rub for most of the peace activists. Does American involvement abroad, our interest in armed conflict, meet the requirements for the "just war" or is it blatant imperialism, opportunism, or as corporate proxies? It is true that many of the military operations were as part of UN resolutions and others did indeed meet the requirements, not all operations were conducted according to the ROE specific to the intent of the declaring government agencies. In the event that a Commanding Officer disregarded the intent of the operations and deliberately conducted them in a way to sabotage other efforts because of political/social ideology, is anyone guilty of murder at that point? If so, who? The Soldiers that followed him? His higher command that authorized his deviation from script?

There are many things that war is: Hell, tragedy, glory, death, life, pain, sorrow, loss, vindication, the result of failed politics, politics by other means, and many more.

What war is not, is murder.

War is a tool, that like a gun, can be used to commit murder. It is about intent and execution.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 1 at 2015 12:24 AM

2015-04-01T00:24:29-04:00

They are not the same. Killing with regards to the Laws of Land Warfare as part of lawful combat operations is legal. Murder, by definition, is not.

That said, I have often discussed these issues with Chaplains insofar as how is it OK for us to kill in battle, when the bible says it is not OK...

I concur with Col Joseph Lenertz and CSM Private RallyPoint Member.

Interesting topic.

Response by PO1 Cleve Ikaika Waiwaiole made Apr 1 at 2015 12:44 AM

2015-04-01T00:44:55-04:00

If war brings greater good in the future for the people, to preserve morals...then I believe it is not murder. In war we as soldiers are not deliberately going overseas to have a killing frenzy. We are not killing people for fun.

"Murder" is used as a word for the unjustified killing of another human. When we go to war it is justified. We even had a revolutionary war for God sakes. With our own people, to fight for what's right. For a greater good. It is not murder if you are fighting to save GENERATIONS of lives as a result.

hitler and his army massacred thousands and thousands of Jews. We went in for the greater good and eliminated the threat. We pretty much stopped a worldwide purge that most likely would of happened if we did not unite against him.

Sometimes war has to be done. There is no perfect world. People will die, good people, bad people, innocent people... At all costs there has to be some sort of world order. As technology and warfare evolves over the decades... It is very scary to see any of that fall into the wrong hands..

Response by Sgt Tom Vaughn made Apr 1 at 2015 3:12 PM

2015-04-01T15:12:26-04:00

Those people are mentally sick. And need help or at least worth watching out for. I am a U S Marine Not a U S Muderer
I let one person call me a baby killer. And the only reason I left her standing was because she was a woman and also the mother of my best friend. I refused to reconise her or to ever acknowledge her existence after that We are not murderers. And I take exception to their claim. It is an insult

Response by PV2 Franklin Grisham made Apr 1 at 2015 3:52 PM

2015-04-01T15:52:52-04:00

Killing is justified, murder is not.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 5:25 PM

2015-04-01T17:25:10-04:00

That's simple. One is legal and the other is not. Murdering your neighbor because they play loud music is illegal, because... Well, do I really need to explain why?

Going off to war to defend your country is legal, unless you're one of those spineless people who think rolling over will solve being oppressed.

The real question is, is that member willing to kill to defend their loved ones? If so, and I would hope so, the phrase "war is murder" is indeed invalid.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 11:37 AM

2015-04-02T11:37:20-04:00

Murder is the killing of another person WITHOUT justification or valid excuse.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE

War... well war puts us in situations and we have to defend ourselves. To go all out in a full on massacre (deliberately and violently kill for NO REASON) well, that's just murder. We were trained to defend and liberate. If this means we have to snub out the enemy before they attack us, well then that's what we have to do... but that's not murder.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Apr 2 at 2015 2:33 PM

2015-04-02T14:33:02-04:00

I take my morality from the Bible. There, killing (as murder) is worthy of death, while killing in war is nowhere condemned and often praised.

Response by CPL James Rednour made Apr 2 at 2015 2:46 PM

2015-04-02T14:46:16-04:00

There is a big difference between war and murder. In war you are fighting an enemy and doing what is necessary to survive and protect ur brothers. If someone, anyone raises weapons against you, your family, friends or those close to you and you put them down thats not murder people thats justice and its justified, period end of story

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Apr 2 at 2015 3:11 PM

2015-04-02T15:11:00-04:00

War is killing, but not all killing is murder. The "WHY" is very important....

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 3:39 PM

2015-04-02T15:39:01-04:00

I believe as many have expressed, more eloquently than I. However, I boil the logic down further. Killing is an act of nature. Man did not invent killing. Killing has happened since the formation of differing species with differing needs. Nature justifies killing with the evolution/creation of the need. Carnivores must kill and consume flesh to survive it is how they are made. Do we condemn the lion for killing/consuming the antelope? Is the lion called a murderer? Would one lion look at another, point a clawed and furred finger and exclaim "Murderer!" it if killed another lion? I believe what I see from PBS is that Lions respect the natural order which is the strongest survive, and sometimes that is killing their own. This is rife throughout nature. To my mind then, Killing is a part of the natural process.

Murder on the other hand is a machination of man. More appropriate perhaps it is a machination of social order. Murder is an act of killing in which a society has deemed that the killing was unjustified. Therefore murder is not part of natural order but rather societal order. Man is an animal though. So are we justified in killing, since we are animals? I would think most humans, with few exceptions, (vegans come to mind) would say that humans are justified in killing for survival as omnivores. We rarely point a finger at the hunter who has provided meat for his table and exclaim "Murder!" (again reference vegan).

I think we can then securely say that generally, humans condone killing for necessity and in general have come to condemn unnecessary killing and label unnecessary in various forms.

We classify killing legally many different ways. One site generated 87 terms for killing. "87!" Simple terms we all know: Murder, Manslaughter, Homicide, Suicide are common knowledge. What we see is that killing is diverse and in certain circumstances condoned.

To make a statement that "War is Murder" does not take into account, the many ways in which killing is done. It takes a very broad subject War and equates it to a very narrow subject Murder. I would think it is the same as saying "Insects are Bees!"

I have seen others state that War is the physical extension of political will, or something along those lines. Again War is a machination of man. Many species kill, others as well as themselves. Is that war? Is that Murder?

The absolute statement "War is murder" establishes a 1 to 1 comparison which is not justified by our language, nor by our societal order.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 3:43 PM

2015-04-02T15:43:15-04:00

There is a HUGR difference between war and mass murder. The people who claim they are one in the same are, to put it plainly, complete and utter morons.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 9:58 PM

2015-04-02T21:58:38-04:00

How can you compare mass murder to war? In war you are a volunteer (in most cases) who chose to do what most would not to defend this country and the freedoms we have. It's kill or be killed... And even if you look at it from a lawful standpoint mass murder is committed by a criminal with the intent to take innocent lives. Where as war you are defending your life and the lives of your squad/team, where in majority of the time the enemy engages first which lawfully gives a soldier or marine the authority to defend his life. If we did not go to war then the United States would not be here today and we would have been invaded long ago.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 10:58 PM

2015-04-02T22:58:53-04:00

Murder is unjustifiable killing. If one thinks that killing one's enemy in combat is murder, then one hasn't considered the actual definition of the terms.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 11:24 PM

2015-04-02T23:24:24-04:00

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who once said "89.43% of all social media statistics are made up". I only say that because I think that anyone enlisting or commissioning into the military should be expecting the possibility that their nation may require their individual to go to war and defend our nation; which may require the killing of another human being. I've never understood conscientious objectors who are already in the military. What could they possibly have expected when joining the military? As for the question, let's pull on our thinking caps and look at the definitions of both war and murder.
War: "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."
Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
The biggest differences are war is lawful, it is directed between two or more nation States; war doesn't always involve killing, it can be psychological, cyber, physical, or several other types of warfare.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2015 6:57 AM

2015-04-03T06:57:55-04:00

1LT L S Words are powerful...your admission to the misstatement is appreciated but it serves as a good point to remind all of us as leaders -- and regardless of rank or experience, anyone that contributes intellectually to RP as so many do, is a leader for sure --that we must be guarded with our words and intent; if we are not deliberate without message, then ensure not being deliberate is intentional

Many good responses on why the statement is ridiculous. An underlying discussion is that murder can be senseless, but for most of us at the tactical level, death in combat is deliberate and not something the high majority of us move on from...ever.

Many people talk about killing in combat but have never done so, but that doesn't mean they do not carry the burden that comes with death of others in combat. And if one thinks if matters if the feelings are drastically different depending if it is friend or foe, I would beg to differ. The emotions many of us feel when killing, partly because it is out of self-preservation, is drastically different than how we feel after the action. Ending one's life as part of directed combat can have a heavy, cumulative burden. I do not get the sense the same is true for murderers.

There have been cold-blooded killers who have killed in combat, but I would offer that they are the outliers. Also, the personal nature of war seems to be to be much different (more personal) for us than for those great veterans of previous conflicts, partly because of scale. But that is just my opinion.

Its easy to post and banter and get heated in posts. I'd offer some advice, be deliberate and remember that words are powerful.

War IS NOT murder.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 3 at 2015 1:20 PM

2015-04-03T13:20:33-04:00

Scale.

Response by LTC Tom Hartley made Jan 9 at 2016 8:44 PM

2016-01-09T20:44:11-05:00

Both war and murder are killing others. War is not murder. Murder is illegal killing, usually for indefensible and selfish reasons. Just as a self defense that includes killing is not murder, killing which occurs during war is not usually murder. War is self defense on a societal level. We may never all agree on justification for going to war, but it is a government sanctioned and documented defense of a nation and/or their allies.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 11 at 2016 2:09 PM

2016-01-11T14:09:10-05:00

Call it what you will. War is killing to win. Murder is self gratification. Just my opinion
One other thought, the ten commandments says thou shall not kill. I believe that a bad translation and actually says thou shall not murder.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 14 at 2016 1:35 PM

2016-01-14T13:35:23-05:00

I like many of my compatriots had to study Just War concepts while I was learning about the prosecution of war as well as when I studied the rules and application of military justice first at the USMA, West Point and then in IOBC 1LT William Clardy.
As young officers we were well versed in the problems with the Nuremberg defense of my superiors made me do it.
Certainly crimes including murder occur in wars - sometimes it is committed by military personnel and sometimes it is a revenge action by people with prewar hatred for the victim.
The US military has set a pretty high bar for conduct of service members in and out of combat areas. I expect that will continue.