Murder.

Murder.

Murder is the intentional unlawful killing of another human without justification or plausible/moral intent, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.[1][2][3] This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is killing committed in the absence of malice,[note 1] brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness.

Most societies consider murder to be an extremely serious crime, and thus that a person convicted of murder should receive harsh punishments for the purposes of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation. In most countries, a person convicted of murder generally faces a long-term prison sentence, a life sentence, or even the death penalty.[4]

I've been having a discussion with some KMC members about this topic and we disagree on what murder is.

I made the argument that the Nazis invading Poland and killing them was murder.

Others disagreed.

Originally posted by Klaw
Murder.

I've been having a discussion with some KMC members about this topic and we disagree on what murder is.

I made the argument that the Nazis invading Poland and killing them was murder.

Others disagreed.

Originally posted by Newjak
Why did they disagree?

I sent them this thread, so hopefully they'll add their opinions.

Murder is killing ppl, we don't need govt permission to cover, imo.

Keep in mind this conversation also had a theological slant, so it was also about what is considered murder in Biblical terms (as in, "Thou shalt not murder"😉. Ethneo said that German soldiers who fought in the invasion of Poland were not murdering, due to it being a war/combat situation.

I'd probably agree with him there, as long as it's specifically regarding soldiers killing soldiers.

I offer this as a definition of combat: "Combat should be defined roughly as two parties or persons engaging in conflict. So, the battles between soldiers during the invasion of Poland was combat, but the resulting Holocaust was not combat (and was mass murder / genocide), as it was the extermination of civilians by military and government personnel."

Murder itself is a complex term. Some would define murder as any illegal killing (which is what it is considered legally, of course, with caveats such as manslaughter), whilst others would expand it beyond legal boundaries and define it as any killing without justification or excuse (which explains terms such as "meat is murder"😉. Most dictionaries use the first definition, keeping it as a legal and not a moral term.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Murder is killing ppl, we don't need govt permission to cover, imo.

👆

Originally posted by Scribble
Keep in mind this conversation also had a theological slant, so it was also about what is considered murder in Biblical terms (as in, "Thou shalt not murder"😉. Ethneo said that German soldiers who fought in the invasion of Poland were not murdering, due to it being a war/combat situation.

I'd probably agree with him there, as long as it's specifically regarding soldiers killing soldiers.

I offer this as a definition of combat: "Combat should be defined roughly as two parties or persons engaging in conflict. So, the battles between soldiers during the invasion of Poland was conflict, but the resulting Holocaust was not combat (and was mass murder / genocide), as it was the extermination of civilians by military and government personnel."

Murder itself is a complex term. Some would define murder as any illegal killing (which is what it is considered legally, of course, with caveats such as manslaughter), whilst others would expand it beyond legal boundaries and define it as any killing without justification or excuse (which explains terms such as "meat as murder"😉. Most dictionaries use the first definition, keeping it as a legal and not a moral term.

That was a glorious talking point for a simple discussion😛

The delineation between murder and war is double speak that benefits those who benefit from the proceeding confusion. Even war has been transformed into kinetic military action. Any initiation of violence against an individual or their property is deontologically immoral.

Originally posted by Newjak
Why did they disagree?

What we said is that the Holocaust itself (the systematic killing of unarmed civilians by the Nazi government) was in fact murder. It was mass murder, actually. The german soldiers did not commit murder when they killed enemy actual armed soldiers in battle because they were ordered to by their government.

If anyone was guilty of murder in that case, it would've been the government itself only. Of course any soldiers who participated in the killing of innocent unarmed civilians would be guilty of murder too.

As usual, Klaw misrepresents what we actually said and uses strawman arguments. I swear, he is becoming more and more like you crazy, irrational lefties with each passing day...smh.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Of course any soldiers who participated in the killing of innocent unarmed civilians would be guilty of murder too.

So where do you put the blitz, Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc on that list?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So where do you put the blitz, Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc on that list?

Those attacks were directed at enemies who refused to surrender. Any civilian casualties as a result of those were collateral damage.

I'm not familiar with Dresden but those other examples you mentioned I would not classify as being mass murders. Mass killings, yes, but not murders.

I would think that attacking any civilian centres of population would be considered attempted murder, personally.

Well, in the cases mentioned above, I would not.

So we disagree, it seems.

Obviously.... I mean, if some lone terrorist sets off a bomb for "Allah" or whatever in a major city that kills lots of innocent people then that would be a clear case of mass murder (though from the terrorist's pov it probably wouldn't be; he'd probably view himself as a hero).

I don't put that in the same category as dropping bombs on an enemy whom you've warned to surrender or else you will use your secret weapon on them and they refuse to surrender. Especially after you've already used it one time and so they know you aren't bluffing and yet they still refuse to surrender.

Any deaths that result after that would be on their (the people who tefused to surrender) heads for sure.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So where do you put the blitz, Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc on that list?

The bombings of Hiroshima / Nagasaki are perhaps the two most singularly abominable acts in human history.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Obviously.... I mean, if some lone terrorist sets off a bomb for "Allah" or whatever in a major city that kills lots of innocent people then that would be a clear case of mass murder (though from the terrorist's pov it probably wouldn't be; he'd probably view himself as a hero).

I don't put that in the same category as dropping bombs on an enemy whom you've warned to surrender or else you will use your secret weapon on them and they refuse to surrender. Especially after you've already used it one time and so they know you aren't bluffing and yet they still refuse to surrender.

Any deaths that result after that would be on their (the people who tefused to surrender) heads for sure.

Originally posted by Scribble
imo they are war crimes, and as such, unjust killings. If you use the larger meaning of 'murder' then they are definitely murder.

The bombings of Hiroshima / Nagasaki are perhaps the two most singularly abominable acts in human history.

That's hypocritical. Surely by your reasoning, the terrorist is a combatant, and is attacking an enemy stronghold. ISIS have told the West to surrender plenty of times, and they didn't, so by your justification their attacks are definitely not murder. You're picking and choosing based on which side you prefer in this case.

Nah, it's not hypocritical. Nice try though. The US was at war with Japan because Japan wrongly attacked them (killing thousands of innocent Americans some of whom were civilians) while pretending to be their friend. Whatever happened to the japanese after that point they brought on themselves. Sorry but I don't consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder.

Both of those targets were military type targets that just so happened to have a lot of innocent civilians in the surrounding area. They were collateral damage. It wasn't murder.

And you're ignoring the fact that the American government gave them a chance to surrender before dropping the bombs.

A lone terrorist that blows up a bunch of people is a mass murderer. He is intentionally wanting to kill innocent unarmed civilians to cause terror. It is not the same thing. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

Oh, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings saved far more people in the long run than would've been saved had the US tried a land invasion of Japan.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nah, it's not hypocritical. Nice try though. The US was at war with Japan because Japan wrongly attacked them (killing thousands of innocent Americans some of whom were civilians) while pretending to be their friend. Whatever happened to the japanese after that point they brought on themselves. Sorry but I don't consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder.

Both of those targets were military type targets that just so happened to have a lot of innocent civilians in the surrounding area. They were collateral damage. It wasn't murder.

And you're ignoring the fact that the American government gave them a chance to surrender before dropping the bombs.

A lone terrorist that blows up a bunch of people is a mass murderer. He is intentionally wanting to kill innocent unarmed civilians to cause terror. It is not the same thing. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

If I say to a guy I'm fist-fighting "surrender!" and he doesn't, and then I carpet bomb his entire family, that would be a bit ****ed up, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Oh, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings saved far more people in the long run than would've been saved had the US tried a land invasion of Japan.

Like I said, those innocent civilians were collateral damage. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military type targets which were used in the Japanese war effort. The civilian deaths were unfortunate but they were not the intended targets.