Sensitive intellectual respectful discussion wanted

Discussion in 'Other KaW Discussion' started by chad_da_king, Apr 9, 2018.

  1. This is just a curiosity in no way am I wanting or hoping that such an event happens.

    History shows that unfortunately due to the xingencies of war civilians are going to suffer and die.
    During conventional warfare, it is considered both mass murder and a war crime to specifically target civilian populations. Here's my inquiry.
    It is not considered murder to kill say an enemy general because they lead troops and give orders... If the purpose of war beyond the specific reason of starting that war is to destabilize that entities governing body. Is it considered murder in a time of war to kill an enemies high ranking civilian official. They don't lead troops but they are obviously leaders and in preview of destabilization.
    Do you believe something like this is considered murder and at what point is civilian casualties no longer simply the nature of war? Does it only cross the line when a troop moves into an area and kills every man woman and child? This inquiry can't be answered in regards to the war on terror because the issue is totally different.
     
  2. How easier would it have been to simply edit your original post?
     
  3. Remind me what post I could of edited I recall no where that I made such a post if I have then point taken after proven
     
  4. all killing is murder. war is just an excuse to kill. its just human nature.
     
  5. I read the op subject line and said “WOW” someone’s come to the wrong place
     
  6. Your duplicate thread that you created prior to this one.
     
  7. Apologies lasagna I thought the thread was cancelled when I had to pm someone
     
  8. Killing is definitely killing but so is war. Anyone who says war and killing is wrong, my feelings to, is right but from the way things are what crosses the line
     
  9. morally, everything crosses the line. but of course killing civilians is worse than killing soldiers.
     
  10. As far as lines drawn it comes down to morals and ethics.

    For me, the lines drawn at killing/harming women, children, and elders.

    For others, that line might be drawn sooner, or not at all.

    Perspective is all that separates us (or doesnt) from wild beasts.
     
  11. Murder is murder buddy no matter what way you split it
     
  12. ive always sorta thought that rules on war were weird

    if we didnt have rules, people could do whatever they want. nuking anyone, killing anyone, whatever

    if we didnt have rules, would people realize how terrible war really is, and start to avoid it? once people start to get affected, i feel like it would make people have harsher and more distinct opinions on whether we should enter a war

    dark thoughts but yeah
     
  13. Mass-slaughter for the greater good, you mean?
     
  14. you could put it that way i guess. but imagine if the cold war had really kicked off into a thermonuclear war. maybe people today would see war differently
     
  15. Idk why but this reminds me of the ol' Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

    His death sparked WWI.

    I'd write a lengthy post about ethics, collateral damage and how civilians are a line, once you've crossed. You'll be remembered as murdering psychos. But hey, peeps do whatever.
     
  16. We're getting somewhere murder is murder. War is war, all inevitable and horrible I don't think a ffa thermo nuclear war is the answer. As far as I know we don't follow the script of "the purge" we've heard that rules separate us from beasts and killing civilians crosses a line and stains hands for all time. Is there a shadowy line against harming civilians upon the guise of not intending harm or necessary collateral damage? Or is it a hard line and what about government bodies we don't kill presidents just because we hate them. In war however would killing the high commander be a war crime for instance
     
  17. i never suggested a free for all nuke duke out, i was just imagining something.

    the only difference between a general and a solider is the general kills indirectly and the soldier kills directly. why would killing him be a war crime?

    i read american sniper and he talked about how politics would interfere with the war. he would snipe someone and have to write a report on it and detail his rationale. and then sometimes have to go to court to defend himself. it was ridiculous how little control he had over who he could kill and who he couldnt, he always had to go over a checklist before he could take someone out, so the politicians back at home could cover their own asses.
     
  18. Uh the world wouldnt be around if nuclear war broke out between the us and russia
     
  19. When I read the op a Russian accent was in my head Lmao
     
  20. I was referring to the president not necessarily a general but that's true, what about acceptable civilian collateral damage if 2 forces have a mass gun fight in the middle of a city.... Not to mention bombs