Is war a form of murder?
Yes
Side Score: 14
|
No
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
Technically, I would say no, as the definition of murder is 'The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.' Since the military's job is to kill I'm pretty sure it's not illegal for them to kill enemies (unless they are surrendering or unarmed). Morally though, I would say yes, as a lot of wars are caused by a disagreement about something, be it religion, culture, etc. If an ordinary citizen killed someone because they disagreed with them, it would be murder. If someone killed someone to gain access to their resources it would be murder. I'm not against the military, as it is essential in some circumstances, but I do think the west has made the Middle East a worse place, but then doesn't understand why terrorist organisations thrive there. If a foreign army bombed your country, killing thousands of civilians and then just leaving once they had 'won', it's no surprise some people there have a hatred of the people who took everything from them. I'm not justifying the actions of terrorist groups, but we have more to do with it than we care to admit. Side: Yes
1
point
We stand righteous in our belief so that no man dies in darkness for freedom is the light for which many have been given by vote to darkness. The job of the United States Military is as representation of the President of the United State. Preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Side: No
1
point
|
2
points
1
point
War is a means of self-defense to the general welfare, it can be proved as murder inside a Court of law. War itself is not murder and does not self-incriminate as murder in any way, shape, or form. War by Constitutional definition are never won only served, survived, and represented.
The question you ask is the very reason the United States of America is a union by state, as one nation giving creation to the title President of the United States described by Served, Survived and Represented. It is part of the legal argument that would describe a woman in executive office as anything but, President of the United States under oath before the United States Constitutional separation. Side: No
I agree with Dermot's explanation, but I'll add that both sides have to agree they're in a war or else it still might be considered murder. For example, if a man blows up a bus as some sort of sociopolitical statement then he and his group of followers might consider that an act of war, but the families of the victims as well as the government which didn't take that group of dissidents seriously enough might argue no actual war is going on, so therefore it's murder. Side: No
1
point
|