Thread: Henry Rollins On Military Recruitment.

What do you call it when the "bad" guy kills the "good" guy?

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

What do you call it when the "bad" guy kills the "good" guy?

We talking civilian or military and what are the circumstances involved? Without those i cant give you an answer.

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

If you go back further into American history, back to our revolution, then some of the deaths incurred by the British could also have been termed murder (and likely were), because in many cases the British weren't fighting an "army", but instead groups of armed civilians not belonging to the Continental Army.
~Morningfrost

The key word here is armed. Once you pick up a weapon you become a combatant even if you are an illegal combatant.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

The key word here is armed. Once you pick up a weapon you become a combatant even if you are an illegal combatant.

I'm not saying that if the British were fired upon by a minuteman, that it would've been murder if they fired back and killed one. What I'm saying is that because the minutemen weren't part of a regular army, and were instead irregulars (or in today's verbiage, an illegal combatant), that the case could've been made that any British soldiers they killed were essentially murders. If fact, if I remember correctly I believe that case WAS made a few times, at least from the British point of view.

The modern-day equivalent would be a US soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan coming under fire from "irregulars". If we're shot at and our retaliation ends in the deaths of those irregulars, it wouldn't be considered murder, but merely self-defense in a theoretical war zone. Were any of our soldiers to be killed, however, we could make a relatively convincing argument that they were murdered.

~Morningfrost

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

I'm not saying that if the British were fired upon by a minuteman, that it would've been murder if they fired back and killed one. What I'm saying is that because the minutemen weren't part of a regular army, and were instead irregulars (or in today's verbiage, an illegal combatant), that the case could've been made that any British soldiers they killed were essentially murders. If fact, if I remember correctly I believe that case WAS made a few times, at least from the British point of view.

The modern-day equivalent would be a US soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan coming under fire from "irregulars". If we're shot at and our retaliation ends in the deaths of those irregulars, it wouldn't be considered murder, but merely self-defense in a theoretical war zone. Were any of our soldiers to be killed, however, we could make a relatively convincing argument that they were murdered.

~Morningfrost

If we're going by todays laws applied to then you cant make that claim because the rules are very clear on this topic. Unarmed would be murder but an armed illegal combatant is a combatant no less then regular army. The only real difference is treatment after a capture has been made.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

If we're going by todays laws applied to then you cant make that claim because the rules are very clear on this topic. Unarmed would be murder but an armed illegal combatant is a combatant no less then regular army. The only real difference is treatment after a capture has been made.

You're basically restating what I said. Our troops shooting those irregulars wouldn't constitute murder, but the irregulars killing the troops is more of a grey area.

~Morningfrost

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

You're basically restating what I said. Our troops shooting those irregulars wouldn't constitute murder, but the irregulars killing the troops is more of a grey area.

~Morningfrost

Then i definitely misread what you said. LOL

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Then i definitely misread what you said. LOL

Bad DG

~Morningfrost