Quote:
Originally posted by exlrrp Now here's the ambiguity: at what point does the situation change from one trying bravely to kill the enemy to murdering a wounded man.
James
|
He killed him because he feared him and did not trust him, which is totally understandable. He was the enemy.....aka a soldier of the opposing forces whose objective was to kill as many of our soldiers as possible. Therefore, as long as the enemy was alive, regardless of the fact that he was wounded, "the situation" was still a "kill or be killed" scenario. Instead of an immediately defensive situation, this particular coalition soldier found himself in a pre-emptive one. He killed him because of the fear of the possibility that the wounded man had a hidden weapon(s).......much like the fear which Bush had concerning Saddam having hidden weapons........hmmmm. So, in order to eliminate any possibility of the wounded man killing him first, he shot him.
As for the killing vs murder question....it seems to me that in any war, there are at least three versions of killing:
1. Offensive
2. Defensive
3. Pre-emptive
All three can be considered murder but to varying degrees. Offensive and Pre-emptive involve a longer period of premeditation than defensive, which never occurs unless certain conditions are present. The fact that one muses on what those conditions must be in order for the deed to be done makes "killing in self-defense" premeditative.
The motives for taking another person's life and whether we agree with those motives seems to be what stirs the most controversy.
Some thoughts on killing, in general...
Killing healthy birds (like chickens, wild ducks and geese) for food is perfectly acceptable in America. Killing pet cockateils and parrots is not.
Killing dogs and cats is not acceptable, unless they are being euthinized because of a terminal illness.
Sending a cow to the slaughter house so that its meat can feed the hungry masses is acceptable (in America).
Killing a cow out of anger is not acceptable because it is considered as being cruel.
Either way, the cow is dead.
The reason I mentioned the cow is because there was a situation where a farmer faced charges for killing his cow because it kept straying into his neighbor's pasture. Someone found out and reported him to the animal rights activists. Now, if the farmer had simply sent the cow to the butcher, the death of the cow would have been totally acceptable.
So, to get back to your question....
Whether killing the enemy or murdering a wounded man, both scenarios achieve the same result.......the taking of a life. Was it justified? Well, that depends on whose shoes you are wearing......the soldier's or those of the dead man's mother.
Just sharing my current thoughts, I am
Nancy "Lilripple" Meek
___________________________
"Once, I was sad, because I had no shoes...until I met a man who had no feet."......Author Unknown