Murder versus killing?

Question

Why is it hard for people to understand the difference between killing and murder.

I just had a retard email me through Yahoo Questions and told me that George Bush really is a mass murderer because he has ordered airstrikes that have killed "thousands" of innocent civillians.

Well, this is war, we're trying to root out insurgents. I believe the President is acting in good faith when he orders airstrikes that those killed will be insurgents or other enemy combatants. I highly doubt he has the intent to murder civilians.

Answer 1

Hilers reason were murder, genocide and to get more realestate to expand the German empire, plain and simple, he had no valid reason to march into Poland to rid it of the Jewish people there as he saw it, to save the Polish people from themselves by purification of the race. He did the same to Vienna. Even is our motive to go into IRAq was to secure oil, in getting Sadam out iof power was a good thing, and if innocents are killed by airstrikes or just renegade Marines, then's that non combatant fatalities for you, there are no innocents in war.

Answer 2

murder n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way), and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute many states make killings in which there is torture, movement of the person (kidnapping) before the killing, as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), and the death of a police officer or prison guard all first degree murders with or without premeditation, and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life others (such as firing a gun into a crowd, or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. (Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. To be murder the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice, and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. (Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus). Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought. (See: manslaughter, first degree murder, second degree murder, homicide, malice aforethought, premeditation)

of Link to this definition of killing
1. [n] the act of terminating a life. More...

2. [n] an event that causes someone to die. More...

3. [a] (informal) very funny; "a killing joke"; "sidesplitting antics". More...

4. [a] having a debilitating effect; "a killing job in the hot sun". More...

5. [n] (informal) a very large profit. More...

Answer 3

Many say that because he illegally invaded Iraq their blood is on his hands.

There is a difference between defending yourself and attacking a sovereign nation for no other reason than OIL!!! I don't care if there were 400 Saddam's there!! That was never the reason. He wasn't a terrorist!

AT least Hitler's reason or motives were mostly political!

Answer 4

IF BUSH OR BLAIR DECIDED THAT THEY WERE TO ENFORCE THEIR WILL ON THE US/UK POPULATION AND A MINORITY GROUP WANTED TO FIGHT AGAINST IT, TOTALLY REFUSED TO COMPLY, THE MINORITY GROUP COULD BE ARRESTED AND SENT TO JAIL - IF THE MINORITY GROUP MANAGED TO GET A WHOLE LOAD OF PEOPLE TO COME TO ACTUALLY WANT TO CHALLENGE THE PRESIDENT/PM (AS IN TO SAY CIVIL WAR) - WHO WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT?

NOW, IF A FOREIGN POWER DECIDED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS RIGHT AND IN ORDER TO RESTORE PEACE AND ORDER, ALL THAT OPPOSED THE HEAD OF STATE NEEDED TO BE CAUGHT AND DEALT WITH . BIG PROBLEM THE REBELS (MINORITY GROUP) HAVE GONE INTO HIDING BUT STILL MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE BEGINING TO UNDERSTAND THE REBELS POINT - SHOULD WE BOMB/KILL THOUSANDS OF MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN UNTIL WE FIND THE REBELS?

OR WHAT IF IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND AND SOME FOREIGN POWER BELIEVED THAT OUR HEAD OF STATE WAS TREATING THE PEOPLE BADLY AND THEN FORCED THE HEAD OF STATE TO GO INTO HIDING - DOES THAT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO BOMB OUR COUNRTY? KILLING KIDS AND WRECKING FAMILIES AND LIVES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT?

BEFORE YOU ANSWER - THINK ABOUT WAKING UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT - WAR ALL AROUND YOU AND YOUR FAMILY DEAD?

I KNOW I WOULDN'T LIKE IT - I THINK KILLING - WAR OR NO WAR IS WRONG - ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS PEOPLE IN POWER DOING THE KILLING AND SAYING THAT 'OF COURSE INNOCENT WILL DIE' - THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY!

UK, FRANCE, USA, CHINA AND SOMEWHERE ELSE (CAN'T REMEMEBR ARE THE BIGGEST DEALERS IN ARMS - SEEMS TO HYPOCRITICAL TO ME!!!!