Replies

The point that you fail to understand, is that in a trial for murder, the defendant's contention that "somebody else committed murder TOO" does not mitigate or absolve their own culpability.

We are not discussing murder, we are discussing political issues.

War places a context on actions.

In fact, killing in war is not murder because of its context.

The issue is context

The issue is context.

I agree, but the slaughter of unarmed civilians by military force is - a policy adopted by the union forces. Per Lincoln's Lieber Code, the attempted assassination of President Jefferson Davis and cabinet was illegal, yet such was attempted. Such measures were appaluded, but these same sanctimonious, hypocritcal yankees then decry retaliatory measures, which were legal per Lincoln's own Military Code*.

[*Note: Admin Moderator - no one is advocating assasssination, this is a recitation of historical fact - I do not sanction the assassination/murder of a President, the Pope, public officials, unarmed civilians or anyone else*]

War places a context on actions. In fact, killing in war is not murder because of its context. The issue is context

Wow, I'll bet the Nuremberg defense lawyers would have liked to consult with you......

"Malmedy wasn't murder because of its context...."

"The Ardeatine Caves incident wasn't murder because of its context......"

"Khatyn Forest wasn't mass murder because of its context........"

Hmmmmmm. Can we "contextualize" our way to innocence for the SS-Wiking Division and the Death's-Head Division, the Black Hundreds, the Viet Minh and the Special Republican Guards? If we just "contextualize" history properly, can we come to a greater appreciation of the sacrifices imposed on leadership by context that requires them to kill large numbers of people (Cambodia, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution) in order adequately to support policy?

Naaaaah, lipstick on a pig.

Nice try, professor.

Sure you aren't #3Fascist with a new computer?