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. You guys certainly do have a problem with thinking clearly don't you?
The examples that you cite are considered artrocites because they did violate the reasonable context of war.
Without a context, all killing in war would be murder.
Because we recognize a context for killing in war, we can identify those acts that are considered murder and those are not, even in war.
That is why we have trials for those acts to see what led to those acts and if they can be justified due to the war situation.
Context, once again is the issue.
Nice try, professor. Sure you aren't #3Fascist with a new computer?
Not at all.
Your rejection of context and principle, reveals the problem that you pro-Southerners have with reality and truth.
'Lentulusgracchus' frivolously dragging his typical twisted logic with such subjects as "Malmedy", "The Ardeatine Caves incident", "Khatyn Forest" and other horrific war crimes as NOT being "mass murder" only exemplifies his lack of morality, plus then he throws in the brutal SS-Wiking Division and the Death's-Head Division into a debate over the Civil War(??)
Once again, the proof of true character is in his statements.