(quote) "you can make your moralistic judgments on whether war is murder but it comes down to this: if your country is invaded and you defend yourself, are you murdering your invaders?"

Well, then, just what does "kill or be killed " mean? You've also not bothered to recall my equally clear point : (quote)

"This does *not* mean that I can *not * recognize self-defense or coming to the defense of another under attack , but continuing to reinforce the concept of all *organized ( thus premditated) killing* is still *murder* ........"

Perhaps you'd feel more at ease with the more legalistically correct "manslaughter."

The *context* that you apparently need reminding of was another member here decided to take issue with my referring to the Twin Towers atrocity as *mass murder* and tried to make the misplaced *moral equivalency* case for the bombings of Dresden,Hiroshima, & Nagasaki because civilian targets were involved. I made the historic contextual case of the civilian population was a part of an already *declared* War effort and , while still an act of "organized killing" ( thus "premeditated") it was also employed to put an end to the cycle of War initiated and prosecuted by the Axsis powers. It worked. Case closed.

It seems that basic historic fact was *inconvinient* to the person whom tried and failed to make that "moral equivalency" case. Perhaps some would've prefered I use the other legalistic term of *executed*. In my mind the tactical intent and result are the same. I suppose the debate really only arrises over the *cause*, the reason for justifying civilian *execution*

The case for engaging in killing for self-defense or the defense of another has been made so I fail to understand why you're taking such a stance as if I had not.