Doesn't matter a whole lot how you kill the enemy. As long as it's not chemical or biological weapons, and you don't hit civilians.
Would you consider a drone-strike to be murder?
Or a tomahawk strike?
What about a tank that fires at targets 2 miles away?
A plane that drops a bomb?
Each of them also involves the delivery of a projectile of some form or other at an enemy target, often with additional explosive power rather than relying on sheer kinetic force.
If these are not to be considered murder, why would a sniper shot be any different?
Because of the perceived personal involvement of the shooter?
Because the target was unaware of the shot being fired?
So did the Holocaust.It occurred in a state of war.
That's true of war in general, not just sniper work.I am aware of your analoge, all that is murdering, We obey orders, we try to do our best, What a tragedy?
Both sides are crying.One side is enjoying and the other is crying.
That's true of war in general, not just sniper work.
Both sides are crying.
I did not mean to pick on the sniper ,nor on anybody in uniform.
I just thought that if anybody wants eliminate some at large distance can do it by using a sniper scope.
Not "anybody".
Sorry, you are right. There's a second criterion.So did the Holocaust.
Sorry, you are right. There's a second criterion.
It occurred between combatants in a war. Both sides were soldiers, in armies, combat-ready.
The Holocaust was murder because it targeted unarmed, civilian non-combatants.
If you lose the war? A crime against humanity.What would be called dropping nuclear bomb on civilian ?
I thought we were talking about snipers and terrorists in a combat zone.What would be called dropping nuclear bomb on civilian ?
Nono, quite the opposite.So, is this all a sign to allied ground forces being a step closer in Syria and Iraq?