andrewcriddle

I have doubts whether this distinction between civilians and soldiers applies in this period.

Civilians were not protected from the consequences of defeat in the way that modern warfare mostly at least attempts to do. Hence they were as entitled as the regular army to take lethal measures against the other side in time of war. (In any case the regular army were typically a bunch of farmers rounded up to fight in a few months long campaign. )

Andrew Criddle

Keith&Co.

It's just Roger playing 'Gotcha.'

The original question was about an absolute standard within The Books that is directly violated, apparently by the 'good' side, within the Books.

Roger has no chance of justifying that, so he counters with an attack.

Obviously, no one is going to argue that Stauffenberg was wrong. Even the most rabid opponent of vigilante behavior is not going to come to Hitler's defense. Nor is any atheist going to rush to defend that evil Christain. Of course, moral relativists won't have a problem with a situational ethical decision coming down on the side of 'murder the bastard.'

But then Roger will probably try to claim that if we allow any murder, we're in no position to criticize the flexible morals of The Books.

Except, no translation i know of has 'unless the son-of-a-bitch really deserves it' at the end of 'thou shalt not kill(murder).' The moral standard here is not flexible, at least not in the text. So the side discussion is just a derail.
If Roger knew of any sort of in-litany justification to ignore the 10C, i'm sure he'd have offered it in the first place, rather than play on Anti-Nazi biases of most enlightened people in this century.

badger3k

While you are probably correct, I know a few (well, one for sure) people who would say just that - that any killing is not justified. So, effectively (I gather) this individual would place Uncle Adolf, Stauffenberg, Jael, all soldiers, heck - even people who kill animals for food (including me, btw) - on the same moral ground. I am not sure there are degrees within that, where one is worse than another, even if all are wrong. To me that's a bit batshit insane, and they refuse to even discuss the issue, but :huh:

Anyway, from what I have read and heard, the hebrew word used in the earliest texts is "kill", not "murder" - it is used in the same places (as in killing an animal, IIRC). I have not checked into this myself, and do not speak (or read) Hebrew, so I cannot vouch for the reliability of this. I just wanted to bring it up for discussion if needed.

Keith&Co.

Well, if they're moral absolutists, at any end of the spectrum, there's just no talking to them.

Minimalist

Von Stauffenberg ended up in front of a firing squad. Obviously, the people with the guns thought he was "wrong."