Justified Killing ... or Murder?

War is one of those inescapable realities men have been plagued with since the beginning of time: from ancient Biblical stones and swords to modern-day 21st century super-weapons - combative or militant killing was and continues to be viewed primarily as justified.

The decision of a country to wage war against another must rest on justified principles, or just causes to be perceived as moral. These include religious freedoms, social injustices, perceived threats, and last resort as a measure to preserve peace or re-establish peace both internally and externally.

Wars should not be waged with the self-centered goal of a country’s ruler seeking empowerment. A country’s ruler objective should be to defend and protect the country or stand in defense of a lesser known country, inclusive of its decision to go to war. Albeit, the ultimate goal for waging war should be to preserve peace in every essence – the act of being a "peace-maker" void of ambiguity. First Things April 2007 article by George Weigel, pointed out that --

"We are, as Augustine put it, to ‘be peaceful . . . in warring,’ that is, to keep the aim of peace first and foremost, and not only to ‘vanquish those whom you war against’ but also to ‘bring them to the prosperity of peace.’ . . . The ideal expressed in the just war tradition . . . is an ideal in which the use of force serves . . . to create peace. This is a purpose that must not be forgotten." http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5465

The erroneous objective of going to war on the basis of self-empowerment outside a perceived threat is unjustified killing. A ruler should not risk the life of his men (women) and the foundation of his country with the divisive intent of achieving global recognition. In such case, a ruler’s motives for war would not be to preserve peace, but rather to destabilize or obliterate that country’s economic structure and/or render it’s political institution docile. Within the doctrine of "just war" such motivations fall into the category of unjustified militant killings, as follows:

"Just War theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally preferable. "It is an attempt to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces. Just War theories attempt to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

The most contentious and destructive wars, waged throughout the centuries, were ebbing under the guise of "religious freedom." Such wars were waged in the name of God, as defined by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These wars are perpetuated by groups termed "religious extremist" who differs in the interpretation of the Divine Scripture. Nonetheless, it begs the question as to who holds the true meaning of the Holy Word. What is the nature of the Word as defined by Jews, Christians, or Muslims? The complexities are so great that to choose one versus the other intrinsically creates an apocryphal infinitum.