I apologize, my post wasn't clear. My point is, what's murder and what's not murder is subjective in war. It depends on who's doing the murdering, where they stand on the pyramid and the prejudicial POV of the person or persons doing the judging. When our enemies decapitate a hostage or fly a plane into a building, they don't consult the Hague first. And to them it's not murder. Yasser Arafat believed terrorism to be morally justifiable. Terrorism is the atomic bomb of the poor. When you have an enemy in your rifle sight and his back is to you and he is dressed in civilian clothes and he doesn't appear to be carrying a weapon, do you shoot him or not? And if you do, is it murder? The Hague isn't there to make the judgement call. It's up to you, your ROE and whatever moral standards of conduct you've managed to retain in a lethal environment. IMO, if you have reason to suspect he's the enemy, you take the shot. When a head-of-state orders a multiple cruise missile launch against "suspected" terrorist training bases and some of the cruise missiles wipe out civilian villages, is it murder, negligent homocide, a regrettable error? To the families of the dead children it's murder. Who is the murderer? The soldier who takes the shot with the reasonable belief that his target is the enemy? Or the president who orders the cruise missile launch with the knowledge that some of the targets are just "suspected" and not necessarily confirmed? The Special Forces sergeant in the above link took the shot. Then he was charged with murder. WTF? What was the line in Apocalypse Now? "Charging a man with murder over here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."