yes!

Oh ok!

Well I think the moral distinction lies in the aggression part

a hitman?

And I think the battlefield gets pretty morally gray

No like

Hmmm

If I were to just shoot you that would be murder

But

If you shot at me then I shot you it would not be murder

Because in the first case I was being aggressive

But in the second case I was being reactionary

a hitman blows your theory out of the water. That's calm, cold and very calculated.
It also would only be immoral if you happen to be in the wrong jurisdiction

Ok but like that's still aggressive

O

we'd have to put any battlefield in the context of whether there is a Just War happening

By aggressive, I mean like they started it, not like its "aggressive"

no more aggressive than a patrol in a congressional war zone.

My bad for not defining terms, hypocrisy is a cold bitch

Ok but in a war zone (assuming combatants on both sides), both sides are equally aggressive and reactionary against one another which is why I say that its morally gray

special ops?
Marines are not always in congressional war zones and they do see fire.

Well my point is that in war when both sides are fighting against one another, both groups are kind of simultaneously "starting it" and "responding"

Like, as soldiers

Not that the nations(governments) involved themselves are equally responsible for starting and responding

How about Jeffrey Dahmer. He was as chill as you could get about the deed.

he's another extreme end.

Ok you didnt hear me a little while ago

Aggressive doesnt mean crazy

by aggressive I just mean "initiating violence"

and by reactionary I just mean "responding to the initiation of violence with violence"

It doesnt matter if they initiated violence in a "cold manner", by aggressive I just mean that they initiated the violence

teens that kill to join gangs?

aggressive

driveby typically

because the people they kill (Im assuming) didnt commit violence against them first

GG @Sauropithicus, you just advanced to level 4!

some fucked up shit happens in war zones.

When you talk about wars, thats gray for me, because its much harder to tell who is being aggressive and who is being reactionary when you're talking about collectives

Also, if soldiers commit violence against civilians, I would call that aggression

the only way to properly class murder without a lingering contradiction, is with authorization.

I dont see what is so contradictory about defining murder by the aspect of aggression