Ultimate Comics: X-Men #11 review by Wolverine12

[Lascoden]

Merriam Webster:
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Britannica:
murder, in criminal law, the unjustified killing of one person by another, usually distinguished from the crime of manslaughter by the element of malice aforethought.

Murder is unlawful. Murder is a crime. Soldiers are lawful combatants, sanctioned by the government, the law. Thus, not murderers.

[Robbie_Jee]

Were you not reading my posts? Of course soldiers are lawful combatants. Soldiers kill who their government want them to kill. Otherwise it's murder. You understand? That's wrong. By your logic, the law is correct no matter what.

And someone has already posted it's definition. And by that actual Oxford English definition, murder perfectly describes the actions of soldiers. Soldiers are made to kill. And with intent, and with predetermined motives, and not by accident but purposefully.

The only reason it's not lawfully accepted is because they're killing who they're told to kill. They're murdering people because a militant organisation told them to.

Let me assume, by your logic, did Nazis murder Jews? I'm seriously asking. Because fundamentally they were lawful. And they carried out lawful commands. You get me?

[Lascoden]

Were you not reading my posts? Of course soldiers are lawful combatants. Soldiers kill who their government want them to kill. Otherwise it's murder. You understand? That's wrong. By your logic, the law is correct no matter what.

And someone has already posted it's definition. And by that actual Oxford English definition, murder perfectly describes the actions of soldiers. Soldiers are made to kill. And with intent, and with predetermined motives, and not by accident but purposefully.

The only reason it's not lawfully accepted is because they're killing who they're told to kill. They're murdering people because a militant organisation told them to.

Let me assume, by your logic, did Nazis murder Jews? I'm seriously asking. Because fundamentally they were lawful. And they carried out lawful commands. You get me?

Yes, it was. They committed war crimes, unlawful killing. They were not "fundamentally lawful" because they broke international law. So, it was murder.

Murder is by definition unlawful. Even the definition given earlier (was it Oxford? he didn't say) states that. So, if you were to kill someone in self-defense, it would not be murder. Soldiers who follow the laws of war are not murderers. You disagree?

[Robbie_Jee]

Yes, it was. They committed war crimes, unlawful killing. They were not "fundamentally lawful" because they broke international law. So, it was murder.

You discuss war like it's OK if it's lawful. And I'm pretty positive international law isn't something everyone agrees with, nor do they advocate it, nor does it take presidence over all cultures of people.

The Nazi's were carrying out orders and if they ever disobeyed, that would make them enemies of Germany. Killing the Jews was essentially lawful to the Germans.

And the entire logic surrounding 'war crime' is hypocrisy. It's political propaganda, used to manipulate nations into fighting wars. Let me give you an example. Torture is apparently internationally unlawful to the western world. It is "fundamentally illegal". However, it's something every country does. We're just not supposed to know about it. I can assure you that both the American and British government torture "suspected terrorists" on a regular basis. This gets brought up on the news a lot in my country and yet government officials claim it's OK, simply because they need to "extract information".

Yes it was the Oxford English dictionary that I quoted. That definition clearly stated predetermined, purposeful killing as murder. And yet political legislations will argue that THE LAW takes precedence over it.

You're bringing something as convoluted as politics to determine what is murder instead of realising just how black and white everything really is. Its Human Agenda blurring the logic behind morale.

Murder is by definition unlawful. Even the definition given earlier (was it Oxford? he didn't say) states that. So, if you were to kill someone in self-defense, it would not be murder. Soldiers who follow the laws of war are not murderers. You disagree?

With this, not at all. I actually agree with you whole heartedly. What I don't agree with is how that logic applies to a warzone.

[Hostile_17]

Let's try and get this back on X-men

This is the solicit for next weeks issue:

ULTIMATE COMICS X-MEN #12
NICK SPENCER (w) CARLO BARBERI (a)
Cover by KAARE ANDREWS
• The mysteries of the mutant dead deepen even further.
• A familiar and much feared foe makes an unexpected return.
• What do you know about the last time the world ended?


Could this familiar and much feared foe be the mystery villain in Divided We Fall maybe?

I know there is a good chance this will just be a reveal of Magneto to the other characters and tied into this whole mystery dead thing, but I think that would be a little lame myself.

It's one thing having this mystery boiling in the background to be re-picked up at a later date, but it would be another to have this supposed Magneto reveal himself publicly only for everyone to then completely ignore it for ages.

I'm hoping they have something a little more surprising in store that ties into the next story arc better.

What do you think?

[Lascoden]

This is the problem: This isn't a matter of morality. You're blurring the distinction between "killing" and "murder". But, when you kill under certain circumstances, it is murder. Just as when you kill under certain circumstances it's manslaughter. It is a legal definition, and a legal distinction. While the laws may be arbitrary, they still exist. Murder, manslaughter, and combat are all forms of homicide. But, they are not interchangeable.

Look at it like this: Say murder is defined as killing someone with a red baseball bat, but manslaughter if its blue. Both still homicide. Now, someone kills someone else with a blue bat. You can't call it murder, because it doesn't fit the definition. Yes, completely arbitrary, and doesn't take into account morals. But, it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't fit.

[wyokid]

It's merely Stryker.

[Codah]

Spencer should just wrap up the god thing in one issue. If the story suffers a bit, whatever. Might as well force it to a close now then leave it open, unless Wood intends to finish it but I don't think he does.

[Hostile_17]

It's merely Stryker.

Ha, I feel very dense for not even considering that!

From the way it was worded I just assumed someone from the X-Men's past rather than current events.

I really hope it is Stryker though and we get some more forward momentum toward DWF!!

[Robbie_Jee]

This is the problem: This isn't a matter of morality. You're blurring the distinction between "killing" and "murder". But, when you kill under certain circumstances, it is murder. Just as when you kill under certain circumstances it's manslaughter. It is a legal definition, and a legal distinction. While the laws may be arbitrary, they still exist. Murder, manslaughter, and combat are all forms of homicide. But, they are not interchangeable.

Yes I get you on this. Accidental kills are not murder because they're not intent or have any purpose or motive. And of course self defence is acceptable but only if your life is 100% threatened by that person, to which it was 'to kill or be killed'. I have said similar things on the previous two pages that you really need to go back and read such as:

And yeah of course I know killing doesn't always mean murder. For example, murder is intent.

Murder is intent. Purposeful. How many times must I repeat that??

But yeah, murder is predetermined and deliberate like you said. Carried out through determined and premeditated motives. And to a soldier fighting a war, that motive would be him fighting for his country, killing a man due to patriotic, deluded beliefs that a certain nuclear country are a nation of madmen who blow themselves up for Alah and so our soldiers have to storm in, contain the area, and kill anyone armed. So you see, your definition of murder does in fact relate very much with a soldier's actions. They're (like you said) deliberate and predetermined. Determined to fight for their country no matter what.

A soldier is a man who is intent on killing another individual. And he murders his nation's enemies because he has been educated into thinking that a military is a force of good. How can someone be anti-war but be pro-military? A soldier has reasoning behind his actions. Motives and beliefs that shape his reasoning, his decision to go to war and kill people. That is his intent.

You mentioned that post/definition on murder. And the description fits perfectly! Well, except for that stupid law, that excuse to cause war and mass bloodshed for governmental profit. The laws surrounding "war crimes" are a total hypocrisy and nothing but delusions of patriotism.

[Robbie_Jee]

Spencer should just wrap up the god thing in one issue. If the story suffers a bit, whatever. Might as well force it to a close now then leave it open, unless Wood intends to finish it but I don't think he does.

He said he has some other things planned first before he gets back to that "god stuff". I don't have a link to give you but I know it was posted in a thread no more than month ago. We should be seeing more of Tian too.

But do you really think Marvel would let a huge plot thread like that go untouched? They've been building it up for ages.

[Plawsky]

Okay, this whole murder debate has clearly run its course. It was a bit off topic to begin with, but it quickly turned into an endless circular argument with condescending attitudes. Lets stay on topic. If you want to continue, feel free to do so in private messages.

[Hostile_17]

He said he has some other things planned first before he gets back to that "god stuff". I don't have a link to give you but I know it was posted in a thread no more than month ago. We should be seeing more of Tian too.

But do you really think Marvel would let a huge plot thread like that go untouched? They've been building it up for ages.

Yes, I was under the same impression from what I have read.

He'll probably address it around the same time we revisit Tian.

I'd be OK with Jean being behind all the manipulation I think (if hats the case). As long as he came up with some compelling motivations for her actions and it served the larger story well.


So, "What do you know about the last time the world ended?"

I'm really hoping this isn't referring to Ultimatum and is something much more interesting.

We've not really discussed who we think those agents were prodding Colossus into answering this. I think the guy at the monitor referred to them as "from the company?" (I'd have to go double check that though).

I also wonder whether World Wide Solutions will be rearing it's head in Wood's run at all?

[KPhilipsen]

You aren't making any sense. Murder is an UNLAWFUL killing. Soldiers are granted legal powers to kill combatants in a warzone hence the killing is legal hence it is not murder. Murder is a term. You're using it wrong. Yes, even people with degrees still need dictionaries.

Sorry Plawsky didn't read your post until after I posted mine.

[Kurolegacy]

Yes, I was under the same impression from what I have read.

He'll probably address it around the same time we revisit Tian.

I'd be OK with Jean being behind all the manipulation I think (if hats the case). As long as he came up with some compelling motivations for her actions and it served the larger story well.


So, "What do you know about the last time the world ended?"

I'm really hoping this isn't referring to Ultimatum and is something much more interesting.

We've not really discussed who we think those agents were prodding Colossus into answering this. I think the guy at the monitor referred to them as "from the company?" (I'd have to go double check that though).

I also wonder whether World Wide Solutions will be rearing it's head in Wood's run at all?

I think that that statement of 'last time the world ended' most likely is referencing Ultimatum since the events that occurred across the world seemed to fit the thought of end of the world and it's the only thing for it to make sense that they were interrogating Colossus for since it was a mutant attack and the very event that caused the absolute hatred and distrust of mutants.