[JoachimSchipper]

That is interesting, but "murder" has a clear definition in 2011, and I don't think that using the 1930 definition in 2011 clarifies communication.

Of course, there are valid moral points to be made here, but if you want to make those you should make an ethical argument, not just play semantic games. (Please don't, it's way off topic on HN.)

[pointyhat]

I won't go further than to say that when semantics are change by politics, we all lose. Legitimising murder in the name of war and justice is a slippery slope.

"An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ... ends in making everybody blind." (Ghandi).

[yummyfajitas]

It's sometimes necessary to use violence in order to create disincentives for it, and discourage others from engaging in it.

Ghandi is a good guy and all, but he isn't always right:

I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them. - Ghandi, 1940

[solutionyogi]

As a side note, it's spelled Gandhi, not Ghandi.