Through the ages, one of the most enduring questions regarding military engagements has been whether the vast killing of human beings in such military engagements is justifiable or not. This has been a frequently debated topic, and people have almost forgotten the importance of such a pertaining question. However, a judicious rethinking of the topic is always appreciated and encouraged.
To consider the same topic in the modern national and international environment, we need to conclude that killing during military engagements is justifiable to the extent when it is very much related to the scope of the war or confrontation and when it does not violate the international humanitarian principles which state that the innocent civilian citizens are relieved of the adversities and bad effects of the struggle. Every justifiable killing in military operations incorporates the rules and principles of international conventions regarding the use of military artilleries and the time and place of their use. Every other killing that is beyond these principles recognized by the international community as they reflect the humanitarian attitudes is considered non-justifiable.
To find the demarcating point between the justifiable and non-justifiable slaughters in military engagements, it is of paramount importance that we are able to make a distinction between the scope of the operation and the limits that must not be crossed by any side in the military engagements. It is important because we recognize that military engagements have been human realities through the ages, and killings in such operations are bitter realism to be admitted by human reasoning.
It is this reasoning capacity of the human mind that makes extensive slaughter during military operations justified and justifiable. In so far, the military operation is for a cause that may be accepted by the rational mind of the international community and does not cross the line of international humanitarian principles; killing during the military operations will be justified by the same rational minds. In such cases, we accept the human slaughter by the rational mind though the emotional faculty working within the human mind would not be accepting the same. Confrontations are internationally accepted facts, and massacre for the cause of humanity is acknowledged by even the emotional faculty.
Therefore, it is only when the humanitarian principles are not given due respect and when the confrontation is beyond the cause of humanity, just for the selfish and invalid human motives, that the killing in such military operations is not acceptable or justifiable to the human mind.
The implication of all that we have been discussing is that there are a handful of cases where killing in military engagements will be justifiable and an even greater number of cases where the same will be considered non-justifiable. What is required in this regard an unmistakable recognition of which is a justifiable killing in military operations and which is not. It is for human reason and experience to discover and affirm this difference, and the international humanitarian concerns cannot be neglected at any cost.
The cause of the innocent civilian lives and properties need to be always taken into consideration when any justification of such killings during wars and confrontations of national and international level is attributed. The question that acquires a large amount of significance is whether the modern justifications of the killings during military operations are based on these factors. Judged from all these factors, we come to recognize that, many often, the justification of massacres during military engagements in the modern context is just for the cause of justification and not well based on the actual criteria.
The desirable state of affairs is one where justification is possible for the killing during military operations, on the basis of all the conventions and rationale, is allowed, and where impossible, it is rejected.