English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The hypocricy that exists because killing as an act of war is apparently acceptable, is , in my view, a cop out !! You surely can't have your cake and eat it too. Murder must be murder always and can't EVER be justified. If a Government can declare War on another country, then I must be able to declare war on anyone who I so choose ?. No discrimination. Equal opportunity. Tit for Tat. Answers PLEASE ?????

2006-11-05 12:06:29 · 12 answers · asked by Batman's_Advisor 1 in Society & Culture Cultures & Groups Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender

12 answers

Soldiers do not commit murder, they merely carry out the orders of the leaders that you and your country men have elected into office. If you have a problem with the war, do not place blame on the soldiers, they have no more choice of who they fight than you do.

If it weren't for those soldiers and their willingness to follow the leaders YOU vote into office, you would not be living as you are now. Not all soldiers believe in the things that America has chosen to do with their military, but the soldiers also know that any sign of weakness in the American military could result in their homes and their families living under the dictatorship of another country.

If you have something to say about the war or anything else going on, talk to the politicians. You would not have the right to say what you are saying if it weren't for the people in our military and their unwaivering loyalty to you and your leaders.

2006-11-05 12:08:28 · answer #1 · answered by the guru 4 · 0 0

When you think about it in a generalized form, yes, murder is murder no matter the reason. But when you step out side of that and think, OK well why are they murdering? Is it for the love of the kill? Defense? Saving our Country? If someone is killing to just kill someone b/c they have psychological issues it certainly isn't right, and 9 times out of 10 they are put away. If you murder someone out of self defense, you get away with the crime, so long as it isn't premeditated. I think the way soldiers get away with it, is they are doing it for a cause, for the better of man kind. Kill one to save many. They are sort of our self defense on a larger scale. Individually we can not protect our selves from lets say a Giant (whatever country we are at war with) that is 100ft tall. But, if we fight back with our own 100ft tall Giant (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force...) then we have a better chance of protecting ourselves.

2006-11-05 12:21:05 · answer #2 · answered by lethalseduction85 2 · 0 0

....and so, while defending yourself from a lethal attacker, the attacker dies by your hand. That makes you a murderer.

You didn't mention religion, but "Thou shalt not kill" can be more correctly translated, "Thou shalt not murder" (Which by definition involves the personal agenda of the purpetrator.)

There's a huge difference between killing and murder.
Neither has a good ending, but to be able to differentiate between the two is something we must be able to do. Not every nation and culture shares our values, or values life as we do. In some countries, life is cheap, and it is a possession to be exploited by anyone with a personal agenda.

2006-11-05 12:25:23 · answer #3 · answered by Bobby Jim 7 · 1 0

He might want to be charged because there's no doubt that he dedicated the murders. on the courtroom Marshall, the information will be weighed and it really is going to be determined what his intentions were and to what degree he's to blame. they'll also confirm what aspect of punishment is suitable. it really isn't any different than what would take position to a civilian who dedicated an same crime. squaddies at the instantaneous are not excused for killing civilians because the present conviction of a Soldier proves. study the information, study the information, and stop reacting like a baby.

2016-11-28 19:53:12 · answer #4 · answered by papen 4 · 0 0

Killing is always wrong and should always be illegal, except in the cases of self-defense. If you kill someone in self-defense, it is perfectly permissible- you were protecting yourself.

The same can be applied to war- optimally, war is an action the government takes when it has been attacked and is acting in self-defense. Hence killing is perfectly acceptable in that case. Now, wars aren't always fought on such lofty standards, but that's the theory behind it, at least.

2006-11-05 13:01:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

War is not murder...we defend the innocent and the weakest by killing the murderers....in Afghanistan...a teacher is beheaded in front of her students...for teaching girls....in sierra leon people are slaughtered because they are from a different group...every man woman and child... the kurds are almost completely wiped out by suddam with chemical warfare...the jews are massacred in the millions by hitler....are you suggesting that we serve no purpose in the maintenance of world lawfulness? Jesus did not damn the roman soldiers he asked that they be merciful and kind to non combatants....we do the job that we are asked to do to defend the world from chaos....we are not needed if people would just get along.

2006-11-05 12:16:51 · answer #6 · answered by Therapist King 4 · 1 0

Soldiers aren't murdering. They are defending a cause. They are killing, yes, but that's not murder.

You can't declare war on anyone because you aren't the government. (Sucks, huh?)

Those two things will never change.

2006-11-05 12:13:51 · answer #7 · answered by MyPreshus 7 · 0 0

unfortunately, our governments and the powers of the world have made the "rules of war" history has helped and we see on the news when countries violate these laws they are tried in world court for "war crimes"
I, for one am thankful that not too many people take your philosophical approach to life....as there would be much more violence that we want in this world.
Governments are elected by the people to represent the people in matters of law. We elect them to do these jobs for us as we cannot possibly have a vote on every single issue that can occur in the life of a country or state.

2006-11-05 17:18:23 · answer #8 · answered by bald_guy69 2 · 0 0

it deals with the concept of "the greater good". If one person has to die to save hundreds of others then they are doing a good thing. if someone can find a way to peacefully resolve a war, then they should take their plans into action; but in the enitre history of man, there has never been a large scale conflict resolved without someone dying. Sad but true

2006-11-05 12:36:07 · answer #9 · answered by Amie 1 · 0 0

But keep in mind the confusion is interpretation.

Is it "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder"?

That wording changes the provisos. Then it is not murder.

2006-11-05 12:09:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers