Originally posted by kn0wh0w
so if some piece of paper or a certain law says it doesn't classify as murder, you're fine with that?
you need a piece of paper or legislation to justify these murders.
in my opinion you're way of thinking is flawed.
taking a life is taking a life, doesn't matter under wich circumstances it happens.

Actually, I don't need a piece of paper to know what's right from wrong. Even tho my "moral compass" usually points between "Pirate" and "Ass****", I do know that when a soldier kills another soldier in combat, it's not murder.

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
according to your logic, if i wrote a piece of paper and made it legal for people to have sex with children, you'd be ok with that? (might be an extreme example)

You're right. It's an extreme example. Try again.

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
murder is still murder, if you can soothe your thoughts by saying a piece of paper made that MURDER ok, that's fine with me.
i just heavily disagree with that notion.

So let me get this straight. You're not willing to fight against an invading army? What would happen if the German decided to feed that wild hair that grows up their ass and decided to invade Holland again? Are you just going to stand by and let the cart you off to a concentration camp? Stand by like some sheep and let them kill your neighbors?

Are you just going to sit and watch while others fight for your freedom, so you can turn around and call them "murderers"??

Originally posted by Solomons
Would you class soldiers killing civilians in a war as murder or the catchy collateral damage? Just interested, they certainly can't be classed as an enemy soldier.

Depends. Were they firing on troops? Then they are a combatant.

Were they killed because of the fighting around them, like the bombing of Berlin, etc? Then it's "collateral damage".

Did a soldier just walk into a home and shoot the family for no reason? That's murder.

Originally posted by Solomons
So if an F-16 dropped a bomb to kill a few taliban yet killed 25 or 30 civilians aswell or simply picked the wrong target that is collateral damage to you? In which case collateral damage would apply to say a suicide bomber killing 20 or 30 civilians to kill a few American soldiers? Do you agree with that?

Well, I'd agree more with your examples than what the Allies did in WW2 when carpet-bombing entire cities was in vogue.

But your examples might be a bit flawed using the Taliban as part of them. They aren't classified the same as a formal army in the field under the GC.

First off I am in the Air Force and have been under fire and in OEF and OIF we DO NOT engage unless engaged..... All those random cases of Soldiers shoot innocent civilians are just accidental or because they went nuts. When you are driving a HMMV down the road and suddenly the HMMV infront of you blows up and you see your buddies all over the road and see people running away (Iraqis or Afghans) you first instinct is they did it and to shoot them. WE DO NOT ENGAGE FIRST!!!!!!! What the hell do all you recluses know about war?? NOTHING because you have never been in one so shut the hell up if you don't know what you are talking about. Calling us babie killers and crap like that. It is not our fault that when the enemy does engage us they run and hide in people's houses and continue to fire pop shots off at us. What the hell would you do? Would you let them shoot at you??
OIF and OEF have had less civilian deaths than any other war. Go ask a Soldier, Marine, Seaman, or Airman what combat is like and what the war is like. I'm so sick of you pathetic little whimps just talking crap about us, because you are too much of pansies to join up yourself. It takes a real man to stand in combat with his brothers and protect each other, what would you know about brotherhood?????

Sorry I just get really pissed off when people talk down on Military. Every generation of my family has served in every war in America and I am damn proud to defend my "freedom". If it weren't for the military we would be the Nazi party's B*T%$

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Reign02]

Originally posted by Reign02
What the hell do all you recluses know about war??

Most of them don't have a clue. They figure that playing a bit of COD automatically gives them all the knowledge they need.

That, or they slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Although I would agree that he should have the right to make this stance if he wants and that he is bravely protesting wars and putting himself on the line for his beliefs, he has crossed the line. There is nothing worse that child abuse. Most soldiers believe that they are doing the right thing and are not harming inoccent civilians. All Child Abusers know what they are doing and these child sexual preditors should be put to death. To even insinuate that he would hire a child abuser, regardless whether it's in war protest or not is to invalidate any postivity that he was hoping to gain from this stance. He's negated his postion and lost his credability.

He's not a very smart businessman.

I hope I'm not buying any of his products.

I'll make a note of this, what with online buying and international trade and all.