Okay, its not called murder by the government, much like abortion in not called murder.
Why is killing in a war not murder? Ending a life is ending a life.
If the govt. legalized murder, would you then belive it was morally acceptable?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Okay, its not called murder by the government, much like abortion in not called murder.
Why is killing in a war not murder? Ending a life is ending a life.
In war sometimes the intent is to kill innocent people, are people who were forced to serve in Saddam's army not innocent?
There is a difference in intent. Murder is a personal thing the intent is to take "THAT" life.
War is a totally different thing and warriors are expected to take certain action under the social contract.
Many argue whether those actions are necessary in the setting, or even to society, but the reality is they are an important part of that contract.
If you drop bombs on them from miles up in the air, it's not murder.
Firstly if a bomb fell on your kid, you woudln't give a shit who intended what. Secondly, that's a lie to begin with unless you are naive enough to believe that those who order bombs to be dropped from planes, and those who drop them, belive no one is going to die.
These are not accidental bombings. Opps, I did it again!
So those who flew planes into the world trade center were not commiting murder?
Really, what social contract would this be? Is this the social contract you and SF got together to sign, which read "dropping bombs on people on other countries is part of our contract, and everyone agrees we're good guy"? Because I didn't sign this social contract? And this is the first I am hearing of it?
uscitizen
Villified User
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wow, what a crock of shit that is.
No, it was part of their social contract and is to be expected. Everyone understands this.
That's splitting hairs. On a strict moral basis, there is no difference between murder & innocent deaths caused by an unjust, dishonest war.
The intent was to take "that" life. Yes, that would be murder. There was direct intent to take life that was innocent.
When we dropped bombs on military targets there was no intent to take civilian life.
Does this mean every warrior who fought in the war should be tried for murder, or do you too see a difference?
If a war is "unjust" it is not the warriors who should be tried.
We drop bombs all over the country, during shock and awe and still today. You are being sadly disingenious to pretend otherwise.
Why do you have to do that? Would it blind you to see the truth? So you tell yourself pretty lies instead? I could never do that.
I'm not talking about the soldiers. The leaders are the ones I consider to be on a moral equivalent to murderers.
uscitizen
Villified User
I was forced to serve in our army and kill.
Again, there are people dropping the bombs. You called their action murder, why would they not be tried?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO.... you who support shoving steel pins into a childs head and scrambling its brains for convenience... YOU have no place passing judgement on those who do everything they can to AVOID taking an innocent life.
This is rubbish. 'We' dropped bombs in "Shock and Awe" directly attempting to take out only military targets while keeping all other casualties to a minimum.
Exaggerating the intent to include the purposeful deaths of civilians when it was clear that was not the intent doesn't help your cause, it just makes you look crazed.