Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/13/10 06:02 PM, aokishi wrote: strangeli all of the war the usa has had recentli were more for the agenda of some people and had nothing to do whit defendind usa iraq especially. plus it is murder.

if usa didn't involve, those countries were now led by terrorists and definitely were one of usa's enemies.

At 8/15/10 07:42 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 8/13/10 06:02 PM, aokishi wrote: strangeli all of the war the usa has had recentli were more for the agenda of some people and had nothing to do whit defendind usa iraq especially. plus it is murder.

if usa didn't involve, those countries were now led by terrorists and definitely were one of usa's enemies.

Hey so could you guys learn English before you debate on here, please?

At 8/15/10 03:35 AM, Tateos wrote: Killing someone is murder, regardless of your reasoning.

War is simply a genocidal way of negotiations.

So like I said earlier, if you kill someone in self-defense, you don't mean to, but you do, then you're a murderer? If a cop kills someone holding a hostage, he's a murderer for potentially saving that hostage's life? If a kid runs in front of a transport on a busy highway and gets run over and killed, despite the driver slamming on the brakes and trying to stop, he's a murderer as well?

Also, in war the object is not to slaughter everyone, like in a genocide. A single military unit can be of various different cultures, and races, and potentially fighting another military unit of a similar mix. Their objective is not to wipe out those people entirely, but to defeat them. The 5.56 mm round that NATO uses was designed to maim, so that if a person was shot and wounded, two more would carry them off the battlefield, and the doctors would have to work on them. Wounding someone ties up more resources and makes it easier to win. Genocide is about wiping a specific group off the face of the planet, killing them outright.

In WWI, Germany surrendered. No armies marched into the capital to begin butchering everyone to remove them from the history books forever. The war was declared over, people went home. The War of the Roses was a civil war in England to gain control of the throne. Both sides were the same people, they did not want to slaughter everyone, as they were their own people. during Caesar's rise to power, him and his legions fought the legions loyal to other Romans. They did not slaughter other Romans, only the enemy soldiers. That was still war however, and not genocide.

Yes, there are genocides in wars, but not all wars are genocides, and not all genocides are wars. They are two different things.

If of course you mean genocide as in wiping out the human race during war, that just doesn't make any sense as they would then have to turn their guns on themselves to complete the action.

At 8/15/10 02:16 PM, sinfulwolf wrote: Genocide is about wiping a specific group off the face of the planet, killing them outright.

Or attempt of.

At 8/15/10 02:22 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/15/10 02:16 PM, sinfulwolf wrote: Genocide is about wiping a specific group off the face of the planet, killing them outright.

Or attempt of.

Indeed. However their goal is the wiping out of a specific group.

I'm going to ignore 17 pages of discussion and just summarize my idea.

1. I don't think there is anything like murder in war. Soldiers have to kill or be killed. As war pushes people to the extremes, with the idea of dying any moment, I also think that crimes committed during war don't really count after the war. when the war is over, i feel it's stupid to put people in jail for dealing with the enemy or for stealing from a family farm a few blocks over. Even soldiers who plundered villages and stole stuff (even raped females) may be pardonned, because there was this whole fog of war on their mind.

2. Conversely, I don't think their are absolute heroes in war. Even if this soldier saved his own team, which makes him a hero to the team but he's not a hero for all of the world. Often you see films about soldiers killing the evil people from the opposing army to take revenge on their fallen comrade and when they succeed, he has avenged the fallen for great glory. But every soldier he has killed was exactly in the same position as him, another soldier who sought to take revenge over those dear to him who got killed, even if it's a soviet, Iraqi or dare I say Nazi.In their own right, even the Taliban warriors may have kids at home who get the message their father was killed in the war. In war killing or be killed is the general rule, but there is no absolute notion of killing one of them is being a good person, and each of them killing one of us makes them a horrible person.

At 8/15/10 07:54 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I'm going to ignore 17 pages of discussion and just summarize my idea.

1. I don't think there is anything like murder in war. Soldiers have to kill or be killed. As war pushes people to the extremes, with the idea of dying any moment, I also think that crimes committed during war don't really count after the war. when the war is over, i feel it's stupid to put people in jail for dealing with the enemy or for stealing from a family farm a few blocks over. Even soldiers who plundered villages and stole stuff (even raped females) may be pardonned, because there was this whole fog of war on their mind.

I am very happy you are not writing laws. It is your belief that no Nazis should be tried for the crimes they committed during a war, just because of a possible "Fog of War". Rape, murder, stealing... it's all okay in your book as long as its in war. That just doesn't sound right at all.

Have you been in a war? Or any form of combat? You can still hold on to your humanity and know the difference between right and wrong. I've been defending soldiers in this thread, saying that being in the military and fighting in a conflict does not make you a murderer... but at the same time there is no way I can abide by what you're saying. At all.

So if a soldier decided to walk from the front lines, find a woman, and rape her, he should get off scott free? What if he slit her throat too? Still good cause he's wearing a uniform and in war?

Fuvk yes it's murder, for all the right reasons, and we love every minute of it.

S: (v) murder, slay, hit, dispatch, bump off, off, polish off, remove (kill intentionally and with premeditation)

At 8/15/10 10:23 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:
I am very happy you are not writing laws. It is your belief that no Nazis should be tried for the crimes they committed during a war, just because of a possible "Fog of War".

The way they deal with it now, just strikes me as rather stupid. old people who used to be nazis and have long abandoned that ideology are still being tracked down and jailed. If they managed to get away trials so many years ago and now live a quiet and peaceful life, I kind of feel they urned peace in their last years of their lives.

After the war a lot of attrocities were committed towards people who were suspected of trading voluntarily with the Nazis. They were excecuted as traitors. girls who dated German soldiers were shaven, spat upon and dragged through the streets where everyone could scold them and act their vengeance upon them.
I just don't think people should be tried for things that happen in full war, given they reformed their ways when the war is over.

At 8/16/10 02:10 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:
The way they deal with it now, just strikes me as rather stupid. old people who used to be nazis and have long abandoned that ideology are still being tracked down and jailed. If they managed to get away trials so many years ago and now live a quiet and peaceful life, I kind of feel they urned peace in their last years of their lives.

After the war a lot of attrocities were committed towards people who were suspected of trading voluntarily with the Nazis. They were excecuted as traitors. girls who dated German soldiers were shaven, spat upon and dragged through the streets where everyone could scold them and act their vengeance upon them.
I just don't think people should be tried for things that happen in full war, given they reformed their ways when the war is over.

Again, so you think that if someone butchered a bunch of people, and managed to evade the law for years, we should just let him walk free? "Good job staying away, here's a reward for an interesting chase,".

And some people do not reform their ways. Some people manage to get into war and are able to just use it as an excuse to do horrible horrible things to other human beings. You are saying that war is a perfectly legitimate excuse to rape, murder and pillage. Horrible things are done to people, sometimes without any decent reason, sometimes for what they did simply to survive.

These things are not okay to do. People should not just get a slap on the wrist and let go, evasion or not.

If you truly believe that all soldiers are murderers, then please go live in some country where your rights are...oh sorry gotta go.. Glenn Beck is on.....

At 8/15/10 07:54 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: 1. I don't think there is anything like murder in war. Soldiers have to kill or be killed.

because the soldiers already happened to be in Iraq anyway

At 8/16/10 02:50 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:
Again, so you think that if someone butchered a bunch of people, and managed to evade the law for years, we should just let him walk free? "Good job staying away, here's a reward for an interesting chase,".

So try every soldier then, not just the ones your side deems evil.

And some people do not reform their ways.

Well, once war is over, they are no longer allowed to commit such deeds. If they don't reform their ways, that's reason for punishing them.

If you want to look at it from a moral perspective, it's self defense. Like the old addage - "if you don't kill them, they'll kill you". Sure, it's circular logic, but it's the only way to justify what the soldiers are doing.

At 8/16/10 08:55 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: So try every soldier then, not just the ones your side deems evil.

The difference is, is that only officers are being "hunted". Only the people that ordered soldiers to slaughter innocent civilians are being tracked. They aren't being arrested for being Nazis; it's for war crimes.

Whoever wants to seriously call them murderers, then stop living in America. Stop utilizing the rights we have fought for, and go to another country where if you speak out against the military you get killed. Go to China. Have fun with opinions there.
Otherwise, go tell a soldier to their face that they are murderers, go tell them they're wrong.
Maybe you should stop thinking about your fairytale utopian world and grasp the fact that war happens it has happened and it will always happen. Please grasp the fact that you are speaking out AGAINST your own country.

If you seriously believe that our soldiers are murderers, then fine, be fucking retarded. You are the scum of the earth to say that those people who fight to PROTECT you and let you KEEP your rights, are murderers.
Also, if you're saying they're murderers but you know war happens and has to happen, then re-evaluate what we are fighting for and get back to the rest of the world.

I'm feel bad that these soldiers have to also fight for all the prissy little snobs who think they're murderers..

At 8/16/10 08:55 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 8/16/10 02:50 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:
Again, so you think that if someone butchered a bunch of people, and managed to evade the law for years, we should just let him walk free? "Good job staying away, here's a reward for an interesting chase,".

So try every soldier then, not just the ones your side deems evil.

Not every soldier has committed crimes though. I'm talking about putting the ones who have done these atrocities on trial. Not someone who was fighting against an enemy. Whatever side they are on the military has drawn a line, the Geneva convention has drawn a line, on the rights and wrongs in war.

And some people do not reform their ways.

Well, once war is over, they are no longer allowed to commit such deeds. If they don't reform their ways, that's reason for punishing them.

You still have not yet come out and said it. You are perfectly willing to let someone burst into your home, rape your mother in front of you, butcher your friends, all without arms, and then walk off scott free. These are the situations I'm talking about, not: "Hey look there's a guy with a weapon not wearing our uniform." You are still wanting to give people a free ticket to do whatever they wish to without any consequences for their actions.

Please note my stance: Being a soldier does not make you a murderer. However, it is still possible for a soldier to be one. The two do not always go together, but they still can.

Murderor is a negative term. Killing can be moral.

Is it bad to kill someone? Yes. It is bad and wrong to end another human life.
What if the person is bad and will kill other civilians? Then it's good to kill him.
What if the person kills civilians to prevent an even worse disaster? Then it's bad to kill him.

See, actions by themselves are not immoral or moral. It's the intent, and the benefits and consequences, is there more good. Is the good gained more or less than the bad?

This seems very wishy-washy, but you can't simply say killing is bad. It's more important WHY you kill.

In WWII, Germans killed people in camps. That's bad, because it was due to an irrational hatred and the people were innocent civilians who never did anything wrong to Germany.

In WWII, Americans, British, Russians, and French killed people. That was good, because the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were performing their own genocides and taking over countries. The Axis, unless stopped, would've killed and enslaved and raped even more people, so their deaths were a good thing. The Allies were justified and doing good in killing the Axis.

Soldiers are murderers? Murderer has a bad vibe to it. Soldiers are killers in a bad sense? If they kill civilians for fun, then yes, they are. But if they are killing terrorists, who plan to kill civilians for fun, then they are not. They are heroes.

That's true. If you kill somebody in the USA, you go to the prison like a criminal, and if you kill somebody in iraq as soldier, you return to home like a hero. There is no difference. To be a soldier isn't a permission for kill people.

At 8/27/10 05:32 PM, Sonvra wrote: That's true. If you kill somebody in the USA, you go to the prison like a criminal, and if you kill somebody in iraq as soldier, you return to home like a hero. There is no difference. To be a soldier isn't a permission for kill people.

Again... if you kill in self-defense it is entirely plausible you will not go to prison. Unless you think that if someone attacked a family member with a knife, you should just sit there with a coke and watch them disembowel your family member. Or if they came at you you should just keep sucking at a slurpee while they cut out your guts.

It true that why most hate war. But at least it helps lowers the population by hopefully killing the dumb asses on this planet.

At 8/27/10 11:29 PM, darkrchaos wrote: It true that why most hate war. But at least it helps lowers the population by hopefully killing the dumb asses on this planet.

Indeed, "castle laws"as they are known allow the usage of lethal force to defend ones property, person, or family i.e Justifiable homicide.

With regards to soldiers and the like, it is argumentatively prudent to examine such classifications on a case by case basis.

A Somali thug with a cold war relic Kalashnikov is after all, certainly in no way comparable to lets say, the Franco-British forces in opposition to a fascist Germany.

If someone attacks me or one of my family members, i will attack him, but without killing him.
And if i'm in the middle of an attack in iraq i will shoot'em in the arms or in the legs, because it isn't necessary to kill people for win a war.

At 8/28/10 12:57 PM, Sonvra wrote: If someone attacks me or one of my family members, i will attack him, but without killing him.
And if i'm in the middle of an attack in iraq i will shoot'em in the arms or in the legs, because it isn't necessary to kill people for win a war.

A truly idiotic notion.

War by definition is the consumption of life, and it is simply unfeasible to merely wound the opposition for some misguided sense of morality. That, and shots to the limbs are generally just as lethal given the presence of major blood vessels whose destruction results in exceedingly quick bleed-outs.

At 8/28/10 12:57 PM, Sonvra wrote: If someone attacks me or one of my family members, i will attack him, but without killing him.
And if i'm in the middle of an attack in iraq i will shoot'em in the arms or in the legs, because it isn't necessary to kill people for win a war.

So you are going to aim for harder to hit limbs than the easier to hit centre of mass just so you can hold on to this "don't kill" thing of yours, potentially putting your comrades in danger from a target you refuse to properly deal with. And as was pointed out, shooting a man in the leg or arms can still be fatal. And even if you did hit him there, and he was slowly bleeding out, he'd still have time to take more shots at you if he could get over the pain.

And no, it's not neccesary to kill people to win a war, however it is an inevitability, and one of the easiest ways to prevent the enemy from killing you.

At 5/22/06 12:53 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: unless it is for self defence, it is murder if you kill someone, even in war.

all these soldiers who kill in iraq come home as murderers, not heros.

"hey i killed about 20 iraqie soldiers" < murderer

go pee!

Hows about this, dickwad. If we don't go over there, and you know, do our thing against the taliban, then they'll come over here. I'm assuming perhaps you're american? If thats the case I'm sure you'd change your mind when a loved one of yours gets killed in some sort of other terrorist attack.

At 5/22/06 02:02 PM, Narusegawa wrote: The terrorists have brought this upon themselves.

Damn straight. When the taliban aided and brought about 9/11, They essentially punched us in our metaphorical face. What are we supposed to do? Not punch back?

It is also recognized that one who kills someone in defense of ANOTHER is not a murderer. Since these terrorist groups are harming their own people, it's fair to say this law applies.

At 5/22/06 12:53 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: unless it is for self defence, it is murder if you kill someone, even in war.

all these soldiers who kill in iraq come home as murderers, not heros.

Fuck you! THese people give there lives for the freedom of a country they can't nessarly find on a map (Pre- 911 that is ) and then they come home to find that people like you hated them for it? i hope you can sleep at night bitch.

Ya i am agree with you but not 100%.What will you call the soldiers who only kill to defend themselves and their homelands.
Anyhow more than soldiers i will say politicians and leaders are murderers,they are people who send the soldiers to become more and more rich