Men who have killed in war claim

[Auzgurl]

it is justified because they kill in accordance with Governmental Policy..

Is this killing justified? Can such men claim they are not muderers?

[Jovial Monk]

Legally no, unless they knowingly kill civilians etc

But the soldiers rationalise it away no doubt.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

There is often a lot of propaganda supporting joining the army. There is also the sense of group identity gained from going through combat- or any other difficult situation- together. Then there is training which aims to make men capable of killing, although some are not capable of killing anyway. That is why they try to have realistic game type training and hype young men up - to get people in. The war shooter killer game market is enormous and an outer recruitment tool, even if inadvertently. Holy war type killing such as jihad is also propaganda fuelled.

Yes these men are responsible for their decision to join the army and to follow orders. They are responsible for the killing they do. Sometimes this killing may be in self-defence or in defence of loved ones. Other times it may be to defend or rescue innocent victims of a genocidal maniac. Other times it may be to forward corporate interest, greed, and economic stability, dressed up as defending an ideal or way of life or as bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. Just as with abortion there are shades of grey in the morality of the killing involved.

"Frogen" does not to me sound like he denies killing while in the armed forces is still killing. However i do think he tends to find most killing while in uniform justified. The Frogen on PA did however object to the use of torture by US soldiers in Abu Ghraib.

[Auzgurl]

There is often a lot of propaganda supporting joining the army. There is also the sense of group identity gained from going through combat- or any other difficult situation- together.

meaning?

The war shooter killer game market is enormous and an outer recruitment tool, even if inadvertently. Holy war type killing such as jihad is also propaganda fuelled.

Im sorry Rainbow..but hogwash..grown men who blame their penchant for killing on war games...?

Yes these men are responsible for their decision to join the army and to follow orders. They are responsible for the killing they do. Sometimes this killing may be in self-defence or in defence of loved ones. Other times it may be to defend or rescue innocent victims of a genocidal maniac. Other times it may be to forward corporate interest, greed, and economic stability, dressed up as defending an ideal or way of life or as bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. Just as with abortion there are shades of grey in the morality of the killing involved.

Yes but is it justified? Does God see this KILLING as any different from a child who aborts as a result of rape..or the woman who has to protect her own life form the ravages of pregnancy..and often she is raped by the husband..maybe we have to ask God.

[he is an imposter but he is MOSTLY truthful]"Frogen" does not to me sound like he denies killing while in the armed forces is still killing. However i do think he tends to find most killing while in uniform justified. The Frogen on PA did however object to the use of torture by US soldiers in Abu Ghraib.[/he is an imposter but he is MOSTLY truthful]

If you cant even concede, this person is even who he says he is ..how can you agree with him.?? For a person who lies about who he says he is is surley just a liar- nothing else.?

[JW Frogen]

Killing in war is killing.

One is taking life. A human life.

It may be other soldiers, it may be civilians, but it is always a human life. (See abortion ladies and lads, this is remarkably easy!)

It is killing. But it may be for the greater good.

It may not.

For instance, those Allied soilders who landed at D-Day killed German soldiers and knew the type of war they must fight would kill civilians too, but they ended fascist tyranny, they ended the Holocaust.

It was still killing, but few rational minds would state that the world would now be better off, that even Germans would be better off if the Allies had not decided they must kill (to survive) in order to end fascism.

As to following orders, in democratic militaries there are all sorts of mechanisms to oppose orders one considers unlawful or unjust. An example, Abu Graib was not revealed by the press but rather by a US soldier who did not like what was going on and passed the photos on. In the US military one not only can oppose an unlawful order (though they better be sure it is indeed unlawful) they, according to the UCMJ, must do so.

Or in Iraq, it is clear most Iraqis wanted to be liberated, the Kurds to a man, the Shia majority leader Sistani called for it, even now anti US Sadar called for it at the time, was it more moral to kill to liberate them, and then kill the people who were intentionally targeting Iraqi civilians, the insurgency, or was it more moral to ignore their voice and leave them forever more under the mass killing tyranny machine, and war machine if we are to review his history, of Saddam?

Oppose the war, support the war, both meant killing. But only the latter can bring a future for Iraq without killing.

But to return to the larger point, yes killing in war is killing. The context reveals whether it is just or not.

Just like abortion.

[Aussie]

What's with the stuff in blue?

[Auzgurl]

What's with the stuff in blue?

its highlightation

[JW Frogen]

highlightation

Yes, I like coining new words too.

[mantra.]

The war shooter killer game market is enormous and an outer recruitment tool, even if inadvertently. Holy war type killing such as jihad is also propaganda fuelled.

I saw a documentary on US military training and they use war killing games to train their marines. All war is fuelled on propaganda - otherwise they wouldn't get enough troops regardless of what side they're fighting on.

[Aussie]

highlightation

Yes, I like coining new words too.

You have been reading me for far too long, JW Frogen.