I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[Immortal Wombat]

Ah yeah.

mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

Thou Shalt Not Kill Unlawfully.

During war, all killings are acts of war, and therefore legal. The al-Quieda are not PoWs, because it was not a war, therefore it was murder.
Either it was not murder, and they deserve Geneva protection, or it was murder, and against the word of God.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Either it was not murder, and they deserve Geneva protection,

Terrorists have never been subject the Geneva Convention protections and never will be. Otherwise, Germany should be tried for the war crimes it commited in crushing the the Baader-Meinhof Gang.

[Bereta_Eder]

your copies of the Bible are based on greek, hebrew and aramaic texts.

in greek it is «ou phoneuseis» «phonos» translation is (more or less) «murder» so Monneypenny is right.

That said,

where on earth did Jesus said that killing in war is NOT murder?

what is murder?

that dictionary you used said to kill unlawfully.

what is law?

law is primareli based on the everchanging major moral foundations of its society. They change frequently so does the law. So does murder.


if only He would have said «kill» instead of «murder»


it sounds like a lawyer's trick. and Jesus, I thought, was no lawyer.


maybe when we reach a level of morality and its reflection on the law where «murder» and «killing» have the same identical meaning we would have reached «salvation»

[Maj]

By your reasoning, the Holocaust was justified. As were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So long as our ignorance protects us from the pain, suffering and death our decisions & actions incur on others will we remain standing on what we deem the moral high ground. Ignorance IS strength.

I find it pathetically funny how we try to build a rational society around our irrational behaviour.

- Maj

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Terrorists have never been subject the Geneva Convention protections and never will be. Otherwise, Germany should be tried for the war crimes it commited in crushing the the Baader-Meinhof Gang.

So killing terrorists is legal now? Could lead to some interesting court cases... "I plead innocence - He's a terrorist, he mailed me anthrax"

that dictionary you used said to kill unlawfully.

what is law?

law is primareli based on the everchanging major moral foundations of its society. They change frequently so does the law. So does murder.

if only He would have said «kill» instead of «murder»

Yeah, then I wouldn't have had to resort to lengthy arguments to justify not killing them.

[DinoDoc]

Ok, now I'm confused.

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
So killing terrorists is legal now?

Do you enjoy being clueless? Becuase I'd really like to know where I said that.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you enjoy being clueless? Becuase I'd really like to know where I said that.

1. Terrorists are not subject to the Geneva Convention because they are not PoWs.
2. This is because they are not fighting in a "war" as such.
3. Any killing outside war is illegal
4. Any illegal killing is muder
5. Killed terrorists are victims of murder.
6. Killing terrorists in forbidden by "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
1. Terrorists are not subject to the Geneva Convention because they are not PoWs.
2. This is because they are not fighting in a "war" as such.

I'm with you so far.

3. Any killing outside war is illegal

Now I see where we part company on the logic train. Where does the right of self-defense (either personal or national) fit into all of this?

[Maj]

Just to clarify where we're going with all of this, can anyone define what exactly the terms legal and illegal mean, and who should be the ones to define them?

- Maj

[Immortal Wombat]

*shrug*

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Now I see where we part company on the logic train. Where does the right of self-defense (either personal or national) fit into all of this?

Dunno. Use of reasonable force? Killing isn't really necessary with ~5 billion people on your side, and the might of most of the world.
Failing that, the UN Declaration of Human Rights gives the right to life, yes?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Where does the right of self-defense (either personal or national) fit into all of this?

Self-Defense is only legal in the case of clear and present danger. Let´s say you caught them at the airport with a bomb in their suitcase.

No one ever had a legal right to go to war as a supposed act of preventive self-defense.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Self-Defense is only legal in the case of clear and present danger.

Are you telling me that Al Qaeda doesn't present a clear and present threat to both the welfare of American citizens and to her national security interests?

[Comrade Tribune]

I am sure Hitler considered the rest of the world a clear and present threat to both the welfare of German citizens and to her national security interests. (That didn´t legally entitle him to anything, however.)

[DinoDoc]

It usually helps to move a debate along if you actually attempt to answer the question without resorting to logical fallacies.

[Comrade Tribune]

Since when is a perfect analogy a logical fallacy?