Killing for God and Country

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Depends on what type of government they'd bring about. The Taliban never faced an election and their government was only recognized by 3 nations. By contrast, the U.S. has a representative democracy with a constitutional government for over 200 hundreds and is recognized as a legitimate government by nearly all nations.

Hard to believe anyone wouldn't know the basic differences but I guess I shouldn't be shocked by comparisons. Usually hear the same argument that there's no difference between a cop and a criminal but they are the first to dial 911.

Was it Taliban, or Al Qaeda that attacked the US? Or, do you think they are one and the same?

[LaL 418]

I have a little 8 year old cousin who had his picture taken for their yearbook thing. Next to it is a blurb that is supposed to be "something you wish to be". Next to his picture is : "I want to be an American like my dad because he fights for our country, I just want to fight for our country and protect our people". Now, I don't know what 8 year old talks like that, but I found the whole thing just odd.

Edited December 24, 2010 by LaL

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Morality is irrelevant.

And, irreverent.

[alienlovechild 75]

Was it Taliban, or Al Qaeda that attacked the US? Or, do you think they are one and the same?

One (of several) Al Qaeda operations launched from Taliban terrority with interlocking interests. The Taliban blew it when they decided to not to hand over Bin Laden and his friends.

Since you can't tell the difference between a U.S. Marine and a Taliban fighter, your insistence on finding distinctions is now even more amusing.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Since you can't tell the difference between a U.S. Marine and a Taliban fighter, your insistence on finding distinctions is now even more amusing.

One is better fed than the other?

[alienlovechild 75]

One is better fed than the other?

So you've boiled it all down to calorie intake?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So you've boiled it all down to calorie intake?

When it come down to it, and you are in the sh!t, yes. It's mostly scared kids losing their lives, their limbs, and their cherries, on all sides, not chairborne warriors.

[alienlovechild 75]

When it come down to it, and you are in the sh!t, yes. It's mostly scared kids losing their lives, their limbs, and their cherries, on all sides, not chairborne warriors.

You mean people get killed in wars? Don't spread it around or you'll give war a bad name.

I was in Army years ago and fully deployable beyond my chair.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Depends on what type of government they'd bring about. The Taliban never faced an election and their government was only recognized by 3 nations. By contrast, the U.S. has a representative democracy with a constitutional government for over 200 hundreds and is recognized as a legitimate government by nearly all nations.

Hard to believe anyone wouldn't know the basic differences but I guess I shouldn't be shocked by comparisons. Usually hear the same argument that there's no difference between a cop and a criminal but they are the first to dial 911.

I think what Im hearing is that the age and popularity of the institution that sanctions the killing is important.

killing for democracy is good and killing for theocracy is bad. You didnt actually say that so I'm trying to infer

exactly what you meant.

[alienlovechild 75]

I think what Im hearing is that the age and popularity of the institution that sanctions the killing is important.

killing for democracy is good and killing for theocracy is bad. You didnt actually say that so I'm trying to infer

exactly what you meant.

You can make crazy inferences while offering nothing in return but you can have a rotten democracy that votes to wipe everyone they disagree with and a theocracy that has some form of civil society which offers some order that may not be perfect but functions given local conditions and history. That's not the way I see it but it seems to cover most of line of reasoning whether you can express it or not.

The idea of some of political legitmacy rests on the notion that some sorts of of government are better than others and deserve more leeway. Not the best way to put it but since you base it all on whether the state may use force under law presumably you don't want an armed police force, need not obey the police or courts and should open all prisons . . . you didn't say anything like that but they are inferred because you can't express any definition of legitmacy and all force is wrong.

[james&olya 1,121]

Let me rephrase the original question: perhaps it is too abstract.

Is there a moral difference between flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 people for god, and joining the United States Marines and killing members of Al Qaeda in afganistan for the United States?

Depends on whose morals you are referring to! Last I heard this was a free country and morality is still up to the individual in most situations that do not involve another person's rights. But seriously, there is a huge difference for most of us on this. As long as the attack in afghanistan is in direct response to an act of war against us, then of course most civilized cultures would grant that we are well within accepted norms for lawful combat. There are still going to be some who will have a different perspective and may justify the wtc attack on the grounds that they are at war with us ever since bin laden announced his position.

The other aspect of this is your injection of 'god'! Doing it for god begs the question of "what god?"! Seems to me that defining god in a way that permits slaughter of civilians is just a little beyond anything most reasonable people could endorse. Of course, if you actually prove that god exists and that is really his wish....

[Dan and Judy 614]

You can make crazy inferences while offering nothing in return but you can have a rotten democracy that votes to wipe everyone they disagree with and a theocracy that has some form of civil society which offers some order that may not be perfect but functions given local conditions and history. That's not the way I see it but it seems to cover most of line of reasoning whether you can express it or not.

Ok , since they were crazy inferences, you don't think that the difference is based on democracy vs theocracy, the age of our country

or our popularity. so now we have established what you don't think is the difference between the guy flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 people, and the guy that joins the marines to kill Al qaeda.

Hard to believe anyone wouldn't know the basic differences

That is what I was hoping you could explain to me

The idea of some of political legitmacy rests on the notion that some sorts of of government are better than others and deserve more leeway.

could you give me examples of sorts of goverment, since we have eliminated theocracy and democracy from the equation

Not the best way to put it but since you base it all on whether the state may use force under law presumably you don't want an armed police force, need not obey the police or courts and should open all prisons . . . you didn't say anything like that but they are inferred because you can't express any definition of legitmacy and all force is wrong.

[Dan and Judy 614]

You confuse me almost as much as alien guy

Depends on whose morals you are referring to! Last I heard this was a free country and morality is still up to the individual in most situations that do not involve another person's rights.

Are you saying it's ok to kill the other guy as long as you don't interfere with his rights?

But seriously, there is a huge difference for most of us on this. As long as the attack in afghanistan is in direct response to an act of war against us, then of course most civilized cultures would grant that we are well within accepted norms for lawful combat. There are still going to be some who will have a different perspective and may justify the wtc attack on the grounds that they are at war with us ever since bin laden announced his position.

Next you say there is a huge difference but then seem to argue both sides.

The other aspect of this is your injection of 'god'! Doing it for god begs the question of "what god?"! Seems to me that defining god in a way that permits slaughter of civilians is just a little beyond anything most reasonable people could endorse. Of course, if you actually prove that god exists and that is really his wish....

By questioning what god. Does that mean it is ok to kill people for one god but not another god.

Next sentence leans toward it's not ok to kill for god.

Next sentence leans toward if it's really god and if he really wants you to do it.........

You're just trying to confuse me aren't you

[alienlovechild 75]

Ok , since they were crazy inferences, you don't think that the difference is based on democracy vs theocracy, the age of our country or our popularity. so now we have established what you don't think is the difference between the guy flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 people, and the guy that joins the marines to kill Al qaeda.

could you give me examples of sorts of goverment, since we have eliminated theocracy and democracy from the equation

Didn't say there's no distinction between a group of terrorists killing unarmed civilians on purpose and a Marine who kills under ROE laid down by the government. Not sure where you got that one but you've got imagination.

You don't know of any forms of government and want me to give you a list for some inexplicable reason?

"eliminated theocracy and democracy from the equation"

Just the opposite as I laid some basic differences for you which you chose to ignore.

[james&olya 1,121]

You confuse me almost as much as alien guy

1. Yes, if you kill someone and don't interfere with his rights that would probably be OK. Almost impossible to see how that could occur though! Maybe the executioner for the state in a capital murder case?

2. There is a huge difference between 'morality' and 'legality'. Just because there is a great deal of overlap does not mean they can be interchanged in a logical argument!

3. You tell me if it is OK to kill for one god and not for another. I think that is a very good question to start another thread on this forum!

4. My opinion.

5. If god exists as something with tangible being outside the imagination of the 'believer', than I think that is a real 'game-changer'! But you need to be able to prove that existence before you can justify any action that would affect my 'secular' rights!!

If you are still confused I am not sure how I can help you. We obviously come at this from a vastly different perspective. But I like to see how other people think (and sometimes obviously DON'T think!).