http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...31/page10.html

The above thread has gotten off topic, but why stop the fun?
I figured, let's transpose it here!

There's some seriously humorous members of this forum, I just had to subscribe to this thread. Keep the comical banter coming.

You shouldn't have opened this thread. Laser will probably die of confusion trying to figure out where to post.

But who knows? That might be God's will, and Laser sez he's tight with God ...

You nerds sure do argue about some non-sensical crap from time to time..

It's like cocaine..

Debate about war ? Why not have an ETQW LAN party instead ? or other FPS that doesn't suck too bad.

Sounds like fun, why not?!

A non nuclear armed world is a good place indeed!

I agree. Reading such threads (ie. involving religion) is usually a waste of time, but it's fun. Keep up the good job!

Ok fine, back to the war debate, I give you:

Soldier = Murderer with license to kill

War = state sanctioned, morally approved, genocide

debate that.

Too simplistic. Nothing to debate about. Soldiers have to be in some state-approved and state trained organization. Murderers don't have to be involved in anything.

Genocide is a specific term, where one kills others due to their race, creed, color, religion, or national origin, AND with the intent of eliminating that race, creed, color, religion or national origin.

Thus the Germans killing Jews during the "final solution" of WW2 was genocide. Germans killing the French during the invasion of France in WW2 was not genocide. No intent to "eliminate" the French, just subjugate them.

Well, if they are just regular psychopaths, then no, but usually they are part of an organized crime syndicate.

Right, and war is what then ? different in some way ? you mean war isn't intended to eliminate the opposing side ? only to reduce their numbers then ? ... right, and this would be differentiated how ? whether they succeed or fail to achieve their goal, in that case I guess there never really was any genocide at any time, because nobody ever succeeded in any.

BTW, your example is not convincing.

Depends on what the motive of the state that uses them is: to oppress, or to free from oppression. Killing to free one's own or another country in a just war is not murder. The Nazis in WWII were murderers, the Allies were not. The Nazis committed murder, the Allies committed justifiable homicide.

ROFL, now that is hilarious. And guess what, if the Nazis had won they would be the ones committing justifiable honorable noble morally approved homicide, and the scummy evil Allies would be the murdering evil scum. Yeah, I guess I see the difference now ... if you win, you can say whatever you want of the losers, call them all the names you want, say they did all the things you want. I get it, thanks, it's illuminating.

Hi H_TeXMeX_H,

I can give you a slightly different point of View...

Soldier = "Industrial Age" Warrior conscripted by a "State-Nation" to defend sovereignty whenever threatned.

Warrior = A Noble person commited to sacrifise himself for a set of values, like Land, State, Religion, The Emperor, causing the least collateral damage to pursue his mission.

A true Warrior will *NOT* jeopardize the lives of non-Warriors, a true Warrior will always behave in a Noble and Virtuous way, he will be "Bushi", and his way will be "Bushi Do".

Of course that a "Soldier" is different from a "Warrior", a Soldier is conscripted, a Warrior is Educated... the prevailing doctrines of Armies of Soldiers are also different from those of the armies of Warriors... Armies of Soldiers wage war acording to Economic Management principles, since for Command, war is nothing more than an "Economic" activity, with the sole objective of overwhelming the "enemy" "whatever it takes" at the lower attainable cost, bombing cities of civilians to level its factories and industries...

Armies of Warriors are less sensitive to Economic criteria of waging war... for them, Economics and War are in "diferent leagues", since for their command, wor is not necessarily dictated by economic needs...

But this is a much longer discussion...

War = a Human activity that can be the Utmost criminal deed of a State, or its most Noble one...


Can anybody here say that a War of Liberation is Immoral or even Unethical...?



BRGDS

Alex

On what authority do you state that 'usually' murderers are part of a crime syndicate? Besides, I said that soldiers had to be part of a state-approved organization, and crime syndicates don't fit that bill.

War is about subjugation. If the war is about subjugation through elimination of the existence of the entire opposing group, then it is genocide if the opposing group is defined by means of race, color, creed, religion, or national origin. If the war is about subjugation without the intent of elimination, then it is not a genocide.

What, prithy, is unconvincing in my given example? You state no counter-criteria, nor any facts suggesting that the example does not fit my criteria. Consider the fact that Germany was accused (rightly) of genocide against the Jews, but has never been accused of genocide against the French. There were French Jews in WW2, however, and the Germans proceeded against them on the basis of them being Jews, so how is my example deficient?