When someone kills due to their religion it's seen as evil but when someone kills due to the orders other have gave them, they're just innocent soldiers taking orders?

Well, when you think about it, the overly religious have been given orders. Just not military orders. But everyone has the right to disobey.

The conduct of war has been described in international law. Therefore there is a legal difference between a soldier killing another combatant and a religious zealot killing unsuspecting civilians.
Whether this is moral or not, is a completely different discussion. I am not sure on that one.

@Lve
But on a moral bases not a legal bases how can you justify it?

@Draconess25 : Most soldiers are punished, usually with jail time if they disobey. Most religious extremists are killed by their own kind if they disobey. This isn’t a choice because obedience is a part of their job.

It’s both the fault of those putting people in a position where they’re forced to kill through ideology or employment, and those who allowed themselves to get put into a position where they become killers, and those who made the people on either side, and the people who made the circumstances that made those people, etc.. It’s a little of everyone’s fault, really.

As for them not thinking morally, I’d have to say you’re pretty naive, because reality is a multidimensional grey area of morality as self-divisive and individual as the people espousing them. No two morals are the same.

@Lve : I find the phrase “wartime conduct” the most bitter oxymoron ever.

@tripe Like I said, I am not sure if you can justify it morally. However, I also believe war will always be around one way or another, as sad as it is.

@Fenris True. I took a class on “International Humanitarian Law”, which deals with the laws of war. Talk about an oxymoron!

@Fenris But either way, you have a high chance of getting killed. I’d rather be killed for disobeying when its the morally right thing to do, then possibly survive after doing something horrible just because I was told to.

@Draconess25 : Then your morality is the Absolute Litmus by which to compare all morality in the world? You think there is no relativism around the subject of the relationship between murder, justice and philosophy?

I suggest you don’t post questions if you already have the answer you want.

This is just me questioning, I’m not saying any side is right.

Saying that I do believe if you feel an order in war is immoral then you shouldn’t take that order.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and yet, there will be no soldier-bashing from me.

This is why I believe in a defensive posture rather than an offensive one, and there is a big problem with that, too. If you don’t strike first, your odds of surving an attack decrease in exact proportion to the weapons used a gainst you and the aim of the one who has you in thier cross hairs.

The problem isn’t morality (though morality definitely applies) as much as it is about lack of conscience, and greed. The Bible has plenty of references to justified wars, and I tend to agree. I’m not a Bible scholar, but I don’t remember any war that wasn’t justified. Did God ever tell anyone to go over there and take whatever a person wants, just because they want it? The Qu’ran doesn’t even say that. Yet, that’s what man does. In some ways, we are no better than the terrorists themselves. Humanity has selfish motives and destroys just about everything we touch.

What could accomplish if we engaged in fair play? How would the world change if everything we entered into was done to make winers out of as many of the participants as possible? It’s not like we aren’t capable. Maybe our problem is that we are a little too willing to be followers because it’s so much easier. Would that be the elected official’s fault, or ours?

Bummer of a quandry…I notice you didn’t ask a question, merely reflecting on humanity when it comes to killing. All justifiable killings should be carried out with swift justice. There should be no other kind of killing. Today, the state of Texas prevents those on death row from having DNA tests, though they will grant them after the execution…can’t let a DA get his record tarnished, can we? From the beginning of time, it is impossible to differentiate between religious and war killings.

”I was just following orders,” was the typical excuse of Nazis in WWII.
In Vietnam we had a problem known as the MyLai massacre.
Lt.Wm Calley’s defense was that he, too, was just following orders. It was this case where the military powers that be stated that soldiers should question orders which were obviously immoral or illegal and had the right to not follow such commands.

Of course, no one remembers this and once again soldiers must blindly follow orders, regardless of how incredibly stupid, criminal and immoral they may be.

there is only a legal difference.

Just one question @tripe Are you saying that it would have been moral and justified to have not opposed Hitler and allowed him to continue killing Jews, Christians and millions of others? If so, I would be interested in your process of justification on that.

@bummer I’m not a Texan and I may be wrong, but I believe Texas does allow DNA testing on death row. Basing that on articles I have read on the number of innocent death row inmates that have been exonerated in Texas. And I believe Texas pays exonerated inmates $50,000 for every year they served. Please do correct me if I’m wrong.

Repeat after me…

…you can’t make sense out of nonsense.

@plethora, was referring to today’s editorial in the Houston chronicle (3–13-10) several men have been executed only to have their dna prove them innocent, post mortum. Currently there is scheduled execution but the DA has successfully prevented any dna tests. A life is at stake but so is the reputation of the DA.

@bummer Thanks much. I am misinformed. Apparently it is another state I read about. Just curious, is this the DA for the prosecuting jurisdiction that is preventing DNA tests or is it state law? Thanks.

@bummer when someone asks a question here they are given two options. They can seek to solve a problem, or they can open a discussion. Some issues have no readily apparent answers, hence the choice.

@plethora, here is information that touches on guilt-innocence and DNA. For me, I believe DNA testing should be mandatory and in cases of National Security, truth serum.
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/05/prosecutors-justify-opposition-to-dna.html
@phillis, I was Lucky to be your friend in AB.