Here we go again

@Pervavita:

don’t see how this changes what i say. if war = murder then we have a world full of murderers that in many casses murdered to deffend life. this can be a discustion all on it’s own, i am just stating that to call war murder is a vary simple statment like saying Muslams are terorist. it can be true, but it is not always true and as such makes the statment false.

Murdered to defend life?  How absurd is that?  As others have pointed out, that’s like saying I’m screwing for virginity.
All I’m saying is that I think it’s ridiculous that some people think it’s ok to shoot/stab/blow up other people in the name of war, especially when those people fighting really have nothing to do with the conflict at hand.  Some think it’s honor, I think it’s stupidity.  So all I’m pointing out is that war is murder, just “legalized” because the state says it’s ok.

hu? i know he wasn’t, he is subject to the UCMJ as he is a solder fighting in uniform.

Let me put it this way…if terrorists attack us, are you going to extradite them to be tried in  their country of origin?  It’s absurd to say that anyone is subject to our laws while they are in the US, but our soldiers are also subject to our laws and not the nation they are located in.

as i said i don’t know it all, i do know though that it is unlikelly that WE know it all any way.

He confessed.  I’m not sure there is much more to say.

Your justifing a person that is supost to represent the people to accuse people with out trial (guarded by both constatution and UCMJ) of murder. it was not a statment by Murtha that was an “if guilty”, but it was “they are guilty”. even if this is guarded under the constatution (as it is) he made the statments as a senater (represenative of the government), so he was acting at the vary least iresponcable, but i feel he was trampeling on other peoples rights to a fair trial. he hid behind the constatution to trample on other peoples constatutional rights. his act should have been made a big deal and cost him his job through a trial of his own. even if it’s a millitary trial, you can’t say that those trieing are not perswaided by our own governemnt (you know the guys who sighn there pay cheaks).

There was impropriety in the act AND the neglect of investigation.  So not only did he have the freedom to say what he said, he was justified in that the military really screwed this one up.  In that way, it makes HIM look bad (being a veteran).  No crime is committed there, and the truth was revealed.  However, it’s probably not the smartest thing for him to say, especially if he is considering reelection, but why are you more upset about him and not the soldiers that f’d up, tried to cover it up, and gave YOU a bad name?  Seems like misplaced rage to me.

@Cmdr:

I don’t really give a rats about Sgt Vela or what he did or did not do.  What matters to me is the ridiculous standard the world has set for the American Military.  If we so much as breath too hard in the direction of an innocent civilian, we get demonized in the world stage.

That’s what I care about.

Besides what Switch pointed out, I just don’t see this criticism.  At all.  I mean, do you go looking for it or something?

Murdered to defend life?  How absurd is that?  As others have pointed out, that’s like saying I’m screwing for virginity.
All I’m saying is that I think it’s ridiculous that some people think it’s ok to shoot/stab/blow up other people in the name of war, especially when those people fighting really have nothing to do with the conflict at hand.  Some think it’s honor, I think it’s stupidity.  So all I’m pointing out is that war is murder, just “legalized” because the state says it’s ok.

is it murder to stand infront of your family with a gun and shoot a person that is shooting at your family first? that is deffence. to say war=murder is far to simple. George Washington, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln are all murder’s by your standard. sorry i just don’t see it, that is the point i am making.

Let me put it this way…if terrorists attack us, are you going to extradite them to be tried in  their country of origin?  It’s absurd to say that anyone is subject to our laws while they are in the US, but our soldiers are also subject to our laws and not the nation they are located in.

a terrorist is not a member of an organized governement body. you can not send them to a group that they are subject to as there is non. if a US CITIZEN goes to a country and kills people then they are tried in that country. that is a terorist. these are solders in uniform fighting for the US. they are not terorist.

He confessed.  I’m not sure there is much more to say.

again i still doupt we know it all.

There was impropriety in the act AND the neglect of investigation.  So not only did he have the freedom to say what he said, he was justified in that the military really screwed this one up.  In that way, it makes HIM look bad (being a veteran).  No crime is committed there, and the truth was revealed.  However, it’s probably not the smartest thing for him to say, especially if he is considering reelection, but why are you more upset about him and not the soldiers that f’d up, tried to cover it up, and gave YOU a bad name?  Seems like misplaced rage to me.

neglect of investigation, this statment came out that i am directly reffering to with Mirtha when the investigation had just started. his slander was before the investigation had concluded and before a trial had started. it would be the same as your naighbor who did not like you saying you broke into there house and raped his wife. then when the investigation starts a leading public offical comes out and condems you before the evidence is even collected. this action from a public offical is horible, the chances of a fair trial were compermised by this as there is now no way to have an un biused trial. that is why i am mad at the man. the evidence in this case that i’m reffering to as far as i can tell is no condeming as it was just hear say when it started. where it is now i don’t know. i can’t find any information on it last i tried to look.

@Jermofoot:

So all I’m pointing out is that war is murder, just “legalized” because the state says it’s ok.

@Websters:

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing  \ˈmər-d(ə-)riŋ
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2: to slaughter wantonly : slay
3 a: to put an end to b: tease, torment c: mutilate, mangle <murders french=“”>d: to defeat badly
intransitive verb
: to commit murder</murders>

By definition Murder is killing unlawfully  so:

War = killing 
sometimes there is murder durring war, but war does not = murder

btw,
In this case he was found guilty, I wasn’t there, and I wasn’t on the jury so I assume he is guilty as charged.

I agree.  Even the Bible authorizes killing in war.  In fact, God has sent armies in to kill all men, women and children in some cases.  I’m sure the same can be found in almost every religion, with exceptions being the rarity, not the majority.

However, the US Army does allow you to opt out if it violates your religion to kill someone, even if it means that he will kill you.  (Conscientious objector.)  But, as we know, there are no aethiests in a fox hole and there are not many who would lay there prostrate and allow the enemy to drill bullets into their body without offering up at least token resistance.

@Pervavita:

is it murder to stand infront of your family with a gun and shoot a person that is shooting at your family first? that is deffence. to say war=murder is far to simple. George Washington, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln are all murder’s by your standard. sorry i just don’t see it, that is the point i am making.

When have Americans ever done that in the past 2 centuries?  I can’t even think of one.  Anyway, I answer this mostly below to dezrt.

a terrorist is not a member of an organized governement body. you can not send them to a group that they are subject to as there is non. if a US CITIZEN goes to a country and kills people then they are tried in that country. that is a terorist. these are solders in uniform fighting for the US. they are not terorist.

I just gave a simple example.  But let’s use your example.  Why wasn’t this soldier tried in Iraq?

neglect of investigation, this statment came out that i am directly reffering to with Mirtha when the investigation had just started. his slander was before the investigation had concluded and before a trial had started. it would be the same as your naighbor who did not like you saying you broke into there house and raped his wife. then when the investigation starts a leading public offical comes out and condems you before the evidence is even collected. this action from a public offical is horible, the chances of a fair trial were compermised by this as there is now no way to have an un biused trial. that is why i am mad at the man. the evidence in this case that i’m reffering to as far as i can tell is no condeming as it was just hear say when it started. where it is now i don’t know. i can’t find any information on it last i tried to look.

Well, here’s the thing.  The investigation never would have happened if it weren’t for Time magazine, who reported the event months before Murtha said anything.  The only reason he did say anything is because they were dragging their feet.  It wasn’t slander, and frankly, you could just ignore him since his opinion is pretty irrelevant.  The defendants also have quite a few more perks when it comes to comparison to civilian trials, and those are reported to death in the media.  The Haditha massacre is no where near the level of coverage that OJ (who got more than a fair trial), Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, or anyone else they are covering now.  So, I’m sorry to say your rage is unfound.  Better to just drop it and wonder why these guys did this, why the administration failed to report it and follow up, and why it took the media to uncover a tragedy like this and get something done.

@dezrtfish:

@Jermofoot:

So all I’m pointing out is that war is murder, just “legalized” because the state says it’s ok.

@Websters:

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing  \ˈmər-d(ə-)riŋ
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2: to slaughter wantonly : slay
3 a: to put an end to b: tease, torment c: mutilate, mangle <murders french=“”>d: to defeat badly
intransitive verb
: to commit murder</murders>

By definition Murder is killing unlawfully  so:

War = killing 
sometimes there is murder durring war, but war does not = murder

I was just demonstrating that it’s easy to label something if you want to hard enough.  I have a very negative opinion of war, but I don’t think everyone involved is a murderer.  I do think the chiefs that declare and conduct them are pricks though.  But it’s beside the point because M36 never responded to it.

@Cmdr:

I agree.  Even the Bible authorizes killing in war.  In fact, God has sent armies in to kill all men, women and children in some cases.  I’m sure the same can be found in almost every religion, with exceptions being the rarity, not the majority.

The bible also has incest, rape, subversion of women, etc., so I guess that makes those ok too, huh?  Not to mention that the majority of the world doesn’t follow the Bible, so I don’t even know why that’s relevant.

However, the US Army does allow you to opt out if it violates your religion to kill someone, even if it means that he will kill you.  (Conscientious objector.)  But, as we know, there are no aethiests in a fox hole and there are not many who would lay there prostrate and allow the enemy to drill bullets into their body without offering up at least token resistance.

How about if I just don’t like shooting people or being shot at?  Will that float?  Or do I have to be in some club for it to mean anything?

@Jermofoot:

@Pervavita:

is it murder to stand infront of your family with a gun and shoot a person that is shooting at your family first? that is deffence. to say war=murder is far to simple. George Washington, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln are all murder’s by your standard. sorry i just don’t see it, that is the point i am making.

When have Americans ever done that in the past 2 centuries?  I can’t even think of one.  Anyway, I answer this mostly below to dezrt.

i used an extream example, but there are instances in the news even in the last few years of people using guns to kill murderers to save lifes in the states or using guns to protect there family from those who have broke into there home, armed or not dosn’t matter as we do know people break into homes armed so why take the chance. it dosn’t change that war=murder is inaccurate. there are surcumstances that it is correct, but also when it is not.

I just gave a simple example.  But let’s use your example.  Why wasn’t this soldier tried in Iraq?

he is a member of the millitary serving and as such falls under the guide lines of his home nations laws. comparing him to a terroist is not accurate. if a member of the Iraq army were to comit war crimes he would be tried by the Iraq government, unless the Iraq governemnt condones such actions and then if the Iraq governement had sighned on to said war crimes treaty then the leaders in Iraq would fall under the rules of war in that they would be tried.
with that said, i am not a fan of forcing nations to obide by rules that they do not sighn. for example Nazi Germany should not have been able to be held accountable for any Crimes with no treaty sighned saying what they did was wronge. no nation should be able to force another to do what there nation wants, no matter how horible that nation is acting unless that nation is a threat to security and then in the intrest of protecting your own people then go to war. but this is a fully diffrent debate.

Well, here’s the thing.  The investigation never would have happened if it weren’t for Time magazine, who reported the event months before Murtha said anything.  The only reason he did say anything is because they were dragging their feet.  It wasn’t slander, and frankly, you could just ignore him since his opinion is pretty irrelevant.  The defendants also have quite a few more perks when it comes to comparison to civilian trials, and those are reported to death in the media.  The Haditha massacre is no where near the level of coverage that OJ (who got more than a fair trial), Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, or anyone else they are covering now.  So, I’m sorry to say your rage is unfound.  Better to just drop it and wonder why these guys did this, why the administration failed to report it and follow up, and why it took the media to uncover a tragedy like this and get something done.

that stroy from the Times was not by a fully credible source and should not have been taken as fact. if those Marines did a cover up (and i have not heard any proff to say they did that is credable) then they should be tried. the Times story came from a witness, but not one last i heard that could be found. i don’t think Mirtha was in the right to bring up this like he did. it was not a “IF they are guilty” but it was a “they ARE guilty” statment and that is where he was wrong and interfiered IMO in the investigation and trial.
on the other high profile casses, this is diffrent, but i don’t agree that they should be so high profile ether, atleast untill the trial is over. i feel the media is wrong in making a big deal out of all of them, i don’t think that the government should step in but it is a sighn of our nations lack of judgment that such things are popular.
Mirtha if the Marines were found guilty would have been in the right to make statments about those Marines that were like he did, but not before, and not with the evidence of hear say as that is all the evidence that was brought up untill a few months ago.

@Cmdr:

However, the US Army does allow you to opt out if it violates your religion to kill someone, even if it means that he will kill you.  (Conscientious objector.)  But, as we know, there are no aethiests in a fox hole and there are not many who would lay there prostrate and allow the enemy to drill bullets into their body without offering up at least token resistance.

Conscientious objector status is allowed duriing times of a draft or conscription.  You can’t voluntarily join the army if you object to doing what the army does.  If you try to file for CO status today it will get denied baring some highly unusual religious conversion.  Even then it’s doubtful.

Exactly, Dezrt.  But you only NEED it in times of drafts because you can just not volunteer.  So yes, Jermo, you can just decalre yourself a Conscientious Objector and not have to join any clubs to do it.  Just tell them before you sign the contract and they’ll rip it right up and send you on your merry way.  End of story.  No one is forced to kill another human being in this country.  However, there are times it is recommended (ie stopping your wife from being raped and your children dismembered before your eyes, being some of the cases.)

And I’d like to see proof that rape and the rest of your tirade was ever commanded by God to his armies.  Just Book, Chapter and Verse will be fine, thank you. See new thread -df-