Are soldiers murderers?

for the sole purposes of this post lets use your definition.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

You can have a situation where the police have enough evidence to
prove that a person was murdered, without necessarily knowing who did
it. Do you still argue that the person cannot be deemed to have
been murdered until the killer has been caught and convicted?

Are you saying that if a tree falls in the forest and no one has seen
it fall that it did not fall?


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Then how can you claim they were mistranslations?


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

"> But you have said repeatedly that a court must decide in every single

No Nev I've never said " a court must decide in every single case to
detirmine if a killing is unlawful or not" please pate the post where I
said or implied that.
I have said that only a court can detirmine if a killer is a murderer.
If they are never charged with murder there is no need for the court as they
are not a murderer

Capt. A. L.

 

Unlawful killing? Then we need a court to decide if it was unlawful or not.

Capt. A. L.

 

If God's law (commandment) says "thou shalt not kill", then killing
would be unlawful, no?

You're a weasel. One minute you say that the "thou shalt not kill"
commandment was a misintepretation, which implies that not allkilling
is proscribed by that commandment (i.e. you _can_ kill in a
God-sanctioned situation), and next minute you go "nah". You're just
talking shit again, aren't you...

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Your question is a non-sequitur.

Your question ia a non-sequitur.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

I think all wars are crimes against humanity.


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

That evidence needs to be tested. Police have in the past fabricated
evidence, made errors in collecting evidence, relied on witnesses who later
proved to be lying.
Until that evidence is tested in court there is no murder only an alledged
murder.
Is not our system of justice suposed to be based on the presumption of
innocence

Capt. A. L.

 

In reflection I concede that a court may determine that a person has been
killed unlawfully and thus murdered without a killer being prosecuted.
But where talking about the murderer here not the murder as in "are soldiers
murderers'"

Capt. A. L.

 

In the case that the court determines that a murder has occurred without
a charge being made(say a coronial enquiry) it still requires a court to
make a decision, hence before what has happened is undefined.


G-S

 

Because the one thing that just about all the translators agree on is
that the church translations are wrong.


G-S

 

No it would be sinful.

Sinful and unlawful... both wrong, but different wrongs.

When it gets back from the shop...


G-S

 

Free choice is defined to exist in religious text, at least the subgroup
I was raised as (no it didn't take real well it did.

Yes the consequences were to be hellish, but the choice existed.

G-S

 

That isn't a contradiction, any more than "Do what I say, not what I do
is" [1]


G-S

[1] Talking from a religious point we were "gods children" [2]

[2] I defy any parent to honestly claim that they haven't uttered a
version of the above statement.

 

OK... I would say that if the "war" or "action" in which the
soldiers did the killing, was not legally sanctioned, then they were
murderers.

Now we can have the argument about whose laws can legally sanction
military killing. Australia's laws do not apply to (let's say)
Iraq. The UN never sanctioned that war. We were never under any
direct and imminent threat from Saddam, so please tell me how any
killing there was not murder?

Vietnam was another can of worms.

Hey George, did you know Ted (you know who) in Vietnam? Now THERE was
a dude who was seriously up himself...

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Exactly, and I wasn't talking about other countries law in the earlier
post referring to executioners I was talking about the hangings carried
out in Australia (I don't know about you but I do remember Ronald Ryan
being hung).


G-S

 

I think you're just doing your usual obsessive obfuscating. You just
can't help yourself, can you , Geoff...

If I go out and unlawfully kill someone, they were unlawfully killed
irrespective of whether I am caught, and irrespective of what anyone
else thinks. The truth is out there, even if no one finds it, or
knows about it, or agrees with it.

Here's another way to look at it: I go out and murder someone. I
know what happened. I know it wqas murder. I hire you to obfuscate a
judge and jury, and I am found "not guilty". I am still a murderer.
I'm a murderer who beat the system, but that does change the fact that
I am a murderer.

Get over yourself...

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

You're full of shit, Geoff.

They may well agree that no "church translations" are free from errors
in translation, but that's a _generalisation_, and a far cry from
saying a specific bit of text such as "thou shalt not kill" was
wrongly translated. To make _such_ an allegation stick, you'd have to
show why/how the translation was wrong. You can't get away with
"there were many translation errors, therfore this is one must be a
translation error too." That's a fallacy of logic. You're doing
your thing again... Tell me, Geoff, are you deliberately being
stupid, or is it something more genetic?

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Really? You bandy terms it seems you don't understand.

define non sequitur
a.. a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it
a.. (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

There was no logical conclusion present in my questions so that leaves the
reply with no relevance as the accused non sequitur.

You made an argument about Christians and the 10 commandments, which in
their view, should supercede Federal or State laws.

So how does a question about which commandment, when followed, would
suspecede (or cause to be broken) any Federal or State law become a non
sequitur in response to that argument?

I would argue that a person who devoutly followed all 10 commandments would
risk breaking no Federal or State law, and therefore the 'superceding'
allegation is a red herring.

If you obey the greater law you therefore by definition follow the lesser
law, unless the two laws are in conflict (as may be the case with two
different levels of authority Local v State v Federal v Divine). Are there
any commandments which are in conflict with State of Federal Law? I would
argue there are none. I would argue that Federal and State law are somewhat
more relaxed in relation to those issues (eg adultery) but do not enforce
behaviour that conflicts with the 10 commandments.

Or are you just deriding that of which you know so little, like most other
times you post?

Pietro