Ok, in history class, I read in an article that Israeli's must serve in the army when they turn 18 until they are 26?. Now, when a militant shoots people on a bus, is he killing innocent civilians or are they soldiers? I hope someone'll clear this up.
depends, azadre...when they target school buses carrying little kids, you can argue all you want that they will grow up to be soldiers in 10 years, if that makes you feel better about it. are you even close to serious??? please tell me you're not...please tell me you're not justifying TARGETING civilians. because it sounds an awful lot like that's what you're trying to do.
I read that there were major phone line switches in the WTC Towers, so when a militant rams an airplane into them, is he killing innocent civilians or is he striking legitimate infrastructure targets?
for someone brainwashed, maybe...but you asked for someone to "clear this up" for YOU. is it really unclear for you?? it shouldn't be.
we are a republic...as a republic we tout that WE are the government ultimately...does that make US citizens justifiable targets as part of the government?? this kind of jackass logic is lost on me...
Well, I was only asking that since would would be soldiers according to that Jackass logic I HATE YOU Max...
Azadre, If you use <b>your logic</b> the other way, then it was fine for the Israelis to kill all of the innocents when they bombed the apartment to kill the leader/planner of terrorism a month ago.
awwwww..you're sweet!! i'm sorry..but if you can justify intentionally targeting civilians...that is freaking jackass!!! it was jackass when they targetted civilians on 9/11...it was jackass when they targetted kids on a school bus in Israel...it is what it is.
Azadre -- sorry if i came across harsh..i obviously have some strong feelings about this...looking back on what i've posted, i can see how you thought i was saying it was necessarily your logic...that's really not what i meant. sorry if it came across that way.
Not every Israeli is required to serve. Women who are married or have borne children are excluded from the requirement, as are those are are physically unfit or reject service on religious or conscience grounds. For that matter, by the time some of these kids reach the age of required service, the law might well be changed or the child's family might have moved out of Israel altogether. So on the other side of the coin, the Israelis could be justified under that line of thinking if they killed every single Palestinian since any one of them could become a terrorist at some point. Is it right to kill someone who has a 80% chance of becomming a suicide bomber at some point in the future? How about 50%? 20%? At what level does it shift from being right to being wrong (and vice versa)?
Well, you should feel proud, I placed you on my ignore list. Sure I disliked all of your posts, but when it's time, its time
Wow.. i feel so honored Since this is a Rocket's website.. would you have preferred this one? seriously though.. what was your point with this thread. IMO, Madmax hit the nail on the head when he said that it looks like you are justifying suicide bombings.
Just to answer the question, though, a person isn't a soldier until he/she actually begins to serve in the Army regardless of the future requirement. Until then, the person is just a potential soldier.
Man, Mexican people get on my nerves! (I just thought we could turn this thread into a triple threat- abortion/israel/racism!)
I see where you could go with that, especially in regard to my definition that a soldier isn't a soldier until he joins the Army. One could use that defintion to say that a person isn't a person until he's a person. But the fundamental question of when a person becomes a person would remain on both sides of the issue. Of course, there could be other ways to stretch the discussion to include abortion in several ways. Don't think we're going to go there, though.
And believe me, I have no desire to, I was being the 'sarcastic'... I would have used the rolls eyes face but he seems mean to me.
