[All Systems Go]

[quote=Newt]So we need an army, but you say anyone joining the army is immediately a murderer (or someone with murder in mind).

Do you understand where your argument is falling to pieces?

We need an army, but not the kind we have which is predominantly involved on offensive as opposed to defensive wars. Clear?

[qupte]Also, lets say I believe that all animals are equal - you kill a fly, I call you a murderer. You go "lol hahaha right, ****ing idiot. Find me anything in the law which would agree with you".

Ok. I think your idea on the army in general is ****ing idiotic too. But its your opinion, plenty of people disagree with you. Do you understand? How what you think is right, doesn't make it actually true? Again, this is where a democracy works quite well, and you'd seemingly be in the minority.

I'd be in the minority because I believe the army should only be used for defensive purposes? Got any basis for that statement, or is it just hollow rhetoric?

Also, go find anything in the law which would make a solider a murderer (yes hte law, not a dictionary). You reply might be "well, the law allows soldiers to do it because our government is shit and allows it" - similarly, I could say you murdering a fly is only legal because our government condones it.

You have a view on things, its in the minority, that doesn't give you the right (this is a democracy, and I'm sure there are slander laws and such for a reason) to go around calling the army murderers. You're fine to express an opinion, but thats not what you're doing in this thread.

If you kill someone you are, by definition a killer. There are many justifications for killing someone, which changes by culture and time and many other things. Just because the killing (or potential killing) is condoned by the society in which we live, does not make it objectively valid.

I have given my (subjective) opinion on when it is valid to kill someone and my (objective) view of a killer is a killer when they kill someone or attempt to kill someone. It's really not very difficult.

Comparing today's society (wit hthe media and internet) with the early 20th century is like comparing the early 20th century with the times of Jesus Christ. Grow a few brain cells... your opinions really are just beyond retarded.

The Weimar Republic actually had quite a lot of media actually. The internet is not actually some benevolent being which protects and enlightens us. It can be used for encouraging violence and authoritarianism as well as discouraging it. That you refuse to acknowledge at least the possibility of a fascist government is frankly bizarre.

The ponit about Weimar Germany was to indicate that your point about Britain being safe from Fascism because it is a democracy, was blatently false. I was not suggesting that this hypothetical fascist government was literally going to be Nazis Mark II.

edit: and while you may think invading iraw was for offensive reasons only, many people agree we had to do it for defence reasons. Again, you disagree (so do I), but that doesn't make you/us right. Understand?

Those people would be wrong. Iraq had no WMD and was not actually a threat to anybody. That people are ignorant to certain truths does not make them right.