I'm not offended but appreciate you thinking so.

A soldier, at least in this country, is someone who volunteers to give-up his liberty and his constitutional rights to receive training and pick-up arms to defend the Nation and its interests. Further, soldiers agree to a code of conduct which prohibits acts common to terrorists. A solider is an individual deserving of honor and respect because they ALLOW others in this nation to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of their sacrifice.

Terrorist - a collection of people bound by an ideal who use any means necessary to make a political statement. Terrorists have no code of conduct prohibiting their behavior and use civilians as fodder, shields, and weapons to achieve their objectives.

I could go into the whole uniform, national flag, defined landmass discussion but I know my piecemeal approach to articulating it would leave far too much out.

There is a huge difference between killing someone in battle and murdering innocent civilian to make a statement. It is for this reason that the relativism far too many people in this country practice toward our soldiers makes me sickened and is a disservice to their sacrifice.

I didn't mean to offend you. I just wanted to know your opinions.

Soldier: a person who serves in an army; a person engaged in military service.

Terrorism definition. Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments.

It looks like the only difference between the two is how they fight and how much government support they have.

I can honestly say I am mortified by the direction of this conversation. At this late hour I can not adequately convey a substantive reply and am appalled that it need be explained. Use google.

if I "turn the other cheek" often enough, pretty soon
I run out of cheeks. -- j

What is the moral difference?

"a few low-life criminals with political motivations"
Err that is called a terrorist. And they aren't so few (may cells/groups), they aren't so limited regionally, nor are they poorly armed or funded. ISIS.

What a shameful attempt to create moral equivalence between a soldier and a terrorist.

I have come to agree that monsters do exist.
When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.

This absolutely is not war. This is a few low-life criminals with political motivations. They don't have an army. They have no hope of hurting as many people in the US as accidents do, but they hope committing ghastly crimes will provoke a foolish reaction. In the latest examples, they address President Obama directly, as if daring him to cross a line. We appear to play right into it.

Criminals, who often dehumanize people including themselves, are no model for my behavior.

I bet it was days after the the Code of Hammurabi, the first time someone wrote down the rules ahead of time, that someone undermined the law by saying, "but the rules don't apply to something so egregious. We need to turn power back to men instead of the law." And it never stopped since b/c rule of law is work for humankind. Rule by people is the norm.

The war, as created by the instigator.

Authorization for the war was a declaration of war as constitutionally required. The phrase 'declare war' is not required and has nothing to do with "rights of enemy combatants"..

You could easily have learned who not to trust without going to Vietnam, losing a few years out of your productive life, and possibly all of it.

The Vietnam war was not a good or appropriate means of fighting communism. Read or re-read Ayn Rand's very important essay "The Wreckage Of The Consensus
". Anyone has a right to fight communism, but Vietnam was not in our interest, which is required for a rational foreign policy.

You say you mentioned going to Canada only facetiously, but for many it was very serious in the face of conscription. Opposition to the Vietnam war and the draft does not mean siding with the left, which wanted the Viet Cong to win and did not oppose forced national servitude.

You know who is guilty when you observe them in action in the middle of a war. There is no possibility of a 'legal system' to stop and try them in war. War is the absence of civilization.

What's a legitimate war? Fighting back in self defense is legitimate and honorable, but not both armies. But the terrorists are several rungs of hell beneath that.

No, it's not ok, but they do it themselves. It's ok to observe that and identify it for what it is.

The first one observes guilt. But this is war, not a civilian crime scene.

and countless others including us
monsters really do exist

They disqualify themselves from humane treatment because of their vile conduct and actions. In no way did anyone tell them to strap bombs to their children, murder children, mutilate young girls genitalia, steal young girls and sell them into slavery, honor kill, hide behind civilians, etc. These are constructs of their own making AND their own acceptance. They invalidate the honorable treatment of lawful soldiers fighting a legitimate war between two recognizable armies.

perhaps we're saying that it's okay to recognize
that they have dehumanized themselves. -- j

My apologies but that is absurd. These people aren't commuting a crime, they are waging acts reprehensible to MOST human beings - terrorism, beheading people, using their young as bombs, attacking unarmed civilian targets, and hiding behind schools and mosques to avoid begin targeted. This isn't stealing a car, holding up a store. or mugging someone. I'd rather they die immediately on the battlefield so bleeding hearts have no fodder for this type of argument.

Again, show me the international statute or convention affording people such as these (specifically TERRORISTS) any legal protection at all. If you can't this is all emotion driven bluster.

"They are alleged terrorist who never had a decent trial"
Yes. We have no idea who is guilty without a legal system. Without it we're just making stuff up. Not only does it keep us from finding out whose guilty, it sets a precedent for other cases of taking people's freedom or assets without due process.