whats the difference between a soldier and an assassin?

what is a soldier hired for? the primary role of the soldier is...

... to defend. A soldier's job is to defend the country. Just like a police officer's job is to defend the public. Sure, cops and soldiers shoot people sometimes, but that's not their primary responsibility.

and iraq?

the primary role of a soldier is to follow orders..

wtf are you talking about... an assasin can have a cause too.. wttffffff....

THINK b4 you type..

Franz Ferdinand was killed by an assassin who killed for his country..

many soldiers get the job because they want money

If there are soldiers who are signing up Just for the money, then they are assassins,killers for money.And a killer who killer for the sake of his country may not be in the army but he isn't a assassin.He is a patriot.

and that makes it completly moral?

Why does it have to be moral?

think about that for a second.. is it okay for a government to have guns to shoot at people who are not within this government?

That's what war is. And it has been going on for a very long time.And not only do governments fire on outsiders but on occasion they fire on their own citizens.

look at what i wrote fo soldia boi on the bottom.

Are you sure an assassin thinks of himself as immoral and a soldier as moral?

yes. why? is it wrong?

I feel that you can never say All one type of person is this or that. And I am not so sure an assassin would stop to think what he does is immoral. I don't think a real assassin would even care. And there are soldiers that can't get their minds around that they are ordered to kill people.

does a soldier kill people?

is killing someone murder?

how can one with a title 'soldier' given by a government be given the right to kill others that are not within this 'government'?

A soldier only kills when they have to. Not when they want to, or when they are paid to.

Rules of engagement govern any military around the world (except insurgent militaristic bodies). These rules prevent soldiers from randomly killing. Does it happen? Probably so, but in no way can this truly be associated with an assassin. There are a lot of soldiers who would rather not kill, but also know that we must defend ourselves, and your freedom and if that means killing then we will do so.

the primary role of a soldier is to obey orders.

it doesn't matter if these orders or moral or immoral, as Churchill said, soldiers are pawns..

the point is, if a government says to do something immoral, like murder, and if the soldier is aware of its immorality, and its not a draft, the soldier becomes immoral himself.

soldiers arent hired to build stuff etc as they do now, they are hired to 'defend the country' meaning, threatin and kill.

a country doesnt exist, its an inconsistent concept.. its a theory that doesn't work.

(hey man im not trying to be disrespectful or anything im just looking at the facts.. this is how i would talk to anyone regardless of your social status or occupation)

if you want me to connect the dots, what im saying is, the assassin knows he is immoral and doesnt say otherwise while the soldier knows he is immoral but justifies himself as being moral... which of course, is not true..

First and foremost, as a soldier, I do not believe what I am doing is immoral. Secondly, you are incorrect, the primary role of a soldier isn't to obey orders, the primary role of a soldier is to do whatever is necessary to defend a nation, in my case, defend our freedom by whatever means necessary. You can't justify your thinking by Churchill.

Also, a soldier is required to not follow an order if it is immoral, unjust, or unlawful.

unlawful maybe, immoral no.

the government hardly knows what moral and immoral are as it uses force to gain money from its citizens through taxation. thats immoral.

There is nothing immoral about taxation and your claim that it is, is idiotic. You enjoy many of the benefits of education and those that enjoy the feast foot the bill.

al the best urban

i could pay the bill myself without a gun in my face.

so, your saying soldiers have never killed civilians?
or are you saying that soliders have never been paid to kill civilians?
unarmed civilians, maybe?

because if so, you must know that your wrong. soldiers kill and get paid for killing who they are supposed to kill, regardless whether they have a gun.

No, clearly that is not what I am saying, please read what I have written and not what you imagine me to have written.

Here it is again.

"Soldiers, when properly instructed and acting legally, kill only other combatants, not civilians."

So, clearly I am not claiming soldiers never kill civilians nor that they are never paid to do so. But killing civilians is not their reason d'etre

"soldiers kill and get paid for killing who they are supposed to kill,"

That is not completely true, a solider is not obliged to follow an illegal order. The idea of a legal or illegal contract to an assassin is irrelevant.

all the best urban

positive law 101.

has there ever been an order for a soldier, who is fully trained, to kill civilians...
if you look around the world today... georgia?

Here it is again.

"Soldiers, when properly instructed and acting legally, kill only other combatants, not civilians."

So, clearly I am not claiming soldiers never kill civilians nor that they are never paid to do so. But killing civilians is not their reason d'etre

"soldiers kill and get paid for killing who they are supposed to kill,"

That is not completely true, a solider is not obliged to follow an illegal order. The idea of a legal or illegal contract to an assassin is irrelevant.

all the best urban

if law= government then your definition is false.

the real difference would be

a person who works for and is granted a licence to kill [non-citizens] from a monopolistic institution vs a person who does not have a licence.

No, that doesn't capture all the difference

all the best urban