Is it wrong if a civilian who supports war gets killed.?

[AtulaSiriwardane]

I think the civilians who supports war are not really civilians.
They have the intention to kill as a solution.
According to Buddha intention becomes Karama.
It is the base, the source of Karma.
So a civilian may not have a uniform or a badge, if he approves killing he is not a civilian... he is a comrade without arms.

Is it wrong if a civilian who supports war gets killed.?

You may not just shout at me... or try to analyze me to escape the fact that you don't know what to say.
You may Analyze the comment, talk to the point and prove what is write.
I hope not to reply such comments.. and most probably not to read.

 

[madurax86]

you know what ok fine we are comrades with out badges or uniforms so what is it for you?

 

[x-pert]

To be very frank, you're the second cunning person after Mahinda Rajapaksha!
You questions are swords. depaththama kapenawa
But maybe you're not intelligent enough to distinguish between civilians and terrorism supporters.

So, the answer to your question is, IT DEPENDS!

A civilian who supports war as the last resort because of their own safety, then he or she is a civilian.
A civilian who supports war to gain some tangible objective and promotes terrorism is not a civilian indeed.

War and terrorism are 2 different things!

 

[Ridhan]

if a group kills ur whole family...and destroys lives, wudnt u suprt da war against dem?????

 

[shiran24]

I think the civilians who supports war are not really civilians.
They have the intention to kill as a solution.
According to Buddha intention becomes Karama.
It is the base, the source of Karma.
So a civilian may not have a uniform or a badge, if he approves killing he is not a civilian... he is a comrade without arms.

Is it wrong if a civilian who supports war gets killed.?

You may not just shout at me... or try to analyze me to escape the fact that you don't know what to say.
You may Analyze the comment, talk to the point and prove what is write.
I hope not to reply such comments.. and most probably not to read.

why the army kill terrorists? it is bcos; if we did not killed them then the terrorists will kill us. in this case, killing is not done as a punishment for terrorist activities but it is done for the safety of millions of people. as someone has said, killing is the last option. to make it clear, when terrorists surrender to army forces, they are not killed but punished according to civil law or rehabilitated or both.

though the supporters of terrorism are worse than terrorists, we don't need to kill them. though they are supporting terrorism, they are civillians a long as they are not involved directly or indirectly in criminal activities. they can be punished according to civil law for supporting terrorism. no need to kill. but nothing to hide. i again say, they are the worst not terrorists. (civil law must be developed so that these supporters of terrorism can be taken in front of law.)

however, you know to express what you want to tell in subtle ways. mind this. the supporters of war are not equal with the supporters of terrorism. if we did not support war, we will lost more lives by terrorists. but the objective of the supporters of terrorism is not that. they are not supporting terrorism to save million lives but to seperate the country and lead to a ceaseless war between two countries that will cause millions of killings.

 

[x-pert]

if a group kills ur whole family...and destroys lives, wudnt u suprt da war against dem?????

Never.

That's why there's a legal framework operational in most of the countries including Sri Lanka.

Anyway the truth is, Prabha used his own men to kill Tamil civilians and to show the world that Sinhala forces killed them.

 

[London_Light]

I think the civilians who supports war are not really civilians.
They have the intention to kill as a solution.
According to Buddha intention becomes Karama.
It is the base, the source of Karma.
So a civilian may not have a uniform or a badge, if he approves killing he is not a civilian... he is a comrade without arms.

Is it wrong if a civilian who supports war gets killed.?

You may not just shout at me... or try to analyze me to escape the fact that you don't know what to say.
You may Analyze the comment, talk to the point and prove what is write.
I hope not to reply such comments.. and most probably not to read.

I think you are raising a very good point..which most sri lankan and even the world for that matter is waiting to find out..

when you finish of a terrorist organization..whats the next step..i wont to see if this thread just dies out or makes a good dialog..

that will be the best way to check what common citizen thinks..

 

[Scarface]

koti dalada maligawata gahuwe dalada hamuduruwo "comrade without arms" hinda wenna athi

 

[dewage55]

we can't say that the all civilians are supporting to the LTTE, they are trapped inside nor, they are keeping by force for their salvation. so that's why we can not say that the all the civilians are supporting to the LTTE.

 

[djshan]

I think the civilians who supports war are not really civilians.
They have the intention to kill as a solution.
According to Buddha intention becomes Karama.
It is the base, the source of Karma.
So a civilian may not have a uniform or a badge, if he approves killing he is not a civilian... he is a comrade without arms.

Is it wrong if a civilian who supports war gets killed.?

You may not just shout at me... or try to analyze me to escape the fact that you don't know what to say.
You may Analyze the comment, talk to the point and prove what is write.
I hope not to reply such comments.. and most probably not to read.

i agree with you bro,
no human have a rights to kill another,
if some one think they do,
i feel sorry for them,
it don't matter u have a badge, or a weapon,
and what are the reson to do this,
anger blind you,
dont let this take control of ur mind,
dont just use ur eyes to get a solution,
use your heart,
than think bck at this,
you will fig it out
this is all wrong,

 

[dacoolest]

I think the civilians who supports war are not really civilians.
They have the intention to kill as a solution.
According to Buddha intention becomes Karama.
It is the base, the source of Karma.
So a civilian may not have a uniform or a badge, if he approves killing he is not a civilian... he is a comrade without arms.

Is it wrong if a civilian who supports war gets killed.?

You may not just shout at me... or try to analyze me to escape the fact that you don't know what to say.
You may Analyze the comment, talk to the point and prove what is write.
I hope not to reply such comments.. and most probably not to read.

A man could have any kind of mental situation at a time. one can feel pity about the victim of the war when they are looking at the news. and also he can be full of hate when ever he hear something bad happen to his relation/friend or someone who have been in war and like that. thats how the mind is. going to separate the society by analyzing those thoughts is the craziness.

as an average measurement unit, you can say that people with guns runing here and there and shooting are soldiers. and also there are people who are not fighting in the battle field, but contributing by leading the forces from behind. They are also responsible for the result.

you cant kill a man in a village just because he says that the war should be done to finish this radical problem. he maybe having his own vision. that could be the terrorism. also that couldn't be.

now whats your point athula? who is the man you want to be terrorist? are you searching for a reason to shoot your neighbor? well. its up to u

I always prefer being in the hydrangea when I'm thinking about things. you try to go to extreme ends.

 

[AtulaSiriwardane]

To be very frank, you're the second cunning person after Mahinda Rajapaksha!
You questions are swords. depaththama kapenawa
But maybe you're not intelligent enough to distinguish between civilians and terrorism supporters.

So, the answer to your question is, IT DEPENDS!

A civilian who supports war as the last resort because of their own safety, then he or she is a civilian.
A civilian who supports war to gain some tangible objective and promotes terrorism is not a civilian indeed.

War and terrorism are 2 different things!

I ask as war in general...
It can be north, it can be Gaza.
Your answers are good and correct within the parameters you set.
But not everyone who support war falls into those catogaries. ...
This war and many other war situations around the world are extended by people who do so for personal gain... and some support war just because they have to vent out anger... And there are many others out of ignorance hail war for they are caught with the mob feeling... Are the civilians... or civilized.
If someone live on someone elses death isn't it Barbaric...

 

[AtulaSiriwardane]

if a group kills ur whole family...and destroys lives, wudnt u suprt da war against dem?????

It depends on the situation and the state of my mind.
If I am sure that they would not get punished by law, If I am capable, I may kill that person or the group who is responsible. I would do it if it helps to stop them killing further.
But I am aware that I will be punished by law and I will have to pay for the bad Karma I perform. I will not justify killing a killer is good. If his killing is wrong my killing also is wrong.
I have the courage to kill but I respect the right of the others to live and get punished for his wrong. I know that every one who kills and supports killing has to pay for it sooner or later...
In one past life Buddha as a Bodhisattva had dropped his own brother in between two rocks and killed him . He paid for that karma it even after he became a Buddha.. His foot was wounded by the piece of rock which was dropped by Devdath...

So if I get killed trying to kill the murderers of my family,
I deserve it because I was on my way to kill.

 

[shiran24]

why the army kill terrorists? it is bcos; if we did not killed them then the terrorists will kill us. in this case, killing is not done as a punishment for terrorist activities but it is done for the safety of millions of people. as someone has said, killing is the last option. to make it clear, when terrorists surrender to army forces, they are not killed but punished according to civil law or rehabilitated or both.

though the supporters of terrorism are worse than terrorists, we don't need to kill them. though they are supporting terrorism, they are civillians a long as they are not involved directly or indirectly in criminal activities. they can be punished according to civil law for supporting terrorism. no need to kill. but nothing to hide. i again say, they are the worst not terrorists. (civil law must be developed so that these supporters of terrorism can be taken in front of law.)

however, you (atula) know to express what you want to tell in subtle ways. mind this. the supporters of war are not equal with the supporters of terrorism. if we did not support war, we will lost more lives by terrorists. but the objective of the supporters of terrorism is not that. they are not supporting terrorism to save million lives but to seperate the country and lead to a ceaseless war between two countries that will cause millions of killings.

 

[AtulaSiriwardane]

why the army kill terrorists? it is bcos; if we did not killed them then the terrorists will kill us. in this case, killing is not done as a punishment for terrorist activities but it is done for the safety of millions of people. as someone has said, killing is the last option. to make it clear, when terrorists surrender to army forces, they are not killed but punished according to civil law or rehabilitated or both.

though the supporters of terrorism are worse than terrorists, we don't need to kill them. though they are supporting terrorism, they are civillians a long as they are not involved directly or indirectly in criminal activities. they can be punished according to civil law for supporting terrorism. no need to kill. but nothing to hide. i again say, they are the worst not terrorists. (civil law must be developed so that these supporters of terrorism can be taken in front of law.)

however, you know to express what you want to tell in subtle ways. mind this. the supporters of war are not equal with the supporters of terrorism. if we did not support war, we will lost more lives by terrorists. but the objective of the supporters of terrorism is not that. they are not supporting terrorism to save million lives but to seperate the country and lead to a ceaseless war between two countries that will cause millions of killings.

Acyually, I am happy to see that some sensible members have started replying...
Yes, My question is tricky for you can't say Yes or No... Because your thoughts are exatly opposite when you differencite two killers.. One as a patriot and and other as a terrorist. Actually I am not asking about the people who attend war, the forces and terrorist. That can be inevitable. Forces are doing their job and what they gain and what they loose is their sole responsibility. They have no choice..
But civilians have a choice. Their support for the war is not essential. But many do. By doing so they become part of the war. They become comrades... without arms.
The question is whether it is right or wrong if a civilian who supports gets killed.
He also a minor type of hero. He deserves to be called a hero.
Are the aware of the responsibility,
or are they running with the mob getting a free aathal.

 

[shiran24]

and a poll again!!!!

what is the meaning of this question?

"is it wrong if a civilian who supports terrorism get killed?"

it depends on whether he/she was killed consiously or unconsiously. in any case it is not nice. in general any one must not be killed. but at some situations it has to be done for unavoidable reasons. if i had to kill an innocent person to save the whole world (imaginary situation) i must do it. why create polls for such silly matters.

 

[AtulaSiriwardane]

and a poll again!!!!

what is the meaning of this question?

"is it wrong if a civilian who supports terrorism get killed?"

it depends on whether he/she was killed consiously or unconsiously. in any case it is not nice. in general any one must not be killed. but at some situations it has to be done for unavoidable reasons. if i had to kill an innocent person to save the whole world (imaginary situation) i must do it. why create polls for such silly matters.

I admire your courage... and I too would do that.

 

[shiran24]

But civilians have a choice. Their support for the war is not essential. But many do. By doing so they become part of the war. They become comrades... without arms.

no............. our supporting is essential. we must support war bcos of the reasons that i stated. and yes; if we are supporting war then we are also contributing to kill terrorists. nothing to hide. if the soldiers are doing an akusala karma then we too. and there are situations that we have to do somethings even they are akusala karmas. (however i have a doubt whether this is an akusala karma. what is an akusala karma? can it be defined generally without stating some particular things as akusala karma?) we must act as true humans.

 

[shiran24]

please. can you remove this poll? it does not have an exact answer that is independent of the situation. why these polls are necessary? if you make a poll then the questions must be crystal clear and they must have exact separate answers.

 

[shiran24]

Yes, My question is tricky for you can't say Yes or No... Because your thoughts are exatly opposite when you differencite two killers.. One as a patriot and and other as a terrorist

no. it is not bcos of that. i did not say that a patriot have a right to kill and a terrorist do not. i clearly stated my view. i emphasized on the objective. the answer depend on the objective of the killer not on the batch or the kind of the killer.