who has made the region? man. is not the enemy soldier innocent? what wrong has he done? and who says that "innocents" are really "innocent"? how do you know that the person has not stolen, beaten their kids/spouse, troubled their old parents, evaded taxes, helped in a murder?
This argument is stupid to be honest. I know, you don't really feel that's true. You're saying it JUST for the sake of the argument (where I find indirect indications to Science vs. God argument).
So let us put it like this:
A brave man joins a group of brave people whose purpose serves to defend his group and attack during specific conditions. Does this feel justified?
Now we have a second group, where a brave man joins a group of brave people whose purpose serves defend his group and attack during specific conditions.
There comes a point in time when both of the groups find each other guilty in a way and go on a war. What happens is that the man who joined the second group kills the man of the other group (the war's still continuing). Now, if he hadn't done that the enemy would have invaded over his land and killed other people.
What was he doing?
Defending his country, saving his people.
What if he would have lost?
Same thing, the other way around.
Who was the right group in the war?
Both of them, they were right in their own way. Similarly they may have been even wrong too.
Now the other question,
Can I kill you just because you're not innocent in your real life?
I'm sure you must have committed thousands of sins in your real life, pirated movies, hurt people, etc. Can I kill you for that? If you agree with what you said then you just gave me that right.
But in reality The Law owns that right, The Law decides if someone is wrong or right, and then it punishes the person accordingly. Although The Law sometimes can be wrong and sloppy (corrupted judges, mostly in India) but that is a WHOLE different case.
If you feel I'm wrong then go blame Barack Obama too.
