"There is no such thing as heroism in the execution of evil."

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance322.html

"Murder decorated with a ribbon is still murder." ~ Emmanuel Charles
McCarthy

Third, I certainly
agree with those who say we should blame the president, the politicians,
the ruling class, the neoconservatives, the Joint Chiefs, the military
brass, the defense contractors, and the Congress for sending U.S.
soldiers to fight unjust foreign wars, as if a foreign war could
be just. But draft or no draft, I have nothing but contempt for
the architects of U.S. foreign wars, the presidents who instigate
or continue these wars, the neocons who welcome these wars, the
liberals who defend these wars (when a Democratic president is conducting
them), the conservatives who defend these wars (when a Republican
president is conducting them), the military officers who use these
wars to advance their careers while not actually doing any fighting
themselves, the Congressmen who vote to fund these wars, the defense
contractors who profit from these wars, and the Christians who pray
for the troops in these wars. They are all moral monsters, and are
accomplices
to murder. But that doesn’t change that fact that since murder
is still murder, soldiers who do the actual killing are still murderers.

Well firstly, Emmanuel Charles McCarthy is a catholic priest. How bout that, a catholic priest who is in agreement with Sal about all of that. That alone should mellow Sal on catholics. lol

But about this part... "soldiers who do the actual killing are still murderers".
The thing is, even if that were to be true, some of the people who post here are gonna accept that notion about the same time they're gonna accept the notion that queers are not abnormal. In other words, about the same time hell freezes over. lol

Well Bob Dylan said the same thing in song.

If you want to get picky whenever our country fights an unjust war all tax payers are accessories to murder.

Interesting footnote to this, teo.

I watched the movie Valkyrie again the other day.
I came away from that this time by thinking how unbelievably courageous it was for von Stauffenberg to do what he did. And to be sure I wasn't just being manipulated by Hollywood, I then boned up on the actual history of it all. And for the most part the Hollywood portrayal appears to be pretty accurate.
And this is the thing that's unsettling. Even when Stauffenberg was going up against what we all now understand was pure evil, it was still about the hardest thing any human being could do. Because except for a small handful of fellow travelers, most of his countrymen saw him only as a cowardly traitor.
So how in the world could we ever expect our nation to sympathize with an American version of von Stauffenberg. Not all the Bob Dylans singing at once will ever make that happen.

But there's more to it when you learn about this...

Among the most active members of the German resistance and one of its few survivors, Hans Bernd Gisevius portrays Colonel Stauffenberg, whom he met in July 1944, as a man driven by reasons which had little to do with Christian ideals or repugnance of Nazi ideology. In his autobiographical Bis zum bitteren Ende ("To the Bitter End"), Gisevius writes:

Stauffenberg wanted to retain all the totalitarian, militaristic and socialistic elements of National Socialism (p. 504). What he had in mind was the salvation of Germany by military men who could break with corruption and maladministration, who would provide an orderly military government and would inspire the people to make one last great effort. Reduced to a formula, he wanted the nation to remain soldierly and become socialistic (p. 503).

Stauffenberg, was motivated by the impulsive passions of the disillusioned military man whose eyes had been opened by the defeat of German arms (p. 510). Stauffenberg had shifted to the rebel side only after Stalingrad (p. 512).
The difference between Stauffenberg, Helldorf and Schulenberg — all of them counts — was that Helldorf had come to the Nazi Movement as a primitive, I might almost say an unpolitical revolutionary. The other two had been attracted primarily by a political ideology. Therefore, it was possible for Helldorf to throw everything overboard at once: Hitler, the Party, the entire system. Stauffenberg, Schulenberg and their clique wanted to drop no more ballast than was absolutely necessary; then they would paint the ship of state a military gray and set it afloat again (p. 513–514)

If Gisevius is right, then even Stauffenberg had the wrong motives. Hollywood left that part out. lol