I don't know why all the goings on about the military, and who is saluting who, after all war is only state sanctioned murder. The primary function of a soldier is to carry out those acts of murder on behalf of the state. No need to sugar coat it, that is the reality!

Josephus; "because the law is not a deterrent to criminals is the reason they are criminals." People commit crime for many reasons, regardless of the deterrent factor people will still commit crime. Increasing the penalty does not reduce the incidence of many crimes, example the death penalty has no effect on the murder rate. Murder is not the only example there are many others. Your thinking is what prevailed in 18th century England, increase the penalty and reduce the crime, but they did nothing about the socioeconomic problems that beset the country, and the result was Australia.

Josephus: Are you saying stealing is acceptable social practice for Muslims?

Not if they steal from moslems. However, stealing from Infidels is permitted. It's in a Sura somewhere also I have seen it said on a moslem Q & A Site.

Dear Josephus,

Regarding those two criminals, I already responded at the top of this thread: they do not observe any law - neither human nor divine, neither Christian nor Muslim. No doubt they will be punished by God, but as far as our secular affairs go, we need to ensure that citizens are safe, that those two never steal again, and the best way to ensure that is to cut off their hands, rather than make them spend useless but expensive time in prison at the hard-earned tax-money of myself as well as their direct victims.

What I was arguing in my previous post, was of a general nature.

People may disrespect the law of the land for two main reasons:
1) The people in question are unworthy, thus below the law.
2) The law of the land is unworthy, thus the people in question who observe a higher law, are above the law.

The mediocre secular legislator acts out of fear, lest something untoward occurs on their watch and they lose their pants, their reputation, salary, perks and all. So they constantly ask themselves: "What if they do this... What if they do that...", trying to conceive of every criminal possibility - but they give only little thought to the effect of their legislation on ordinary good citizens and no thought at all to the effect of their legislation on saints, prophets and sages. As a result, ordinary good people suffer while saints, prophets and sages are not even bothered to be born here.

If the officer was not in uniform no salutes are to be given. Right.
And the same the other way around.

<<If the officer was not in uniform>> is that when the officer is making unwanted sexual advances on their subordinates? Does the subordinate have to salute the officer after the ordeal or not, even thought the officer may still be out of uniform. Time for a Royal Commission!

The Age; <<A landmark report into assault and abuse in the military has found that more than 1100 alleged abusers are still serving in the ranks.>>

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/defence-abuse-government-to-seriously-consider-call-for-royal-commission-into-abuse-at-the-australian-defence-force-academy-20141126-11u1jq.html

If losing an argument always introduce a new argument or deflect the argument. Is that right Paul1405. Greenie Discussions 101.