Veterans should be respected because they gave their life for our freedom.

You keep drifting off the topic, and as a result confusing the argument. Please; stay on topic. "Veterans should be respected because they gave their life for our freedom." Or to rephrase: Soldiers, who during a war died (gave their life) so we can be free. You state that "Murder is the killing of one person by another person, it does not have to be premeditated" This is Incorrect. Most of the world's legal systems distinguish between cold-blooded killings, crimes of passion, and accidental (but still unlawful) deaths. In America, 'murder' applies to carefully pre-planned deaths, such as a mafia hit. 'Voluntary manslaughter', on the other hand, is what's committed when, for example, a husband catches his wife in bed with another man and snaps. Last; 'involuntary manslaughter', covers situations in which the death is neither pre-planned nor intentional. "What are they supposed to do die right there just to earn your respect?" No; they shouldn't be over there in the first place. They weren't 'placed' in the hostile environment; they chose to follow the order to be there. They knew what they were getting into. Just like the miner example, they took the job and find themselves down a hole by choice. My assertion that War costs us freedom is very much supported by facts; If you do even a little research you'll find them. I can't illustrate all of my examples because it's a very broad subject. For example; from the Wiki page on passports: " In the later part of the nineteenth century and up to World War I, passports were not required, on the whole, for travel within Europe, and crossing a border was straightforward. Consequently, comparatively few people had passports. The Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire maintained passport requirements for international travel, in addition to an internal passport system to control travel within their borders. During World War I, European governments introduced border passport requirements for security reasons (to keep out spies) and to control the emigration of citizens with useful skills, retaining potential manpower. These controls remained in place after the war, and became standard procedure, though not without controversy." Passports are a direct control on people by the state. A removal of freedom. That was justified by war, but remained after the war. The absence of violence is the opposite of violence. Violence takes many forms; not just a physical act. And the examples you offered as 'Violent acts' by firemen etc; is a Straw Man and I'm ignoring it. Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. Yet; you blame the Muslim states? It's like handing someone a gun; and beating them until they shoot you. THEN punishing them for shooting you. My train example had nothing to do with suicide. It's trying to illustrate that you need to find the real cause of an action to discover the truth. The train may cause the death; but it's not at fault. The man who stepped in front of it is. There are a great number of lies; believed by a lot of people in this world. We may be free of; Hitler, Japanese Aggression, Saddam, etc. But we are not free from the thing that created it. All four of these examples are the result of the initiation of force by the British empire. My closing argument: "I fail to see how any educated person can believe that it is possible to sacrifice liberty to attain greater freedom."