How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[Banquo's Ghost]

"Hatred" is the wrong term. "Uncaring" is a better one.

And I do differentiate between a defender and an invader, and one who had a choice and one who did not.

But that differentiation is not what you wrote:

Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

That implies soldiers, regardless of motivation, should be considered dead (and by extension, I suppose, undeserving of any rights or compassion). I can't see the moral reasoning for that statement, and "because I don't care" brings no illumination. It's a kind of nihilism, and therefore strikes me as morally bankrupt.

So does every soldier. Including enemy soldiers. The thing is I should only care about "my own", right? I don't have to care about "the enemy"?

I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I refuse to care about German soldiers who lost their lives in WW2, Vietcong soldiers who lost their lives in the Vietnam war, NATO soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan or Taliban soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Most people only care about one of those four. I don't see how I'm morally bankrupt or shameful because I don't care about any of them.

I have never said that you should care only about your own. Soldiers are trained to objectify an enemy so that they too "don't care" about the lives they are required to take. That training however, does not in most cases remove the moral dilemma that killing in a cause brings to one's psyche. For you to dismiss all such men and women with such casual disdain strikes me as a rather brutal generalisation.

But then that is the tragedy of hard-line socialism - it always comes down to caring more about the concepts than the human beings, despite bleating loudly that the latter's interests are it's raison d'etre.