I think it came up because someone was claiming that a soldier's life is just as valuable as a child's, so there was moral equivalence in the taking of either. I made the point that a soldier, when he (or maybe she, in Israel's case) signs up, consents to the risks of warfare, which may include death. A child does not. So while taking any human life is a terrible thing, in warfare, at least a soldier has consented to the potential risks.
The point then was made that to add to its many other crimes against humanity, the Israeli government routinely enslaves people to serve in its military, so perhaps the consent of the soldiers isn't there afterall (perhaps otherwise, most of the Israeli population would deem the Israeli government not worth saving?) My rebuttal to this was that perhaps then the Israeli military should not be referred to as a military, but perhaps a slave-army or something to indicate the people comprising it may be victims just as much as soldiers. I think for simplicity of the discussion, the decision was then made to presume that soldiers in the Israeli army were consenting.
One or two of the Rothschild-State-of-Israel-can-do-no-wrong-even-if-indiscriminately-bombing-civilians warmongers then tried to take the tone that I was a coward or hypocrite or similar, because I would not be prepared to enslaved and murder, be maimed, tortured or die (i.e. be conscripted) for corrupt and wealthy politicians to become even wealthier through more corruption.