Onesheep, ok I can understand soldiers being told to see the “enemy” as human as they are, etc, but that should mean that we don’t retaliate by air strikes etc.Like if someone is going to shoot you, and you have the means to protect yourself, you would most likely protect yourself. War of nations isn’t like that, most people it seems want their government to go in and kill, destroy what is seen as the “enemy”, at least from the news reports, they claim most people say they think armies should go in and flush them out.
We never learn that violence isn’t the answer.
But also, if a soldier sees the enemy as human, why would they want to kill them? If the leaders of armies are training soldiers to kill, not just the enemy but also the innocent, how do they do it by saying they are just as human as you?
Thanks
Hi Simpleas
Retaliation is justified int their minds as a means of providing a disincentive for further action on the part of the enemy. This, however, was certainly part of the reason why those guys shot up all of those people in Paris, to provide a reason (fear for their own safety) for the French to scale back the ongoing operation against the self-proclaimed “Islamic State”.
So, the French join the war against ISIS, and they retaliate, trying to scare off the French, and then the French government does not want the ISIS action to be rewarded, so they prove to ISIS that they had miscalculated. Then, of course ISIS has to retaliate because they do not want France to be rewarded for thinking that they can be beaten back by French retaliation, and behold, escalation occurs.
Even if there is not an escalation in “successful” attacks, there is certainly an escalation in hatred. For example, we are not hearing about Israel/Palestine too much, but the escalation in hatred there is not being adequately addressed by the world.
So, the forgiving soldier sadly carries out his operation. “Sorry we have to do this, but there is no other option. I am doing my job, and you are doing yours.”
The soldier
starts in an organization that usually (exception: actual defense) operates from a position that begins with lack of forgiveness, and then encourages forgiveness of the enemy as they operate (for some U.S. soldiers anyway). Again, quite ironic - the government fails to forgive, but soldiers do so for tactical reasons.
Jesus calls us to a different option. The leadership, starting with the leadership of the oppressed, is to forgive the oppressor. Can you imagine what the effect would have been for the oppressed populations of Syrians to have massed in the streets praying for Assad? There are other ways, too, shown by the actions of Mahatma Gandhi and others.
Look at what ancient cultures of hunter-gatherers do, simpleas. The !Kung Bushman hunter expresses sorrow to the animal before killing it, explaining the need his family has for sustenance. People’s consciences make room for doing violence in times of need, and I know that you would agree it is not a K&WR of God.
We never learn that violence is not the answer? Why be so pessimistic? I have learned, and you have learned, but the leadership has not. We can start with the Church! Preaching non-violence is a bit of a non-starter, but everyone knows that Forgiveness is important, they just don’t know how, or when, right?
