Just war and proportionalism

[Hanna_C]

I’ve been reading up on just war doctrine, and I’m really struggling to understand it. I’m not a pacifist: I understand that sometimes war is necessary. But the Church has taught over and over that just because something is “necessary” for the greater good doesn’t mean we can do it. Killing one innocent man (however you define that) to save a city full of people is wrong. But killing a soldier to save a city is commendable. What is it about the context of war that makes these situations so different?

 

[Least]

Si vis pacem para bellum. It is inter-granular to human nature.

WAR (“Just” War) is war answered. Be swift, be bold, sew your enemy into the ground with every bit of the ferocity that it deserves, and do so with a vigor that obscures any sign that it has slakked your strength, will or desire to continue.

Weakness is Provacative. It is safer (building into the equation MORE PEACE) to have everyone, friend and enemy alike, believe that you cannot wait to end them at the slightest provocation.

Tolerate NO forms of equivocation: The enemy of my enemy, if not my OUTSPOKEN FRIEND, is ALSO my enemy. If being my friend makes their friendships with others difficult then they need to tie a pork chop around their necks because THAT IS THEIR DOG. (TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012)

 

[Least]

(“Just” War) is war answered

Don’t fuss too hard about what constitutes an act of war (to answer), as your enemy will only have greater room to take advantage. They are plotting new ways around the old definitions as we speak. Like Gunny said when we got out of the plane in Kuwait, before going into Iraq, “Everybody here wants to kill you, and don’t worry if I’m wrong about that because, if I am, I will kill you.” HOORAH Gunny!

I am not hoping to instigate ANYTHING here, I just firmly believe that nothing causes a fight like someone saying they don’t want to, and no one is more ready to kill you then someone who swears they’re not. Nothing motivates the enemies of Christianity and specifically Catholicism, like their belief that we will hold to our beliefs in service to JESUS and GOD.

Like I’ve posted before, I belive the new Chatechism for the opening of the Mass changes the recitation from (something to the effect of [pardon my lame quote in a hurry]) “peace on earth to all men” to: “peace on earth to all men of goodwill.” Honestly, the first time I heard that I was relieved, and at-peace.

 

[Ruthie_again]

Killing one innocent man (however you define that) to save a city full of people is wrong. But killing a soldier to save a city is commendable. What is it about the context of war that makes these situations so different?

Speaking purely about killing:
An innocent man is not trying to kill you.
An enemy soldier is trying to kill you.

Praying for the conversion of terrorists,

 

[Least]

Speaking purely about killing:
An innocent man is not trying to kill you.
An enemy soldier is trying to kill you.

Praying for the conversion of terrorists,

Like I was saying, WAR is a safer bet, if not safer ‘notion.’ We were told, that we would be better able to “live with ourselves” and “feel good about the job we did” in war if we stuck to our Rules of Engagement (ROE’s) and Escalation of Force (EOF) measures which had been hashed-out and disseminated for us by our command, in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

We were also told to expect that the “enemy” was, more than likely, going to chop our head off on National television, and CNN will carry the footage.

An enemy soldier is trying to kill you.

• is an idiotic notion. On Sept. 11, 2001, some moderately nondescript brown skinned muslim idiots killed some people.

Better [safer] to just assume everyone is going to kill you.

Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

• General James N. Mattis, U.S.M.C., Retired

 

[Ruthie_again]

I said,

An enemy soldier is trying to kill you.

And you replied,

• is an idiotic notion. On Sept. 11, 2001, some moderately nondescript brown skinned muslim idiots killed some people.

And, pray, what is idiotic about thinking that an enemy soldier is trying to kill you?

And I think it is plain on the face of it that an innocent man will not try to kill you. I didn’t say “innocent-looking.”

Please read more carefully. Don’t jump to conclusions.

God bless you,

 

[Least]

And, pray, what is idiotic about thinking that an enemy soldier is trying to kill you?

And I think it is plain on the face of it that an innocent man will not try to kill you. I didn’t say “innocent-looking.”

Please read more carefully. Don’t jump to conclusions.

God bless you,

“Personal” is how you take it, when you plan on failing to up-take anything else.

An innocent man could kill you just as easy as not, probably while you’re attempting to discern the difference.

An “enemy soldier” is the guy you’ll be looking for when you suffer a green-on-blue fragging. Meanwhile, throngs of civilian-looking dudes behind that guy will be in line waiting to kill you.

If “the battlefied” is too distant a notion for anyone else out there, think marathon finish-line.

AND

**God bless you, ** THE LORD bless you ALL, and may I not cause even the shadow of your foot to fall outside the path that HE has set for you.

 

[BellsMom]

My problem with the Just War theory is that it seems to say, without actually saying, that it’s okay to kill innocent bystanders.

For instance if we KNOW…100% for sure KNOW, that if we attack this city or that facility that innocent people WILL die during our attempts to kill the soldiers, it seems to me that makes it immoral. We are knowingly killing innocents to attain our “ends” and the church teaches that you can never do evil even if its for a greater good.

Now as I understand it from Catholic apologists who are pro war, there is nothing immoral about blowing up a sleeping family if you aren’t really targeting them. The law of secondary consequences or some such excuse.

Life is only sacred when it doesn’t interfere with peoples personal politics or beliefs re crime and punishment.

 

[Least]

---

My problem with the Just War theory is that it seems to say, without actually saying, that it’s okay to kill innocent bystanders.

For instance if we KNOW…100% for sure KNOW, that if we attack this city or that facility that innocent people WILL die during our attempts to kill the soldiers, it seems to me that makes it immoral. We are knowingly killing innocents to attain our “ends” and the church teaches that you can never do evil even if its for a greater good.

Now as I understand it from Catholic apologists who are pro war, there is nothing immoral about blowing up a sleeping family if you aren’t really targeting them. The law of secondary consequences or some such excuse.

Life is only sacred when it doesn’t interfere with peoples personal politics or beliefs re crime and punishment.

There are no innocents exept the unborn, and “only the dead have seen the end of War” - Plato

If what YOU surround yourself with, or what you allow to surround yourself with, or allow yourself to happen to be surrounded by, needs to be destroyed, you will reap the detriment and benefit of that as well. The same applies in the inverse, and to all others.

Life is ALWAYS SACRED and you owe every portion of every second to the LORD and HIS will. If anything goes against that, I recommend killing it. (paradox? not really )

 

[Ruthie_again]

An innocent man could kill you just as easy as not, probably while you’re attempting to discern the difference.

Once again, I said “innocent,” not “innocent-looking.” When you’re attempting to discern the difference, you do not know whether or not those bystanders are innocent.

Of course, a bystander can kill you. But not an innocent bystander. And, of course, in a war zone, you must assume that bystanders may want to kill you. That’s reasonable caution.

Reacting the same way in America, without any evidence of “enemy action”, is no longer reasonable.

God bless you,

 

[BellsMom]

There are no innocents exept the unborn, and “only the dead have seen the end of War” - Plato

If what YOU surround yourself with, or what you allow to surround yourself with, or allow yourself to happen to be surrounded by, needs to be destroyed, you will reap the detriment and benefit of that as well. The same applies in the inverse, and to all others.

Life is ALWAYS SACRED and you owe every portion of every second to the LORD and HIS will. If anything goes against that, I recommend killing it. (paradox? not really )

Yes thank you.

You words are the exact sort of pro war chest thumping in the name of god that makes me believe that the “sanctity of life” is really just a platitude for many Catholics.

 

[Least]

. Yes thank you.

You words are the exact sort of pro war chest thumping in the name of god that makes me believe that the “sanctity of life” is really just a platitude for many Catholics.

I never attributed any of my position to my Catholicism or Christianity. It’s been my experience that your “bend-over-and-take-it” attitude is VERY dangerous. I, for one, am very comfortable leaving you to it, Just dont sell it as Christianity.

 

[Least]

Of course, a bystander can kill you. But not an innocent bystander. And, of course, in a war zone, you must assume that bystanders may want to kill you. That’s reasonable caution.

You could’ve had an innocent bystander land on your head on 9/11, You could’ve been wedged into the opening of the front door of a burning bar with forty or so innocent bystanders leaving a Whitesnake concert, You have pretty good odds of being trampled by gate crashers at the next big concert, or taking an inadvertant vertical ride on a section of mezanine at a soccer game. Innocent bystanders are what looters are made out of during natural disasters (if they are originally the type to need provocation).