F
fakename
Guest
Is an assault on one person by a foreign state, good reason to fight a war?
- Status
M
markomalley
Guest
You are absolutely right.
I, for one, think that the United States should repent from invading Germany back in 1943-45.
L
larrylagrone1
Guest
Jesus told us to love our enemies and pray for them…invading their country and killing them CANNOT fit into either category.
M
markomalley
Guest
[bibledrb]joshua 10:36-39[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]judges 1:17[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 sam 15:3[/bibledrb]
L
larrylagrone1
Guest
Matthew 5:44
<< Matthew 5:44 >>
New International Version (©1984)
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
L
larrylagrone1
Guest
We are not living in the age of Old Testament…as “Christians”, we are to be “Christ like”…
Every reference to war is from Old Test…why do people ignore Jesus’s teaching on loving our enemies? Is it because it makes them uncomfortable?
Every reference to war is from Old Test…why do people ignore Jesus’s teaching on loving our enemies? Is it because it makes them uncomfortable?
M
markomalley
Guest
So God changed His mind? I don’t think so.We are not living in the age of Old Testament…as “Christians”, we are to be “Christ like”…
Every reference to war is from Old Test…why do people ignore Jesus’s teaching on loving our enemies? Is it because it makes them uncomfortable?
[bibledrb]Mal 3:6[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Heb 13:8[/bibledrb]
If pacifism, which you appear, based on your posts, to be advocating was correct, then Holy Mother Church would never have authorized the use of deadly force for self-defense:
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Remember that Christ took the long-term view.
He did not condemn the centurion and He cured his daughter.
Catholocs still have the right of self-defense. If what you said were Catholic teaching, then there would be no Catholic teaching on just war. In fact, we wpuld not even be able to have a police force.
While Christ said to love one’s enemies, He did not say, and let them kill yoir neighbors and children, did He? No, we defend oirselves while continuing to love and pray for the enemy. We do not dehumanize the enemy; we do not go after him in hatred; we do not seek to annihilate every member of his family/nation/tribe. And we stop when the danger is over.
L
larrylagrone1
Guest
Hm…I am reading a great deal about what “I am advocating”, or what I am saying…actually, I’m just pointing out Christ’s command.
p.s. It might remembered that the disciple wanted to take the sword route in the garden…the weapons route that would , in his way of thinking, save Jesus…and who more worth saving than his Lord and Master. Of course, as the Bible tells us, Jesus had a problem with that…HE knew that secular violence would only breed retribution (…“those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”.)
p.p.s. Our beloved St Francis of Assisi forbade his followers to carry weapons…this was done in imitation of Jesus. I have to be honest…as a Christian and Secular Franciscan…I can do no other than follow these two lives of PEACE.
p.s. It might remembered that the disciple wanted to take the sword route in the garden…the weapons route that would , in his way of thinking, save Jesus…and who more worth saving than his Lord and Master. Of course, as the Bible tells us, Jesus had a problem with that…HE knew that secular violence would only breed retribution (…“those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”.)
p.p.s. Our beloved St Francis of Assisi forbade his followers to carry weapons…this was done in imitation of Jesus. I have to be honest…as a Christian and Secular Franciscan…I can do no other than follow these two lives of PEACE.
M
markomalley
Guest
You’re welcome.Hm…I am reading a great deal about what “I am advocating”, or what I am saying…actually, I’m just pointing out Christ’s command.
p.s. It might remembered that the disciple wanted to take the sword route in the garden…the weapons route that would , in his way of thinking, save Jesus…and who more worth saving than his Lord and Master. Of course, as the Bible tells us, Jesus had a problem with that…HE knew that secular violence would only breed retribution (…“those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”.)
p.p.s. Our beloved St Francis of Assisi forbade his followers to carry weapons…this was done in imitation of Jesus. I have to be honest…as a Christian and Secular Franciscan…I can do no other than follow these two lives of PEACE.
(For the implicit thanks that was given to those of us who were willing to bear arms so that others have the liberty to be pacifists)
L
larrylagrone1
Guest
I really do apologize for so many posts…and I don’t mean to belabour the point, but I wish to add one thought to a previous post…
Thus far, I have read replies that all relate to self-defence…my concern lies in my original statement…invading other countries, planned attacks. I believe that defending oneself must mean that one is being attacked…and if not, then what we have is retaliation…retribution. Evidently Jesus had a problem with that concept, because HE was very specific…“You have been taught an eye for an eye…but a new commandment I give you…”…We are then told to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us…
Thus far, I have read replies that all relate to self-defence…my concern lies in my original statement…invading other countries, planned attacks. I believe that defending oneself must mean that one is being attacked…and if not, then what we have is retaliation…retribution. Evidently Jesus had a problem with that concept, because HE was very specific…“You have been taught an eye for an eye…but a new commandment I give you…”…We are then told to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us…
L
larrylagrone1
Guest
odysseynetworks.org/blogs/category/2011/05/11/osama-bin-laden-what-nowI really do apologize for so many posts…and I don’t mean to belabour the point, but I wish to add one thought to a previous post…
Thus far, I have read replies that all relate to self-defence…my concern lies in my original statement…invading other countries, planned attacks. I believe that defending oneself must mean that one is being attacked…and if not, then what we have is retaliation…retribution. Evidently Jesus had a problem with that concept, because HE was very specific…“You have been taught an eye for an eye…but a new commandment I give you…”…We are then told to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us…
*An interesting read…
B
Brendan
Guest
But it is the same Jesus that taught both.We are not living in the age of Old Testament…as “Christians”, we are to be “Christ like”…
Every reference to war is from Old Test…why do people ignore Jesus’s teaching on loving our enemies? Is it because it makes them uncomfortable?
Do you think that Christ changed His mind somehow?
He is, after all, the same Divine person who nuked Sodom and Gehmorrah.
As a priest friend told me " Sometimes, being ‘Christlike’ means grabbing a whip and kicking butt"
G
GratefulFred
Guest
The Principles of a Just War, written down by St Augustine about 500 AD are:
**Just cause: **The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”
**Comparative justice: **While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.
**Legitimate authority: **Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
**Right intention: **Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
**Probability of success: **Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
**Last resort: **Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
**Proportionality: **The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).
To discuss just one idea: 'innocent life must be in imminent danger" An enemy has killed many innocents over a period of time and shows every intent to continue killing innocents. This morning I find him having tea, not killing at the moment. So I cannot attack him on tea break to prevent future killing?
Did we punish Bin Laden or did we take steps to stop his on-going intent to kill?
**Just cause: **The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”
**Comparative justice: **While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.
**Legitimate authority: **Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
**Right intention: **Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
**Probability of success: **Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
**Last resort: **Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
**Proportionality: **The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).
To discuss just one idea: 'innocent life must be in imminent danger" An enemy has killed many innocents over a period of time and shows every intent to continue killing innocents. This morning I find him having tea, not killing at the moment. So I cannot attack him on tea break to prevent future killing?
Did we punish Bin Laden or did we take steps to stop his on-going intent to kill?
L
larrylagrone1
Guest
Should bin Laden have been captured and tried?
l
By Erik Kirschbaum – Tue May 3, 2:51 pm ET
BERLIN (Reuters) – While many world leaders applauded the U.S. operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, there were concerns in parts of Europe that the United States was wrong to act as policeman, judge and executioner.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended the action as lawful Tuesday, but some in Europe said bin Laden should have been captured and put on trial.
“It was quite clearly a violation of international law,” former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV. “The operation could also have incalculable consequences in the Arab world in light of all the unrest.”
Ehrhart Koerting, Interior Minister in the city-state of Berlin, said: “As a lawyer, I would have preferred to have seen him put on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC).”
Gert-Jan Knoops, a Dutch-based international law specialist, said bin Laden should have been arrested and extradited to the United States. He drew parallels with the arrest of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, who was put on trial at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague after his arrest in 2001.
“The Americans say they are at war with terrorism and can take out their opponents on the battlefield,” Knoops said. “But in a strictly formal sense, this argument does not stand up.”
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Reed Brody, counsel at New York-based Human Rights Watch, said it was too early to say whether the U.S. operation was legal because too few details were known.
l
By Erik Kirschbaum – Tue May 3, 2:51 pm ET
BERLIN (Reuters) – While many world leaders applauded the U.S. operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, there were concerns in parts of Europe that the United States was wrong to act as policeman, judge and executioner.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended the action as lawful Tuesday, but some in Europe said bin Laden should have been captured and put on trial.
“It was quite clearly a violation of international law,” former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV. “The operation could also have incalculable consequences in the Arab world in light of all the unrest.”
Ehrhart Koerting, Interior Minister in the city-state of Berlin, said: “As a lawyer, I would have preferred to have seen him put on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC).”
Gert-Jan Knoops, a Dutch-based international law specialist, said bin Laden should have been arrested and extradited to the United States. He drew parallels with the arrest of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, who was put on trial at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague after his arrest in 2001.
“The Americans say they are at war with terrorism and can take out their opponents on the battlefield,” Knoops said. “But in a strictly formal sense, this argument does not stand up.”
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Reed Brody, counsel at New York-based Human Rights Watch, said it was too early to say whether the U.S. operation was legal because too few details were known.
V
valentino
Guest
No.and America doesn’t believe it is either.But there have been many countries in the past who havve thought it to be.There maybe some countries today that still believe it.
G
GratefulFred
Guest
God Bless the Germans and the Dutch. My family and I had the pleasure of living on the German Dutch boarder for 3 years. They truly are good people.
The German and Dutch governments had the same amount of time we did to find, capture, transport, and try Bin Laden in whatever court they would choose.
They chose to let America do the heavy lifting these past 10 years and now they choose to criticize what they themselves would not do.
Al Qaeda is past master in boobytraps (IEDs IMPROVISED Explosive Devices). If OBL did not want to be taken alive, he might have very well have had a preset boobytrap explosive he could have set off simply by stepping on the right floor board killing himself AND the Seals in range.
It matters not that no such trap was found. In that second or two, the safety of OUR Seals matters so much more. They did not kill everyone there, only those who posed an imminent threat.
I, for one, will not second guess OUR Seals. Reed Brody is correct: too little is known to conclude legal or not. It should not be known either. Tactics are classified SECRET so that our future enemies will not how we operate and use that knowledge against us to kill us.
In this case, we have a patriotic duty to TRUST OUR TROOPS and the President who ordered the operation. If one cannot TRUST, then one can vote against the President when he stands for office again.
The German and Dutch governments had the same amount of time we did to find, capture, transport, and try Bin Laden in whatever court they would choose.
They chose to let America do the heavy lifting these past 10 years and now they choose to criticize what they themselves would not do.
Al Qaeda is past master in boobytraps (IEDs IMPROVISED Explosive Devices). If OBL did not want to be taken alive, he might have very well have had a preset boobytrap explosive he could have set off simply by stepping on the right floor board killing himself AND the Seals in range.
It matters not that no such trap was found. In that second or two, the safety of OUR Seals matters so much more. They did not kill everyone there, only those who posed an imminent threat.
I, for one, will not second guess OUR Seals. Reed Brody is correct: too little is known to conclude legal or not. It should not be known either. Tactics are classified SECRET so that our future enemies will not how we operate and use that knowledge against us to kill us.
In this case, we have a patriotic duty to TRUST OUR TROOPS and the President who ordered the operation. If one cannot TRUST, then one can vote against the President when he stands for office again.
- Status