Terrified GIs Still Killing Civilians With Impunity, While Dead Go Uncounted
- Status
M
mpav
Guest
An example from the Independent? Is a more anti-US publication on the planet?
G
gilliam
Guest
gnjsdad said:
The guys running the road block were not hurt. Anyway, our troops would be happy to turn over the roadblocks to Iraqis when they are ready to take them. The sooner the better.
We have no desire to stay one day longer than necessary.
A
Asian_Catholic
Guest
Getting back to the point, do you believe that Jesus Christ would sanction killing civilians for the reasons described in the article?
Regards.
A
Asian_Catholic
Guest
gnjsdad said:
Well, “liberation” is a relative term: people view “freedom” differently. In other words, there is no objective definition for freedom. If there is, can someone please give an objective definition of this word?
Regards.
G
gilliam
Guest
Asian Catholic:
Promoting free individuals in a free society
6. Man must therefore be able to make his choices in accordance with values to which he gives his support; this is the way in which he will show his resporisibility, and it is up to society to favour this freedom, while taking into account the common good.
The first and the most fundamental of these values is always man’s relationship to God as expressed in his religious convictions. Religious freedom thus becomes the basis of the other freedoms. On the eve of the meeting in Madrid on European security and cooperation, I had the occasion to repeat what I have not ceased to state since the beginning of my ministry: "Freedom of conscience and religion… is… a primary and inalienable right of the person; far more, to the extent that it touches upon the most intimate sphere of the spirit, one can even say that it underlies the raison d’etre, intimately anchored in each person, of the other freedoms " (Religious freedom and the final Document of Helsinki, 5: cf . L’Osservatore Romano, 15 November 1980).
The various authorities in society must make possible the exercise of true freedom in all its manifestations. They must endeavour to guarantee each individual’s possibility of realizing his or her human potential to the full. They must allow each person a juridically protected domain of independence, so that every human being can live, individually and collectively, in accordance with the demands of his or her conscience. Moreover, this freedom is called for in the major international pacts and other documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Conventions on the same subject, as also in the vast majority of national Constitutions. This is only right, since the State, as the recipient of a mandate given by its citizens, must not only recognize the basic freedoms of individuals but also protect and foster them. The State will play this positive role by respecting the rule of law and seeking the common good in accordance with the demands of the moral law. Similarly, the freely constituted intermediate groups will make their own contribution to safeguarding and advancing these freedoms. This noble task concerns all living forces in society.
7. But freedom is not merely a right that one claims for oneself. It is also a duty that one undertakes with regard to others. If it is really to serve peace, the freedom of each human individual and each community must respect the freedoms and rights of other individuals and communities. This respect sets a limit to freedom, but it also gives it its logic and its dignity, since we are by nature social beings.
Read the rest:
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
DAY OF PEACE
1 JANUARY 1981
TO SERVE PEACE, RESPECT FREEDOM
Freedom in its essence is within man, is connatural to the human person and is the distinctive sign of man’s nature. The freedom of the individual finds its basis in man’s transcendent dignity: a dignity given to him by God, his Creator, and which directs him towards God. Because he has been created in God’s image (cf. Gen 1:27), man is inseparable from freedom, that freedom which no external force or constraint can ever take away, and which constitutes his fundamental right, both as an individual and as a member of society. Man is free because he possesses the faculty of self-determination with regard to what is true and what is good. He is free because he possesses the faculty of choice, “as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint” (Constitution Gaudiufm et Spes, 17). To be free is to be able to choose and to want to choose; it is to live according to one’s conscience.
Promoting free individuals in a free society
6. Man must therefore be able to make his choices in accordance with values to which he gives his support; this is the way in which he will show his resporisibility, and it is up to society to favour this freedom, while taking into account the common good.
The first and the most fundamental of these values is always man’s relationship to God as expressed in his religious convictions. Religious freedom thus becomes the basis of the other freedoms. On the eve of the meeting in Madrid on European security and cooperation, I had the occasion to repeat what I have not ceased to state since the beginning of my ministry: "Freedom of conscience and religion… is… a primary and inalienable right of the person; far more, to the extent that it touches upon the most intimate sphere of the spirit, one can even say that it underlies the raison d’etre, intimately anchored in each person, of the other freedoms " (Religious freedom and the final Document of Helsinki, 5: cf . L’Osservatore Romano, 15 November 1980).
The various authorities in society must make possible the exercise of true freedom in all its manifestations. They must endeavour to guarantee each individual’s possibility of realizing his or her human potential to the full. They must allow each person a juridically protected domain of independence, so that every human being can live, individually and collectively, in accordance with the demands of his or her conscience. Moreover, this freedom is called for in the major international pacts and other documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Conventions on the same subject, as also in the vast majority of national Constitutions. This is only right, since the State, as the recipient of a mandate given by its citizens, must not only recognize the basic freedoms of individuals but also protect and foster them. The State will play this positive role by respecting the rule of law and seeking the common good in accordance with the demands of the moral law. Similarly, the freely constituted intermediate groups will make their own contribution to safeguarding and advancing these freedoms. This noble task concerns all living forces in society.
7. But freedom is not merely a right that one claims for oneself. It is also a duty that one undertakes with regard to others. If it is really to serve peace, the freedom of each human individual and each community must respect the freedoms and rights of other individuals and communities. This respect sets a limit to freedom, but it also gives it its logic and its dignity, since we are by nature social beings.
Read the rest:
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
DAY OF PEACE
1 JANUARY 1981
TO SERVE PEACE, RESPECT FREEDOM
A
Asian_Catholic
Guest
That article did not provide an objective definition of freedom.
“Freedom” implies the legal right on an individual to engage in one or a set of behaviors that individual desires. But, each individual have unique desires, in addition to common desires. As such, there can be no universal definition of “freedom.” A rapist wants the “freedom” to rape, the victim wants the “freedom” to not be raped. A Liberal woman wants the “freedom” to get an abortion, while a Conservative wants the “freedom” to own guns. Republicans want the “freedom” to speak negatively of homosexuals, while a Democrat wants the “freedom” to view pornography. Since no one can agree on “freedoms,” I must conclude that the term is purely subjective and relative. In other words, “freedom” is in the eye of the beholder.
Regards.
“Freedom” implies the legal right on an individual to engage in one or a set of behaviors that individual desires. But, each individual have unique desires, in addition to common desires. As such, there can be no universal definition of “freedom.” A rapist wants the “freedom” to rape, the victim wants the “freedom” to not be raped. A Liberal woman wants the “freedom” to get an abortion, while a Conservative wants the “freedom” to own guns. Republicans want the “freedom” to speak negatively of homosexuals, while a Democrat wants the “freedom” to view pornography. Since no one can agree on “freedoms,” I must conclude that the term is purely subjective and relative. In other words, “freedom” is in the eye of the beholder.
Regards.
G
gilliam
Guest
Asian Catholic:
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude. (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
I would suggest you read the entire section:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm#1730
Here, this definition may be what you are after, it is difinative and objective. It also happens to be the definition the Catholic Church uses.
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude. (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
I would suggest you read the entire section:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm#1730
U
unapecora
Guest
You are attempting to use a religious definition for a secular and military question.
That’s illogical and in no way fits this particular situation.
G
gilliam
Guest
What? I am using a moral definition to address moral questions. Seems perfectly logical to me. Anyway, his question was more of a political one than a military one. Still moral theology at work.
A
Asian_Catholic
Guest
Yes, I’m looking for an Earthly definition of freedom. And even with respect to Christianity, we are divided into so many sects that even followers of Christ can’t decide on “freedom.” We Catholics are also divided into Left Wing, Right Wing, Libertarian, Paleo and Neo Conservative, Green Party, etc.
J
jjwilkman
Guest
excuse me, if your’e terrified, with an M16 in your hands and you don’t know what’s out there, what would personally do? i spent two tours in viet nam, and all i wanted to do is get home with my sorry little body to my home and wife and children!!!
A
Asian_Catholic
Guest
Do you believe that Jesus Christ would approve of killing civilians with impunity, so long as the soldier was scared? I ask this because this is a Christian forum and I am assuming we are trying to mold our behaviors according to what Christ would want so that we can go to Heaven.
Regards.
M
mpav
Guest
Getting back to the article, I find it hard to see anything beyond allegations of U.S. soliders killing civilians. U.S. troops fired on a car, no one was hurt, and this becomes the jumping-off point to complain that U.S. soldiers should not be immune from punishment. That would, of course, cause them to hesitate in taking action long enough to possibly let some terrorist do some harm. That would suit the Independent fine, would suit the terrorists fine, and would give the MSM headlines of U.S. casualties. Baghdad is one of the most dangerous places on earth right now, but it is so because the terrorists who want the new Iraq to fail have made it so.
G
gilliam
Guest
The truth of the matter is they are no immune from puishment if they actually do something wrong.
F
fix
Guest
Asian Catholic:
Authentic freedom is defined by Christ. No matter how confused folks see it, the truth is still truth.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
I posted this article as a little demonstration of how the law of unintended consequences works especially well in war. In war, events tend to spiral out of the control of the men who initiate the action. For example, at the beginning of World War II, the Allied powers (the U.S. and Great Britain) indignantly denounced the Japanese for their aerial bombardment of Chinese cities and the Germans for doing the same to London and Rotterdam. These actions caused relatively little damage compared to what the Allies themselves later did to German and Japanese cities. War coarsens sensibilities, big time.
In Iraq, we talk of ‘bringing freedom’ or ‘liberating’ the Iraqi people; noble goals, but the practical administrators of these goals are 18-21 year old American GIs, many of whom did not sign up for duty in Iraq, know next to no Arabic, and are about as familiar with Iraqi culture as they are with quantum physics. No matter how well trained or how motivated by the mission, when the rubber meets the road, when it’s their life or some unknown Iraqi’s, the temptation to shoot first and ask questions later is completely understandable. Nobody who’s not there can say how they’d react under the circumstances.
This is why war should be undertaken only as a last resort. My aim here is to show that reality often trumps rhetoric. By the time this is over, I fear we may not recognize ourselves. And the consequences may be beyond anybody’s power to predict.
In Iraq, we talk of ‘bringing freedom’ or ‘liberating’ the Iraqi people; noble goals, but the practical administrators of these goals are 18-21 year old American GIs, many of whom did not sign up for duty in Iraq, know next to no Arabic, and are about as familiar with Iraqi culture as they are with quantum physics. No matter how well trained or how motivated by the mission, when the rubber meets the road, when it’s their life or some unknown Iraqi’s, the temptation to shoot first and ask questions later is completely understandable. Nobody who’s not there can say how they’d react under the circumstances.
This is why war should be undertaken only as a last resort. My aim here is to show that reality often trumps rhetoric. By the time this is over, I fear we may not recognize ourselves. And the consequences may be beyond anybody’s power to predict.
- Status