D
Debunkerman
Guest
Ani Ibi:
The old scholastic axiom goes: “Never affirm, seldom deny, and always distinguish.”
- Status
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Good. Perhaps her sincerity has led her to refrain from riding on the coat tails of her son who held diametrically opposed opinions on the war from those held by herself. Again this is a boundary problem. Cindy and Casey are individuals, each having free will. Cindy made her choice. Casey made his. Their choices turned out to be different. In the interest of respect and honesty, it is necessary to underline that distinction.
Are you suggesting that the avowed insurgents and avowed suicide bombers are innocent people? Certainly those who suffered ‘collateral damage’ were innocent. ‘Collateral damage,’ however, is not murder whereas the ‘killing of innocent people’ is murder. Insurgents and those aiding and abetting the insurgents are not innocent people and therefore killing them is not murder.
Catholic teaching forbids murder and discourages killing. However, killing per se may be viewed as morally necessary – under Catholic teaching – by virtue of ‘Legitimate Self Defence’ or by ‘Just War Doctrine’ whereto the Principle of Double of Effect is applied.
The Pope has taken a different position from Ms Sheehan. If you had read the previous threads perhaps this would be a mistake not so easily made. Have you read the previous threads?
Many Catholics? Exactly to whom do you refer? Are you suggesting that Ms Sheehan is on the level of Fisher and More? If so, please be kind enough to set out your thinking, giving supporting argumentation and references.
P
Pete2
Guest
Why would anyone be shocked that Cindy Sheehan is using aggressive words and tactics? That’s how she’s getting so much news coverage. That’s her strategy. She is protesting the war, and is leading the movement.
If she were just a polite, quiet woman who followed the rules and respected authority, then no one would ever have heard of her. She’s getting her message out and doing a very good job… not just because she’s brash, but because people are very receptive to the message-- the war is very unpopular.
55% of the US wants to accelerate withdraw, according to the latest Gallup numbers. Bush’s approval rating is 42%. We’ve lost 2,000 American lives in Iraq, and most people question the war’s motivations and the justifications made to enter it. People are not happy, and Sheehan is putting a voice to the disapproval.
Pete
If she were just a polite, quiet woman who followed the rules and respected authority, then no one would ever have heard of her. She’s getting her message out and doing a very good job… not just because she’s brash, but because people are very receptive to the message-- the war is very unpopular.
55% of the US wants to accelerate withdraw, according to the latest Gallup numbers. Bush’s approval rating is 42%. We’ve lost 2,000 American lives in Iraq, and most people question the war’s motivations and the justifications made to enter it. People are not happy, and Sheehan is putting a voice to the disapproval.
Pete
D
Debunkerman
Guest
Five more Americans and scores of Iraqi people were killed today.
S
shannin
Guest
This person is trying to start trouble here & I think that we should just ignore him or her.
D
Debunkerman
Guest
Ani Ibi:
She told the audience Tuesday night that she and her son discussed the war before he left. She said her son did not want to kill anyone. She said he told her he had to go because it was his duty and his buddies were going. She did not like the idea of her son going to Iraq but I did not get the impression he was excited about it either. She said he told her “the sooner I go the sooner I can come home.” He was dead two weeks later. If her son did not want to kill anyone how were they diametrically opposed?
Ani Ibi:
Ani Ibi:
Polls have suggested that over two-thirds of American Catholics supported the war in Iraq.
How do you know this?
She told the audience Tuesday night that she and her son discussed the war before he left. She said her son did not want to kill anyone. She said he told her he had to go because it was his duty and his buddies were going. She did not like the idea of her son going to Iraq but I did not get the impression he was excited about it either. She said he told her “the sooner I go the sooner I can come home.” He was dead two weeks later. If her son did not want to kill anyone how were they diametrically opposed?
Ani Ibi:
Why not? When an army invades another country for false reasons (WMDs, links to 911 etc.) citizens have a right to resist the invaders and occupiers that have killed innocent people by virtue of what you call Legitimate Self Defense. The Iraqi people did not invade the United States, our army invaded their country and the insurgency is the rebellion against our illegal criminal occupation of their territory. How do you justify the invasion of Iraq?
Ani Ibi:
American Catholics have taken a different position from the Pope.
Polls have suggested that over two-thirds of American Catholics supported the war in Iraq.
- “No to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.”
Code:
"When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society... Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men."
-Pope John Paul II, on the American attack on Iraq*
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Debunkerman:
“Rarely affirm, never deny, always distinguish” is probably more accurate.
‘Affirm where possible’ is probably a more accurate understanding of ‘rarely affirm.’ That is, refrain from making affirmations where no reasonable support can be found for such affirmations. Again, the previous threads demonstrate sobre, thorough, and well supported considerations of Ms Sheehan’s circumstances.
When denying, participate in the sobre consideration of the shortcomings of one’s own point of view standing alone in a community of authorities. Denying is a reactive – not creative posture – which invites circular argumentation. It is more fruitful and neighbourly to offer assertions which take into account both points of view – where possible.
Finally, in distinguishing we avoid unfair generalizations such as, say: ‘Many Catholics…’
The purpose of these cautions is to further cogent discourse: ‘discourse,’ not ‘ideological subjugation’; ‘further,’ not ‘exchange volleys’.
Moreover, the axiom does not encourage outright a total avoidance of analysis. In the case of ‘killing,’ for example, the distinctions between murder, legitimate self defence, and just war are critical to a discussion of how closely one’s generalizations approach the specific conditions set out by the Church for moral choice of conduct.
Now rather than evade my points – such evasion achieving little to further the discussion – please respond to them. Does what Ms Sheehan promotes conform to Catholic teaching? Are all the organizations which back Ms Sheehan pro-Catholic? Is Ms Sheehan not bearing false witness against the people she opposes? Does Ms Sheehan not use profane language? Do bearing false witness and using profane language not violate Catholic teaching?
And I have a further question: do you not think that Ms Sheehan would do much better seeking confession, communion, and the counsel of a priest over the hollow applause of non-Catholic organizations lobbying for – among many disparate things – an immediate end to the War in Iraq?
“Rarely affirm, never deny, always distinguish” is probably more accurate.‘Affirm where possible’ is probably a more accurate understanding of ‘rarely affirm.’ That is, refrain from making affirmations where no reasonable support can be found for such affirmations. Again, the previous threads demonstrate sobre, thorough, and well supported considerations of Ms Sheehan’s circumstances.
When denying, participate in the sobre consideration of the shortcomings of one’s own point of view standing alone in a community of authorities. Denying is a reactive – not creative posture – which invites circular argumentation. It is more fruitful and neighbourly to offer assertions which take into account both points of view – where possible.
Finally, in distinguishing we avoid unfair generalizations such as, say: ‘Many Catholics…’
The purpose of these cautions is to further cogent discourse: ‘discourse,’ not ‘ideological subjugation’; ‘further,’ not ‘exchange volleys’.
Moreover, the axiom does not encourage outright a total avoidance of analysis. In the case of ‘killing,’ for example, the distinctions between murder, legitimate self defence, and just war are critical to a discussion of how closely one’s generalizations approach the specific conditions set out by the Church for moral choice of conduct.
Now rather than evade my points – such evasion achieving little to further the discussion – please respond to them. Does what Ms Sheehan promotes conform to Catholic teaching? Are all the organizations which back Ms Sheehan pro-Catholic? Is Ms Sheehan not bearing false witness against the people she opposes? Does Ms Sheehan not use profane language? Do bearing false witness and using profane language not violate Catholic teaching?
And I have a further question: do you not think that Ms Sheehan would do much better seeking confession, communion, and the counsel of a priest over the hollow applause of non-Catholic organizations lobbying for – among many disparate things – an immediate end to the War in Iraq?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Make your point please.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Answer our questions first please. The first one I request that you answer is “Have you read the previous threads on Ms Sheehan?”
This question has been asked and answered on previous threads. Have you read the previous threads on Ms Sheehan?
This evades the information which gilliam has posted on the list of reasons given by the US for invading Iraq. Do you consider all the reasons given to be false? This is a generalization; Ms Sheehan is talking about a specific war. The Doctrine of Just War must be applied specifically with each point of the Principle of Double Effect applied to that specific war.
This question has been asked and answered numerous times, not only in the Cindy Sheehan threads, but in the mountain of data which gilliam has posted and vern humphrey (among others) have offered. Are you referring to any one point made by these posters? If so, to which one?
Please do not ignore information which has already been posted. The Pope has taken some positions, not one position. His current position is that the coalition must stay in Iraq until democracy is established. The evidence and argumentation for this has been posted numerous times. To which point made by which poster on which thread are you referring?
D
Debunkerman
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Ani Ibi:
Your questions can wait. They will be here when I get back.
And no, I have not read every thread at this site regarding Cindy Sheehan. If you think I missed something really important add a link or repost it. My time is as valuable as yours.
Thanks.
Yes. That is correct. Thank you.
Ani Ibi:
I have other activities in my day besides responding to your questions on your schedule. Just because you do not get an instant response does not necessarily mean anyone is evading you. Patience is a virtue. Take a deep breath and relax.
Your questions can wait. They will be here when I get back.
And no, I have not read every thread at this site regarding Cindy Sheehan. If you think I missed something really important add a link or repost it. My time is as valuable as yours.
Thanks.
D
davy39
Guest
She was quoted on talk radio today calling Sen. John McCain a “warmonger”. She has no right whatsoever to call Sen McCain anything. He is a hero and was held prisoner for a long time in Viet Nam, while people like her were calling our troops baby killers and terriorists. I believe history is repeating itself. I try to pay no attention to her at all.
A
abcdefg
Guest
Who those avowed terrorists kill? How about blowing themselves up in a group of children? According to your logic, I’d like to ask: did Iraqi children invade their own country?
Through just war doctrine, this was discussed in the beginning, is being discussed now and perhaps will be discussed for quite a long time in the future. you may wish to refute a specific point we made instead of asking the same again and again
S
swampfox
Guest
The namecalling rules on this forum don’t pertain to her outside this forum. Her namecalling just reveals more about her than about Senator McCain.
S
swampfox
Guest
The MSM darling, Cindy, has also said America isn’t worth dying for. Given the American left’s and the MSM’s embrace of moral relativism and the culture of death, she may have a point.
D
Debunkerman
Guest
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.–
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
by Wilfred Owen
WIlfred Owen, like Cecil Chesterton, was killed in the last days of the war. He died on November 4, 1918 near Ors.
D
dc_dave
Guest
My statement was that her position on the invasion was virtually the same as that of the two popes. That has not been contradicted.
The war precipitated by the invasion continues, and is likely to continue as long as the invaders occupy the country. This last statement is my own opinion based upon my own experience and assessment of the situation. I know that we have talked about leaving as soon as we have stabilized the situation, but as things are going now it’s beginning to look like that will be approximately when hell freezes over. Furthermore, I hear that we are building a number of large, permanent bases, an action that is hardly designed to persuade the local resistance that we intend to leave anytime soon.
D
dc_dave
Guest
It would surprise me if John Paul II ever took such a nonsensical position, that is, that it was wrong for the United States to go to war against Iraq but right for it to continue its war until Iraq is subdued. If you can find any statement of the late Pope, or the current one, for that matter, taking the position that it’s just hunky dory for the invaders of Iraq to stay there until, in their judgment, it’s safe for them to leave, I’d be interested in seeing it–and don’t quote anything out of context.
D
dc_dave
Guest
Unfortunately, Pope John Paul II did not live long enough to see that, in fact, what we purported to be our information was not true, which certainly calls our motives more seriously into question than was evident before the invasion began.John Paul II cautioned the U.S. He wanted to make sure that all of our information was correct and that war was the last result. He never questioned our motives, just our decision.
Cindy Sheehan has constantly accused the administration of lying to got to war for oil.
John Paul II preached love. Cindy Sheehan preaches hate.
They have nothing in common.
Sorry I was so blunt about things, but that’s just how I see it
When each of our reasons for going to war is revealed, one after the other, to be false, we just change to a new one. I am reminded of the character played by the recently deceased Don Adams, “Would you believe that we are in Iraq to begin the process of bringing democracy to the entire Middle East.”
Forget that such “nation building” foreign policy is precisely what George Bush accused the Democrats of and said he would not employ when he ran for president against Al Gore, I, for one, would not believe it. The last thing in the world our leaders would like to see in the Arab countries of the region is true democracy, because most of the people in the region strongly oppose our policies, principally our sponsorship of Israel.
D
dc_dave
Guest
May I quote the Roman Catholic Joseph Sobran at this point:
" Rush and Sean Hannity, brothers under the thin skin, habitually speak of opponents of the war as ‘liberals’ and ‘the Left,’ unless something has changed since I last snapped off my radio. But they ignore those of us who can oppose the war without hankering to send an alleged lesbian to the White House in 2008." sobran.com/columns/2005/050825.shtml
To be sure, a number of leftists of various stripes have gravitated toward Ms. Sheehan, either because they genuinely share her anti-Iraq-war views or they are fake plants whose job is to discredit her. The size and the general make-up of the demonstration last Saturday, as well as the national polls, indicate that a growing number of regular Americans share her views, though not those of much of the motley crew around her.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
You are most welcome.
Now, Debunkerman, that’s not very friendly, is it? No one said anything about your responding to my questions on my schedule. Is it nice to suggest that someone did? I think not, do you? You’re not building a strawman, are you?
What I did say was perhaps you can consider answering questions put to you first rather than answering a question with another question.
You are so right on this. But where ever did I say I suspected that you were evading me on the basis of not getting an instant response? You are not building another strawman, are you?
Oh yes, I agree that it is indeed.
Please do not assume to know my frame of mind.
Oh, indeed they can.
Thank you for agreeing so amicably. I’ll remember that when you ***do ***get back.
Really? Do you not believe that it is a good strategy to check what has been posted first before starting a new thread, particularly as one of the threads on Ms Sheehan had been locked? And particularly since so much very good information and discussion has already been contributed by people in the hope that it will be read?
I do indeed think you missed many important things. I think I have said so much, have I not? Although perhaps not in those exact words. I do not think it is contingent upon me, however, to catch you up. I think it might be fun for you to catch yourself up.
Well, you know what they say about time: a stitch in time saves nine!
Or what is that the boy scouts say? Be prepared? By the way, have you read any thread at this site regarding Cindy Sheehan? You might want to, really. Many very interesting views have been posted by all sorts of interesting people.- Status