E
exoflare
Guest
I’m shocked… SHOCKED!
Quick, is anybody recording this??
- Status
Quick, is anybody recording this??
C
Contarini
Guest
I see no reason not to believe that pro_universal is Catholic.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s an astounding and horrifying question.
Misrepresentations should be corrected, period. I don’t care what the religion in question believes. If you misrepresented Satanism I’d oppose you.
Misrepresentations, no matter of what, are direct assaults on Christ, because Christ is the truth.
No Muslim is half as deadly an enemy of the Gospel as a Christian who deliberately or carelessly misrepresents the faith of another human being.
Edwin
C
cestusdei
Guest
Pro, thank you. I will accept that you are not a muslim. You may be in cahoots with them, but you are not likely to be one.
First US doctrine is to respond to wmd with our own wmd. That is a US policy which is independent of my opinion. It is simply a fact of US defense doctrine.
Keep in mind that I don’t have nukes, so my view is only theoretical. My view is that if Muslims attacked major US cities with wmd and killed tens of millions of people we would have to respond in kind. Now how do you do that?
Well the terrorists believe Allah is on their side and they are better then us. That we are weak and our religion is evil. That we are infidel. They want to conquer or destroy us completely. So we must strike at that belief to save ourselves in that scenerio. How do we do that?
Well we could destroy the whole middle east. We have that ability. But that would cause unnecessary casualties. You wouldn’t want that surely? To really win the war we have to show them that their Allah is not all powerful and that Islam is flawed. That Islam can be defeated unequivocally. One way would be to destroy their capital cities. Their religious capital cities. If Mecca were targeted they would be confronted with the reality that Allah did not defend their holy place. That something is wrong with how they view religion and God. It would destroy their morale and lead to questioning.
Of course all Muslims would be angry. They would have to interrupt their celebrations over the deaths of a hundred million Americans to mourn the fact they could not go on haj this year. 5 times a day they would bow toward Mecca and realize that their actions led to the destruction of that city. That they somehow have lost. Again this will lead to questioning. Maybe it will finally dawn on them that they have a problem and not everyone else. That they can’t pass the blame on forever. And that the US will not surrender, that Islam will not triumph, and that maybe they should start to knock off the jihadi’s in their midst. Beginning with Osama. Then there will be a real reform in Islam. In this scenerio this is about the only way it can happen.
Now keep in mind that in my story the Muslims nuke us first as they have threatened to do. We are RESPONDING to their terrorist attack. In my plan fewer Muslims would die in favor of striking at the target that would really make a difference. We can’t do nothing and I would prefer not to destroy a fourth of the planet if we can avoid it. I am not a pacifist. The Catholic faith isn’t pacifist either. You may be, but that is a minority view. I believe we can respond proportionally. Cont.
First US doctrine is to respond to wmd with our own wmd. That is a US policy which is independent of my opinion. It is simply a fact of US defense doctrine.
Keep in mind that I don’t have nukes, so my view is only theoretical. My view is that if Muslims attacked major US cities with wmd and killed tens of millions of people we would have to respond in kind. Now how do you do that?
Well the terrorists believe Allah is on their side and they are better then us. That we are weak and our religion is evil. That we are infidel. They want to conquer or destroy us completely. So we must strike at that belief to save ourselves in that scenerio. How do we do that?
Well we could destroy the whole middle east. We have that ability. But that would cause unnecessary casualties. You wouldn’t want that surely? To really win the war we have to show them that their Allah is not all powerful and that Islam is flawed. That Islam can be defeated unequivocally. One way would be to destroy their capital cities. Their religious capital cities. If Mecca were targeted they would be confronted with the reality that Allah did not defend their holy place. That something is wrong with how they view religion and God. It would destroy their morale and lead to questioning.
Of course all Muslims would be angry. They would have to interrupt their celebrations over the deaths of a hundred million Americans to mourn the fact they could not go on haj this year. 5 times a day they would bow toward Mecca and realize that their actions led to the destruction of that city. That they somehow have lost. Again this will lead to questioning. Maybe it will finally dawn on them that they have a problem and not everyone else. That they can’t pass the blame on forever. And that the US will not surrender, that Islam will not triumph, and that maybe they should start to knock off the jihadi’s in their midst. Beginning with Osama. Then there will be a real reform in Islam. In this scenerio this is about the only way it can happen.
Now keep in mind that in my story the Muslims nuke us first as they have threatened to do. We are RESPONDING to their terrorist attack. In my plan fewer Muslims would die in favor of striking at the target that would really make a difference. We can’t do nothing and I would prefer not to destroy a fourth of the planet if we can avoid it. I am not a pacifist. The Catholic faith isn’t pacifist either. You may be, but that is a minority view. I believe we can respond proportionally. Cont.
C
cestusdei
Guest
But why wait for that to happen? Let’s fight and beat the terrorists now before it does. That will save lot’s more lives. You should be on the side of the angels and support the war on terrorism. Your attitudes only encourage them to keep fighting and do exactly what we don’t want them to. Terrorism is evil and should be fought. That is not an unchristian idea.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Alright, so where in the teachings of the Church do you find support for any use of nuclear weapons at all, especially as weapons of terror to scare people into not attacking the US?
Your post above, quite frankly, makes you a heretic. I am doubting whether or not you actually ever converted to the Church, because you clearly missed the message of peace if you believe nuclear weapons are ever acceptable.
C
Contarini
Guest
It is independent of your opinion, but you could at least state that you oppose this patently immoral policy.
The use of wmd’s is always evil, period. It is no different than abortion or any other deliberate killing of the innocent.
As a priest of the Catholic Church, how do you defend this in terms of Christian ethics?
That’s a straw man. I’m not a pacifist either (though admittedly there are few wars I believe were waged for just causes, and practically none that were waged justly). You can believe in just war while rejecting the idea that wmd’s can ever be used in just war.
If the enemy commits an atrocity, then for us to respond in kind is to give up the fight. The only point of waging a just war is to resist evil. If we use evil methods while doing so we have surrendered to evil in the most degrading manner possible. (This is what happened in WWII, which could have been a just war had it been waged with different methods.)
Edwin
C
cestusdei
Guest
There is nothing in the just war doctrine that prohibits use of nuclear weapons according to my scenerio. At that future time the pope might say so, but we don’t know. During the cold war mutually assured destruction did work. Our nuclear abilities kept the Soviets from conquering the planet and helped lead to their defeat. Weakness didn’t win the war on communism and it won’t win the one on terrorism. I doubt I am in heresy. In fact it is my wish to avoid being in this situation by defeating the terrorists. You don’t do that by sending them flowers. Frankly I think that if not heretical, it is reprehensible, that you somehow justify the murder of Christians under Islamic misrule. I believe you are some brand of Catholic, so don’t support those who butcher us and plan to butcher all of us if they can.
C
cleobanzj
Guest
I second the motion.
P
pro_universal
Guest
You cannot be serious. Please produce just one document or teaching of the Church that supports the use of nuclear weapons as a method of breaking terrorists’ faith.
I am 100 percent certain that you are in heresy, the just war having been one of the things I was blessed to learn from one of the Church’s masters of the subject.
You aren’t just advocating a pro-Christian approach, you are advocating the killing of millions of people. If that is not heretical and something that begs for excommunication, I have no clue what is or what does.
C
Contarini
Guest
But to fight terrorism by terrorism is blatantly unchristian.
You are the one who is on the side of the terrorists, because you support blatantly terrorist methods.
The mullahs of Iran have only recently begun to accept the idea that the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable. In other words, they have only just begun to descend to the level of immorality and religious violence on which you appear to live quite happily.
Yet you blithely assume that you are morally superior to Muslims!
I have just edited this post to omit some inflammatory remarks on my part. I omitted them because on rereading your posts I realize that your statement “let’s fight and beat the terrorists now” was a call to nuke the Islamic holy places without waiting to be attacked. I was hasty–your point clearly was that we should fight by less drastic methods so that we never face the horrible choice to use nuclear methods. Your views are not as evil as I thought.
But they’re still pretty horrifying! I’m glad I don’t know who your bishop is, because I might feel obligated to inform him of your immoral and heretical views. Advocating abortion would hardly be more shocking.
Edwin
C
cestusdei
Guest
De facto pacifists basically posit a just war as being impossible. Sorry, all wars involve killing. That’s what happens people get killed and things get broken. We didn’t start this war. They did. It has many fronts. Including the home front. If they take out New York then I believe an argument can be made to respond in kind. If they know that maybe they won’t take out New York. The key to all of this is to just support the war on terror now and not wait for them to get a wmd. It is immoral to support the enemy.
In WWII we bombed cities. The Germans felt that was wrong. Until they heard about Dachau etc. Their own actions caused the war and destruction. Real Muslims should be on our side if for no other reason then self interest. I believe that your appeasement policies will actually cause more deaths and lengthen the war.
In WWII we bombed cities. The Germans felt that was wrong. Until they heard about Dachau etc. Their own actions caused the war and destruction. Real Muslims should be on our side if for no other reason then self interest. I believe that your appeasement policies will actually cause more deaths and lengthen the war.
E
Eden
Guest
You think Satanism should be defended from “misrepresention”.
I’m sorry, I just can’t take this response seriously. Pro doesn’t just make sure Islam isn’t misrepresented, he villanizes Christian history to do it.
C
Contarini
Guest
You think that one should deliberately misrepresent Satanists?You think Satanism should be defended from “misrepresention”.
Edwin
E
Eden
Guest
Why would I care? If you worship satan, I’m not going to get involved in correcting nuances.
C
cestusdei
Guest
Wow, liberals love to excommunicate for stuff like this. Now if I said let’s excommunicate those who believe in womens ordination they would have a hissy fit. The only time you see a liberal wanting to excommunicate someone is when that someone is advocating defending the faith or his own person. How about excommunicating someone who gives aid and comfort to terrorists who kill Christians like Abdul? Hey pro we can excommunciate each other.
P
pro_universal
Guest
So what authority do you have to support this preaching of yours?
I don’t believe I can make the argument against responding to terror with terror any better than it’s been made above.
What do you have to justify this claim of yours that it’s okay to “respond in kind” to attacks on civilians? You do realize that what you are saying flies directly in the face of the whole idea of the just war, right?
C
cestusdei
Guest
Edwin, he would probably say that I was entitled to posit such opinions until something definitive had been decided. Guess liberals really don’t believe in free speech or thought.
Also it is a violation of the rules of this site to threaten to go after someone off board in order to cause them harm. Personally, your church does many horrible things that I find repugnant. I have to live with it, so you have to live with the fact that I don’t agree with you. My whole idea is to avoid such an attack. But I am glad you brought Iran up. Who is more likely to use nukes, us or them?
Also it is a violation of the rules of this site to threaten to go after someone off board in order to cause them harm. Personally, your church does many horrible things that I find repugnant. I have to live with it, so you have to live with the fact that I don’t agree with you. My whole idea is to avoid such an attack. But I am glad you brought Iran up. Who is more likely to use nukes, us or them?
C
cestusdei
Guest
pro, part of the issue is that the just war theory hasn’t had to deal with this kind of war. Right now they are trying to figure out how to do so. Until the Church makes more definative statements this is going to be debated just like we are doing now. I realize you want to silence debate and impose your view as normative, but it isn’t yet. I can have my own political opinions and apply the just war theory as best I can. I presented a scenerio. How would you respond?
Say a hundred million American dead, economy in ruins, death everywhere, your whole family gone, martial law, pics of muslims dancing for joy at our pain, demands that we convert or face more such attacks…well what would you do? Surrender? Let’s hear your plan.
Say a hundred million American dead, economy in ruins, death everywhere, your whole family gone, martial law, pics of muslims dancing for joy at our pain, demands that we convert or face more such attacks…well what would you do? Surrender? Let’s hear your plan.
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t think it is impossible in principle. And I have said that WWII was just in the sense that it was waged for just reasons.
If they involve killing the innocent then they are evil and immoral.
Cardinal Newman once said that the Church would rather see the entire universe be destroyed than one person commit one venial sin. Similarly, I would rather see myself and my entire civilization be annihilated than kill a single innocent person.
They think otherwise. That’s what so vicious about this kind of “war.” Bin Laden thinks he is responding to our aggression. I’m not defending this view. I’m simply pointing out that when both sides can claim that the other side began it, then both sides can justify any atrocity they wish.
If war involves the killing of the innocent, then war is an unacceptable option for Christians.
Not just the Germans. Many citizens of the Allied nations felt and feel that it was and is wrong (C. S. Lewis suggested that a Christian bomber pilot should face a firing squad rather than bomb a civilian target). One atrocity doesn’t make another atrocity legitimate. (Never mind that our bombing of German cities didn’t save the Jews–why didn’t we bomb the rail lines leading to Auschwitz instead?) On the contrary, the more atrocities we learn about, the more determined we should be not to commit any more. Who commits them is irrelevant.
What are my “appeasement policies”? I don’t think we should ever kill innocent people. You call that “appeasement”? This is truly bizarre.
And even if refraining from killing the innocent caused more deaths in the long run, it would still be the right thing. Go down this road, and you have no reason not to argue that if abortion lowers the crime rate it’s morally legitimate.
The most important question is not “who wins” but “what sort of people are we becoming?”
Haven’t you read your Tolkien? You sound just like Boromir–although you’ll be doing well if you ever become half as brave and honorable as he.
Edwin
- Status