Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!
Semper Fi:

Let’s agree to disagree?

Deal! The first pitcher is on me!

Be well!

ssv

 

[pro_universal]

stillsmallvoice:

Hi all!

Semper Fi, I always respect your opinions (that and you’re a Marine ) but it wasn’t six million of your brothers & sisters that they murdered. Before he was hung, John Brown wrote: “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.” Insane as he was, he was entirely correct (Lincoln said pretty much the same thng in his Second Innaugural Address). Germany’s crimes were in blood & had to be purged in blood. The ruin & destruction that the Allied forces visited upon Germany helped pay the account. Of couse, most Germans weren’t card-carrying Nazis but they put the Nazis in power and certainly didn’t protest Nazi excesses very much, especially not when Germany was winning victory after victory. They started an awful war & needed an up-close-and-personal lesson on just how awful war is.

By the way, Israel & Germany now enjoy very close relations; I support this completely.

Be well!

ssv

I have a question:

Do you feel that if the IDF goes rogue and kills some Palestinian children, that the Palestinians are justified in killing some Jewish children in reprisal?

If not, then why is it okay to bomb some german kids in reprisal attacks for their crimes against the Jewish people?

 

[Shadowcry]

murtad:

Please tell us how did he satisfactorily show that he is a Christian?

He may not be a Muslim but he may be a Marxist who is a paid apologist for Islam.

Lord Jesus told us “faith without works is dead”, so even if pro-universal was, is and will always be a member of Catholic Church, he is considered a non-observant Christian. Therefore, he is hardly a true Christian.

Let us call him “Edomite” as he is a person who hates his birthright.

Yo you talk sll nonmsense Murtad lol it is quite entertaining though.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

pro_universal:

Do you feel that if the IDF goes rogue and kills some Palestinian children, that the Palestinians are justified in killing some Jewish children in reprisal?

One of my very few cyberrules is that I will not discuss the Israeli-Arab conflict on line, in any form. Such discussions all too often turn into undignified, emotional flame wars that have very little to do with honest, mutually didactic and friendly (I hope) dialogue. I surf & participate in forums like this one for recreation & to learn/have fun (really!) and to escape “the situation” (as we call it here) that is just outside my window. I need some sanctuary & refuge from it. So that’s one topic that I really try not to discuss online.

These (jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html & mfa.gov.il/mfa) are pretty good sites that present a Jewish/Israeli point-of-view on it well enough.

I will say the following: As a former proud veteran (for 11 years) of the IDF reserves, I’m not aware of any incidents since the current round of violence started in the fall of 2000 in which IDF soldiers deliberately, willfully & with malice aforethought murdered Palestinian children.

pro_universal:

If not, then why is it okay to bomb some german kids in reprisal attacks for their crimes against the Jewish people?

Germany’s crimes were against the entire world, against every people and nation that was a victim of Nazi aggression and/or genocide. Tolerating/going along with such a monstrous evil as Nazism was evil in itself. Such German children who died in Dresden, their blood is on the Nazis’ heads, not those of the Allies.

Be well!

ssv http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/wave.gif

 

[Eden]

The Nazis would not have stopped until they conquered the world. How can anyone believe WWII was not just? My father was born in England during WWII. His best friend growing up outside of London was a boy who was orphaned by a German bomb. When the boy was an infant, a German bomb landed on their home and killed his parents who were in the sitting room downstairs. He was knocked out of his crib upstairs but survived. How many times should scenes like that play out before a nation defends itself?

 

[cestusdei]

still,
Don’t worry. I will take up the slack. I have been trying to get them to acknowledge that blowing up a pizza parlour filled with teens is not justified and is wrong. So far, no luck. They seem to have no tears for Jewish children, but plenty for the bomb makers.

 

[pro_universal]

stillsmallvoice:

One of my very few cyberrules is that I will not discuss the Israeli-Arab conflict on line, in any form. Such discussions all too often turn into undignified, emotional flame wars that have very little to do with honest, mutually didactic and friendly (I hope) dialogue.

Fair enough

stillsmallvoice:

I will say the following: As a former proud veteran (for 11 years) of the IDF reserves, I’m not aware of any incidents since the current round of violence started in the fall of 2000 in which IDF soldiers deliberately, willfully & with malice aforethought murdered Palestinian children.

msnbc.msn.com/id/6556766/

Military prosecutors have issued a five-count indictment against an Israeli officer who comrades say repeatedly shot a wounded 13-year old Palestinian girl to make sure that she was dead, a military spokeswoman said Monday.

There’s one.

stillsmallvoice:

Germany’s crimes were against the entire world, against every people and nation that was a victim of Nazi aggression and/or genocide. Tolerating/going along with such a monstrous evil as Nazism was evil in itself. Such German children who died in Dresden, their blood is on the Nazis’ heads, not those of the Allies.

This is directly opposed to the European and Catholic views of just warfare. We do not kill people for their opinions or their votes, but only for directly participating in battle. At least, that’s the law we are supposed to follow.

You can claim that the death of thousands of children in Germany is the fault of the nazis, but the fact remains that we chose to firebomb civilian targets know who was there and what we were doing. I’m of the view that if you choose to do something, the consequences are your responsibility.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Pro_universal, about msnbc.msn.com/id/6556766/, Nice try, The soldier was acquitted on all charges. See [www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/ma(name removed by moderator)age.asp?clr=1&sl=EN&id=7&docid=47247](http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/ma(name removed by moderator)age.asp?clr=1&sl=EN&id=7&docid=47247) & icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2005/11/16/361874409.

This is directly opposed to the European and Catholic views of just warfare. We do not kill people for their opinions or their votes, but only for directly participating in battle.

I’m neither European nor Catholic.

I suppose that you disagree with Sherman’s marches through Georgia & South Carolina too & his rationale for doing so. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman#Total_warfare. As he wrote to the Atlanta City Council on September 12, 1864:

War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want…I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy…This war differs from other wars in this particular: We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make young and old, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war…You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

Insert “Nazi Germany” instead of “the South” and “Europe and North Africa” instead of “our country” and you get the idea (my idea). See also his Dec. 17, 1864 message to CSA Lt.-Gen. William Hardee, who was commanding in Savannah.

Be well!

ssv

 

[pro_universal]

stillsmallvoice:

Hi all!

Pro_universal, about msnbc.msn.com/id/6556766/, Nice try, The soldier was acquitted on all

I’m not surprised, and that leaves the fact that he shot an unarmed 13 year old girl. Not a good thing, guilty or not, and the question remains: Do Palestinians have a legitimate right to shoot Israeli kids in response? I certainly don’t think so, but I don’t know that there is a principled way to embrace the right to shoot non-combatants in reprisal attacks that would lead to this view.

stillsmallvoice:

I’m neither European nor Catholic.

I realize that, and I’m presenting our case for limiting warfare to combatants only. This is the dominant view in international law, and it’s probably one of the reasons Israel’s policies on just warfare are not shared by the International Community.

stillsmallvoice:

I suppose that you disagree with Sherman’s marches through Georgia & South Carolina too & his rationale for doing so. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman#Total_warfare. As he wrote to the Atlanta City Council on September 12, 1864:

Insert “Nazi Germany” instead of “the South” and “Europe and North Africa” instead of “our country” and you get the idea (my idea). See also his Dec. 17, 1864 message to CSA Lt.-Gen. William Hardee, who was commanding in Savannah.

Be well!

ssv

You are absolutely right that I consider Sherman’s marches to be war crimes. If instead of using policy statements, you consider the perspective of an individual soldier who is ordered to burn a house or shoot a woman, you can see the deep immorality of the scorched earthy policy in its full light.

It’s very easy for people to name a policy (carpet bombing, for example), but no one ever wants to own the individual relationships the policy creates because they are indefensible. Hence, talk at the level of “strategy” is simply a method of obscuring what total war is really about: one individual shooting/burning/bombing little kids and old ladies.

 

[cestusdei]

Something we will never see: Al Queda court marshalling a jihadist for killing a civilian. Case closed.

 

[pro_universal]

cestusdei:

Something we will never see: Al Queda court marshalling a jihadist for killing a civilian. Case closed.

Taking a look at Al Qaeda tells you precisely zero about the morality/immorality of your own policies. The fundamental error in that reasoning should be obvious.

If you want to see if your hair is messy, you look in a mirror. Looking at someone else’s scalp won’t tell you about your own. It’s a very simple notion, and it’s exactly the same in this case.

 

[JSmitty2005]

pro_universal, why do you feel the need to defend infidels and their atrocities?

 

[Catherine_S]

Shadowcry:

You prove your ignorance by trying to glorify them.

**Muslim Preacher on Temple Mount: Restore Worldwide Islamic Rule **
****11:59 Feb 26, 2006 / 28 Shevat 5766
By Hillel Fendel
Sheikh Ismail Nawahda, preaching to Moslem masses on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on Friday, has brought it out into the open: the call to restore the Moslem Khalifate, or, “Genuine Islamic Rule.”

A plan for the “Return of the Khalifate” was published secretly in 2002 by a group called “The Guiding Helper Foundation.” The group explained that it wished to "give direction to the educated Muslim populace in its increasing interest in the establishment of Islam as a practical system of rule."

This past Friday, Feb. 24, however, the plan went public. Sheikh Nawahda called publicly for the renewal of the Islamic Khalifate, which would “unite all the Moslems in the world against the infidels.”

**The Khalifate system features a leader, known as a Khalif, who heads worldwide Islam. Assisted by a ten-man council, **his decisions are totally binding on all Moslems.

According to the Foundation’s vision of the Khalifate, significant punishment can only be meted out for 14 crimes, including “accusing a chaste person of fornication,” “not performing the formal prayer,” and "not fasting during Ramadan."

**The Foundation recommends working to restore the Moslem dictatorship using a system of small groups around the world. **The purpose is so that the “enemies of Islam” who “will definitely try to stop us” will have a “much harder task, if not impossible, if they are faced with a myriad of small groups of differing locations, ethnicities,” etc. This method also “ensures that if one group… is found and cut off, other similar groups will remain undetected.”

Sheikh Nawahda reminded his Temple Mount audience that the first step taken by Muhammed in stabilizing his rule was to form the nucleus of the first Islamic country in the city of Medina. Nawahda also said that the status of Moslems around the world has dropped drastically ever since the collapse of the last Khalifate in 1924, after Turkey became a democratic republic.

Nawahda called upon the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority to rise above their personal and party interests, and said that Moslems must return to Islam and join forces in the struggle against the West. He praised the worldwide protests against the anti-Muhammed cartoons, and encouraged the Moslem public to continue such activities. He implied that those who insulted Muhammed are liable for death. The Sheikh designated the Moslem masses as a strong point that can be utilized in the fight against the West.
.

 

[cestusdei]

pro,
I took your advice and looked in the mirror. I usually avoid it since my hair is going gray. I saw a guy who has never stoned anyone to death or beheaded them slowly with a knife. The folks you are defending can’t say that. In fact they are going to kill Abdul if we don’t stop them. They are the barbarians and you are helping them.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

pro_universal:

You are absolutely right that I consider Sherman’s marches to be war crimes. If instead of using policy statements, you consider the perspective of an individual soldier who is ordered to burn a house or shoot a woman, you can see the deep immorality of the scorched earthy policy in its full light.

I disagree completely. The war crime and the immorality here was the ante-bellum institution of chattel slavery and that the southern states made war to defend this evil (see Lincoln’s Second Innaugural Address:

Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

).

The southern home front supported the war and materially/substantively aided the CSA war effort by feeding & equipping its armies, supplying soldiers, etc. It is not a war crime to shoot at a soldier but it is to wreck the economy that feeds him, clothes him, provides him with his weapons, etc., and enables him to function as a soldier? I don’t understand. I fall back on Gen. Sherman’s letter to the Atlanta City Council:

War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want…I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy…This war differs from other wars in this particular: We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make young and old, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war…You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

Cestusdei:

I took your advice and looked in the mirror. I usually avoid it since my hair is going gray.

Be well!

ssv

 

[brotherhrolf]

stillsmallvoice:

Hi all!

I disagree completely. The war crime and the immorality here was the ante-bellum institution of chattel slavery and that the southern states made war to defend this evil (see Lincoln’s Second Innaugural Address: ).

The southern home front supported the war and materially/substantively aided the CSA war effort by feeding & equipping its armies, supplying soldiers, etc. It is not a war crime to shoot at a soldier but it is to wreck the economy that feeds him, clothes him, provides him with his weapons, etc., and enables him to function as a soldier? I don’t understand. I fall back on Gen. Sherman’s letter to the Atlanta City Council:



Be well!

ssv

Whoah! Maybe we need another thread for this discussion! Fewer than 10% of the entire population of the South owned slaves. Sherman was the president of Louisiana State University when the war broke out - that’s right down here amongst all the slave owning, sugar cane growing planters around Alexandria, Louisiana. He left Louisiana not because of slavery but because of his allegiance to the union. Lincoln changed the paradigm of the war by issuing the Emmancipation Proclamation. It was a calculated risk. The average Yankee could care less about the lot of the slaves. He needed a victory (Antietam) and issuing the Proclamation was a tremendous gamble on his part. Prior to that, the War of Northern Agression was a matter of state’s rights. It began as a matter of state’s rights so let’s not start this business of revisionist history.

 

[pro_universal]

I disagree completely. The war crime and the immorality here was the ante-bellum institution of chattel slavery and that the southern states made war to defend this evil

First off, immoral domestic laws are not war crimes, atrocious as they can be.

Second, the cause for making war doesn’t mean that every single act in prosecuting the war is moral. Think of it this way: The police have moral justification to chase criminals. Does that give them moral authority to torture the criminals’ relatives in order to find out where those criminals may be hiding?

It is not a war crime to shoot at a soldier but it is to wreck the economy that feeds him, clothes him, provides him with his weapons, etc., and enables him to function as a soldier?

This is exactly what I’m saying.

The reason you don’t understand this is that you are not distinguishing between conduct in war, and cause for war. Soldiers bear arms and can immediately inflict harm on other people. Workers at the plow cannot. A primary limitation on war in the just war theory is that only combatants should be attacked, because this is a sensible way to limit the killing to destroying the enemy’s capacity to cause immediate harm…

but you’re dodging the question anyway. Like I said, reduce this to the level of individual interaction, and here’s a scenario:

You’re a private in Sherman’s army. You come upon a farm where you are told everyone must be killed and the farm burned, and you find a child hiding in the bushes behind the barn, unarmed and in his pajamas. Are you justified in shooting him because he “participated in the society that enslaved blacks”?

 

[pro_universal]

cestusdei:

pro,
I took your advice and looked in the mirror. I usually avoid it since my hair is going gray. I saw a guy who has never stoned anyone to death or beheaded them slowly with a knife. The folks you are defending can’t say that. In fact they are going to kill Abdul if we don’t stop them. They are the barbarians and you are helping them.

Well, I guess the joke was alright, but you missed the point of the comparison.

Looking at what other people do won’t tell you if your own conduct is moral. That’s why the above is not relevant to this discussion about how we should conduct warfare.

If anything, as a Priest, you should be witnessing the Catholic doctrine of avoiding civilian casualties to stillsmallvoice, who has clearly come to us with an impaired vision of the truth.

 

[chb03c]

pro_universal:

Well, I guess the joke was alright, but you missed the point of the comparison.

Looking at what other people do won’t tell you if your own conduct is moral. That’s why the above is not relevant to this discussion about how we should conduct warfare.

If anything, as a Priest, you should be witnessing the Catholic doctrine of avoiding civilian casualties to stillsmallvoice, who has clearly come to us with an impaired vision of the truth.

I think he is, you however seem to not have a problem with a certain group of people hurting civilians. I think it is safe to see the vast majority of the people on this thread and forum do not think that civilians should be harmed in anyway shape or form, no matter what there beliefs are. Cestusdei just wants to point out that all people that commit these acts are not just people no matter what there beliefs. And the people committing these acts seem to be of certain groups. Keep in mind we are talking about current events.

 

[Contarini]

chb03c:

I think he is, you however seem to not have a problem with a certain group of people hurting civilians. I think it is safe to see the vast majority of the people on this thread and forum do not think that civilians should be harmed in anyway shape or form, no matter what there beliefs are. Cestusdei just wants to point out that all people that commit these acts are not just people no matter what there beliefs. And the people committing these acts seem to be of certain groups. Keep in mind we are talking about current events.

This doesn’t make any sense. Where has pro_universal condoned anyone hurting civilians?

And it’s self-contradictory to say “we would kill civilians [by using nuclear weapons] if we had to, but killing civilians is only something the other side does.” If we would do it if we were desperate–well, Bin Laden & co. are desperate now. If we would do it when we were provoked–well, they think they have been provoked. They may be wrong–but we might be wrong too when we chose to make such a decision (we’ll never know what would have happened in WWII if we had refrained from bombing civilians–we don’t really know that it was necessary).

Once you start justifying atrocities, you lose the right to condemn the other guys for their atrocities.

Edwin