You Shall NOT Kill!

[sidbrown]

In the manner of self preservation or defense or in the defense of others, in some circumstances the taking of life is justified. You have an obligation and right to protect yourself since God has given the gift of life and a body to you. You are your body’s steward.

To drop an atomic bomb and kill innocent children in order to attain some goal looks like terrorism to me.
Your argument is used by terrorists in Middle Eastern countries who justify their actions against civilians by saying that “In the manner of self preservation or defense or in the defense of others, in some circumstances the taking of life is justified.”

 

[Ender]

Your argument is used by terrorists in Middle Eastern countries who justify their actions against civilians by saying that “In the manner of self preservation or defense or in the defense of others, in some circumstances the taking of life is justified.”

His argument is simply what the Church teaches on the subject. If you find it nothing more than warmed over terrorism then you should level that charge against Catholicism.

Ender

 

[sidbrown]

His argument is simply what the Church teaches on the subject. If you find it nothing more than warmed over terrorism then you should level that charge against Catholicism.

Ender

Well, is it or is it not the same argument that a terrorist would use to justify the use of suicide bombers against innocent civilians?
Further, I don’t beleive that the Church teaches that it is OK to target innocent children or civilians to attain some goal, however worthy that goal may be. I would say that anyone who claims that the RCC teaches such, is totally and completely wrong.

 

[donsnow]

It seems like after WWII, it was seen that killing civilians, women and children was OK, for example, to drop an atomic bomb on them, in order to attain some goal like ending a war.

Hi, sidbrown -

My parents were of that generation, and I was born during WWII. There wasn’t anybody that thought it was OK. As a matter of fact, outside of history books, there was no public discussion of ‘the Bomb’ until the '60’s and that was against it. Until then, pretty much nobody talked about it. It was a military necessity, and the only defense that I remember being offered in and since the '60’s was, that crushing the Japanese with the two A-bombs saved half a million American troops from invading Japan and saved millions of Japanese lives from further conventional and Atomic bombing.

WWII, I hope, was the last Total War. It was ‘to the death’, between us and them, in a sense.

 

[donsnow]

To drop an atomic bomb and kill innocent children in order to attain some goal looks like terrorism to me.
Your argument is used by terrorists in Middle Eastern countries who justify their actions against civilians by saying that “In the manner of self preservation or defense or in the defense of others, in some circumstances the taking of life is justified.”

Hi, sidbrown -

It appears you’re as loose on current events as you are on World History. That argument is not used by Al Queda and its associates. They justify themselves with Wahabbism, a cult of the Sunni Muslims. That is to say, they justify their cutting off infidels’ heads and shooting rockets into civilian villages and towns as a religious war. That’s totally different, imho.

 

[sidbrown]

Hi, sidbrown -

It appears you’re as loose on current events as you are on World History. That argument is not used by Al Queda and its associates. They justify themselves with Wahabbism, a cult of the Sunni Muslims. That is to say, they justify their cutting off infidels’ heads and shooting rockets into civilian villages and towns as a religious war. That’s totally different, imho.

How is that?
Which is worse to kill two or three infidels for the cause or to drop an A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill 200,000 civilians?

 

[donsnow]

How is that?
Which is worse to kill two or three infidels for the cause or to drop an A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill 200,000 civilians?

They’re both equally heinous, the numbers are a distraction.

 

[sidbrown]

They’re both equally heinous, the numbers are a distraction.

If the numbers are only a distraction, then what would be the purpose in trying to reduce the number of abortions? IF ( please note that this is a hypothesis which I do not agree with) IF one hundred abortions were as equally heinous as one million abortions, and the numbers were only a distraction, then why would it be worthwhile to set in place programs which attempt to reduce the number of abortions?

 

[Ender]

Well, is it or is it not the same argument that a terrorist would use to justify the use of suicide bombers against innocent civilians?

No.

Further, I don’t beleive that the Church teaches that it is OK to target innocent children or civilians to attain some goal, however worthy that goal may be. I would say that anyone who claims that the RCC teaches such, is totally and completely wrong.

No one has made such a claim, then again, no one said anything about targeting children. There is no connection whatever between Fox’s comment and your response.

Ender

 

[sidbrown]

No.
No one has made such a claim, then again, no one said anything about targeting children. There is no connection whatever between Fox’s comment and your response.

Ender

The question concerns attaining a goal by terrorism. In one case a few infidels are killed. In another case an Atomic bomb is dropped and 200,000 civilians are killed.
Both are seriously wrong, true, but the degree and number of dead civilians and widespread damage brought about by the dropping of an atomic bomb on a city argues that the dropping of an atomic bomb on a city of civilians is worse.

 

[donsnow]

If the numbers are only a distraction, then what would be the purpose in trying to reduce the number of abortions? IF ( please note that this is a hypothesis which I do not agree with) IF one hundred abortions were as equally heinous as one million abortions, and the numbers were only a distraction, then why would it be worthwhile to set in place programs which attempt to reduce the number of abortions?

Hi, sidbrown,

Slow down, sid. The distraction of 200,000 dead is in the context of invasion of Japan. Like I wrote earlier, the two A-Bombs made unnecessary 500,000 GI’s invading Japan; and made unnecessary millions of Japanese deaths from combat, conventional fire-bombing and future Atomic bombing. It…was…total…war; unconditional… surrender…of the Axis was the goal. No terms. Just drop your weapons and hope we don’t blow you away. The Italians, then the Germans (after Germany was destroyed) and then Japan unconditionally surrendered. The Japanese were fanatically faithful to their Emperor. What he said, that was it. The two A-Bombs convinced Emperor Hirohito that Japan would be destroyed like Germany, if he didn’t order his Generals to surrender. The A-Bombs prevented the utter destruction of Japan, and prevented millions of deaths of fanatical Japanese civilians. The 200,000 deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a distraction from the above, for those who know little of history, like you.

I’m against abortion, the holocaust of this planet. Abortion is out of context, let’s resume the thread regarding self defense.

 

[sidbrown]

Hi, sidbrown,

Slow down, sid. The distraction of 200,000 dead is in the context of invasion of Japan. Like I wrote earlier, the two A-Bombs made unnecessary 500,000 GI’s invading Japan; and made unnecessary millions of Japanese deaths from combat, conventional fire-bombing and future Atomic bombing. It…was…total…war; unconditional… surrender…of the Axis was the goal. No terms. Just drop your weapons and hope we don’t blow you away. The Italians, then the Germans (after Germany was destroyed) and then Japan unconditionally surrendered. The Japanese were fanatically faithful to their Emperor. What he said, that was it. The two A-Bombs convinced Emperor Hirohito that Japan would be destroyed like Germany, if he didn’t order his Generals to surrender. The A-Bombs prevented the utter destruction of Japan, and prevented millions of deaths of fanatical Japanese civilians. The 200,000 deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a distraction from the above, for those who know little of history, like you.

I’m against abortion, the holocaust of this planet. Abortion is out of context, let’s resume the thread regarding self defense.

It was the targeting of innocent children and other civilians to achieve an objective. So in your view, the end does justify the means?

 

[donsnow]

It was the targeting of innocent children and other civilians to achieve an objective. So in your view, the end does justify the means?

Oh, sidbrown -

More Japanese died from incendiary bombs on their cities, from 1944 through 1945, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the two A-bombs. The civilians and children in Japan voluntarily worked in neighborhood or home factories to produce uniforms, weapons, etc. Try to think about it, OK? The whole population of Japan was geared to win the war. The whole population. Just like here in the US of A, women were working in factories and shipyards, releasing the men to go fight. Those factories were producing tanks, fighters, bombers etc. The shipyards were turning out both Naval ships and Liberty Ship freighters. Both nations were geared to win the war.
We won.
The only way to end any war is to win it. In both Vietnam and modern Palestine, little children carried explosives to blow up GIs and Israelis, respectively. It was the same in Japan. Women and children doing all the supply work for the Imperial Army, Air Force and Navy, so the men could go fight.

I repeat, the A-Bombs prevented a slaughter throughout all Japan, by forcing the Emperor to surrender.

No, in my view, the means determines the end. FYI.

 

[sidbrown]

Oh, sidbrown -

More Japanese died from incendiary bombs on their cities, from 1944 through 1945, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the two A-bombs. The civilians and children in Japan voluntarily worked in neighborhood or home factories to produce uniforms, weapons, etc. Try to think about it, OK? The whole population of Japan was geared to win the war. The whole population. Just like here in the US of A, women were working in factories and shipyards, releasing the men to go fight. Those factories were producing tanks, fighters, bombers etc. The shipyards were turning out both Naval ships and Liberty Ship freighters. Both nations were geared to win the war.
We won.
The only way to end any war is to win it. In both Vietnam and modern Palestine, little children carried explosives to blow up GIs and Israelis, respectively. It was the same in Japan. Women and children doing all the supply work for the Imperial Army, Air Force and Navy, so the men could go fight.

I repeat, the A-Bombs prevented a slaughter throughout all Japan, by forcing the Emperor to surrender.

No, in my view, the means determines the end. FYI.

So in your view the good end of world peace does justify the immoral means of dropping an A-Bomb on innocent children and civilians.

 

[donsnow]

So in your view the good end of world peace does justify the immoral means of dropping an A-Bomb on innocent children and civilians.

Let me repeat: from 1944 to August of 1945, more people (women and children because the men had gone to war) died in fires in Tokyo and other large Japanese cities, than died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima from the two A-Bombs. I want your reply to this data…look beyond the A-Bombs.

 

[sidbrown]

Let me repeat: from 1944 to August of 1945, more people (women and children because the men had gone to war) died in fires in Tokyo and other large Japanese cities, than died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima from the two A-Bombs. I want your reply to this data…look beyond the A-Bombs.

My personal opinion is that it is morally wrong to target innocent children by dropping an A-Bomb on them in order to attain a good end. I don;'t go along with the idea that the end justifies the means.

 

[donsnow]

My personal opinion is that it is morally wrong to target innocent children by dropping an A-Bomb on them in order to attain a good end. I don;'t go along with the idea that the end justifies the means.

Oh,

And, the hundreds of thousands more women and children slain by incendiary bombs in Dresden, Germany and all the major cities of Japan, before Aug of 1945, that’s OK?

I already wrote, the means determine the end. I don’t go along with the end justifies the means, either.

I don’t approve of targeting innocent women and children, with any weapon. That includes A-Bombs, H-Bombs, incendiary conventional bombs, car bombs, etc.

Are you making a distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons? I wish you’d speak up, on this, since you brought it up. Do you approve of targeting innocent women and children with incendiary or other bombs? You avoided addressing that, all through our discussion.

 

[sidbrown]

Oh,

And, the hundreds of thousands more women and children slain by incendiary bombs in Dresden, Germany and all the major cities of Japan, before Aug of 1945, that’s OK?

I already wrote, the means determine the end. I don’t go along with the end justifies the means, either.

I don’t approve of targeting innocent women and children, with any weapon. That includes A-Bombs, H-Bombs, incendiary conventional bombs, car bombs, etc.

Are you making a distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons? I wish you’d speak up, on this, since you brought it up. Do you approve of targeting innocent women and children with incendiary or other bombs? You avoided addressing that, all through our discussion.

Absolutely not. I am totally opposed to incendiary and widespread bombing of cities which can only result in a large loss of civilian life. I don;t think it is morally right to target civilians or children in order to attain some goal.

 

[donsnow]

Absolutely not. I am totally opposed to incendiary and widespread bombing of cities which can only result in a large loss of civilian life. I don;t think it is morally right to target civilians or children in order to attain some goal.

Hi, sidbrown -

Thank you, for clearing that up. The way you went on and on raving about A-bombs, it left the impression you didn’t mind conventional and incendiary ways of mass destruction.

OK, looks like we’re agreed, after all.

Care to address the OP?

 

[sidbrown]

Hi, sidbrown -

Thank you, for clearing that up. The way you went on and on raving about A-bombs, it left the impression you didn’t mind conventional and incendiary ways of mass destruction.

OK, looks like we’re agreed, after all.

Care to address the OP?

I was thinking that even after Jesus Christ showed us how great His Love for us is by willingly spilling His Blood for us. After all the martyrs spilled their blood for this Great Love that they understood and after all of the great examples and writings of so many Saints to help us understand this Great Love that God has for us. Why is it that we seem to have lost it somewhere along the road ( to where we are now), we still DON’T seem to GET IT! What is it about the commandment of “Thou Shall Not Kill” that we just do not seem to get. If it is one of God’s commandments why do we try to “justify” it.

Any thoughts on this are welcome,

Always praying and pondering

What is it about the commandment that we do not seem to get. As I just mentioned already, many people do not seem to get that it is wrong to target innocent civilians in war in order to attain some possibly worthy goal. For this I would cite the bombing of Dresden and the dropping of Atomic Bombs on hiroshima and Nagasaki. Aome people do not admit that these actions were immoral but they try to justify them as a means to a peaceful end. Personally, I would not go along with the idea that the end justifies the means and I consider this type of killing of innocent civilians to be immoral.