Posted on 12/05/2009 6:00:32 PM PST by NYer
Thank you.
So an 18-year-old draftee is a legitimate target, but the civilian leadership which ordered him to fight is not?
Yep, pacifism ultimately results in your demise and with your demise so dies your message.
Arguably civilian leadership can be seen as combatants, but the general usages of modern warfare prohibit deliberate targeting of civilian leadership.
In this case the 18 year old Japanese soldier or sailor was a correct target, their aged grandparents and infant siblings were not.
IMO the concept of “Just War” is an artificial construct and not overly helpful. There is “War” and there is “Peace”. There really is nothing in-between.
What about the so-called “limited war?” Like was fought in Vietnam, or like what is being fought in Afghanistan?
That’s only “War” fought ineffectively, with one side observing rules that the other side does not observe.
As we saw in World War II, the concept of “War” is “Total War”. It is ugly and dirty and it is fought to the finish: when you have your enemy by the throat, squeeze until his eyeballs pop out. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were atom-bombed on this basis. Dresden and Tokyo were firebombed on this basis, too. Dirty business that killed lots of civilians. Yet there is no serious suggestion that this should not have been done. Winning World War II necessitated this, and the alternative to winning would have been much worse.
“War” is won by the side who is willing to do whatever it takes to win. It is lost by everybody else.
None of this is to say that the idea of “Just War” is a bad one: it would be highly desirable if it were possible. But I don’t believe it is.
This is why War is such a terrible step, one that oughtn’t be taken lightly. It is an invitation to Hell for all participants, no matter how “just” the cause.
Just war is not pacifism. Terrorism is not just war.
Dresden and Tokyo were firebombed on this basis, too. Dirty business that killed lots of civilians. Yet there is no serious suggestion that this should not have been done.Not on this thread, not yet. They occupy the same immoral status though.
There is “War” and there is “Peace”. There really is nothing in-between.So why have a UCMJ? Why obey the Geneva Accords? Why not use nukes at will?
So you endorse terrorism? Deliberate killing of civilians?
The firebombing of Dresden and the A-bombing of Hiroshima primarily killed civilians. The difference between those and a car bomb in a market place is just a matter of scale. In both cases, violence is applied against civilian populations in order to reduce political support for the enemy's position.
My position is that I will do whatever is necessary to ensure the liberty of my family and friends. If terrorism is not necessary, then I will not support it. If it is, then I will. I will advocate using the minimum necessary force, but not reject necessary force.
My scale of importance is that I value my family, friends, and fellow countrymen over those who would attempt to oppress them. I value my side's soldiers over the lives of civilian enemy supporters, and am willing to condone the killing of enemy civilians if it results in fewer casualties on our side.
In the final analysis, if it's necessary to preserve the lives and liberties of my family and friends, I am willing to do and condone actions that would make God look down from Heaven and scream in horror.
Civilians have always sustained the largest numbers of casualties in every war throughout the history of mankind. In the last 2 centuries at about a 100:1 ratio. Only the survivors, generally the victors, of warfare have the power to investigate and report about the casualties.
1:7 is considered a lean tooth to tail ratio for nations under arms and 1:15 isn’t uncommon for more loosely contracted support of fighting men. This implies there is at least an order of magnitude greater number of people who exhibit behavior adversarial to the opposing combatants, even when not considered directly fighting in combat.
So who is actually more morally accountable for the violent external casualties in warfare? Those who ignore the conflict and are either rebellious or apathetic, allowing the immoral any criminal course of action, or those on the tip of the spear who can exert their will to properly control events as morally, controlably, and expeditiously as feasible?
These are obvious reasons why there are always refugees leave their homes and are found emerging from combat zones. It is another reason why the intelligent take up arms to defend their nations. It also is a good reason for the intelligent to not too lightly ignore tyrannical extremists who seek to gain control of nuclear weaponry.
> Not on this thread, not yet. They occupy the same immoral status though.
I’m unconvinced that it was especially immoral to atom bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to fire bomb Dresden and Tokyo. The Axis didn’t mind doing similar things to Allied cities like London and Coventry. They certainly wouldn’t have belly-ached about the morality of doing so had they won the war.
War itself is immoral because it violated God’s commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Once Society has stepped across that line, there is no such thing as a sliding scale of immorality: sin is sin and you don’t get bonus points with God by being only slightly less sinful than the other guy.
So if a country goes to war, it has already crossed over that moral hurdle: the next-best thing to be done is to win quickly and decisively to minimize the suffering and transgression.
> So why have a UCMJ?
To maintain military discipline.
> Why obey the Geneva Accords? Why not use nukes at will?
Why indeed. From a morality viewpoint these concepts prevent needless suffering during War. From a pragmatic viewpoint nothing except the fear of retaliation-in-kind prevents violation of Geneva Accords and the use of nukes at will.
Nothing at all.
or are there two or three ? Is there one G-d ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
What do you think about the genocidal wars commanded by God in the Old Testament?
Better translated, "Thou shalt not murder". Even God directs the complete decimation and annihilation of Israel's enemies in OT history, to such an extent that even after victory, the fields were to be salted and their livestock slaughtered and not eaten. See 1st Sam 15 in regards to the Amalekites.
There will be many killed who oppose Him and are killed in righteousness, while their being permitted to even live is considered immoral and unrighteous. Israel spent 40 years in the desert for far less a decisiveness in their warfare.
That may be so, but I believe that for Christians to draw the distinction between "kill" and "murder" is actually mincing words. Christ holds His followers to a higher standard than that, in Matt 5:21-22
Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
I disagree.
In many situations, winning a war quickly lessens the volume of damage and collateral damages, but lessening the duration of conflict might also result in no change to the willpower of the adversary and might not improve the situation. In many situations, it may be arguably immoral to end a war before it is properly and righteously complete. (Ask the Israelis about their history with Palestinians.)
Nations are divinely established institutions. How they select their leadership might be completely independent of their relationship with God, just as believers and unbelievers alike can share in the blessings of other divinely established institutions such as volition, marriage, or family.
Warfare is one mechanism by which nations may keep one another in check, from usurping the legitimate authority of other nations. Law enforcement is used within a nation to assert legitimate authority over criminals and to maintain justice, just as internationally, military action may be used to enforce justice between nations.
Righteousness doesn't imply happiness nor minimal suffering nor lack of transgression of another's volition, but one cannot be righteous if they do the right or wrong thing in a wrong fashion. In order for a right action to be performed as a right action, it may only be performed in a right fashion. By remaining in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, no matter what the situation, it is still possible to perform the right action and be a winner in God's perspective with eternally righteous value.
Yes, just the One. The very One that smote every Amalekite man, woman, child, infant and beast. That One.
There are some popular "Christian" churches Roger that !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
that teach that Jesus taught a different
religion than YHvH.
I would express the issue of terrorism a little bit differently.
The opposite of love is not hate, but fear. Many confuse chaos or the lack of order with hatred, but chaos is simply the opposite of order (the Greek words KOSMOS and KAOS are opposites meaning ‘order’ or ‘world’ and ‘chaos or disorder’).
Many confuse their adversity with an enemy with hatred, then seek harm to their adversary as a tactic for victory. They might take this one step further into seeking to cause their adversary fear or terror, in reaction to seeking authority and control over a situation. All of these steps are used in a convoluted sick mental state seeking violence on one’s adversary, without remaining in fellowship with God through faith in what He provides for righteousness and justice.
This doesn’t mean that those who oppose God, might not find themselves in a position of extreme fear or terror, but that mental state is frequently more a consequence of their past mental thinking independent of faith in What God provides, than any devotion to righteousness or justice through faith in Him.
(There are cases in Scripture, where those who have opposed Him or have fallen out of fellowship, are simply allowed to follow their incorrect mentality and suffer the consequences they brought upon themselves, without God having to invoke any action.)
Muslim terrorists fundamentally have a problem with justice. Just like nearly all other religions which operated independent of what God provides, Islam fails to recognize the perfect sacrifice made for perfect justice so man could have a righteous fellowship with God on His terms. Instead they still are able to identify injustice in human systems, and seek righteousness, and might even dedicate themselves, unto their physical death for performing something which God will find to be righteous, by being legalistic and exercise grace by their personal volition, but they fundamentally fail to understand that any such action is merely righteousness in their own eyes, unless they perform it actually under the the provision of God through faith in what He has provided to reconcile man to God. They essentially lack justification before God, but are seeking a counterfeit by performing something they yearn to find to be righteous at their own hands or thoughts independent of what He provides.
Even if they were to succeed, their actions and intentions would make God a debtor to them, rather than their God in all things.
As a consequence of their search for righteousness and desire to promote justice in their own mind, they might well yearn to cause terror in those with whom they are adversaries.
The same criticism might be held for those who defend themselves, and mistakenly fall into the trap of seeking justice at their own hands rather than through faith in Christ. This doesn’t imply a faithful justice is impotent, nor that it requires some if any reduction in violent action. Instead it simply asserts the only way to perform a right action is by performing it in a right fashion.
The proper tactic might indeed cause fear or terror in the adversary, but that is not as much the modus operendi of the righteous tactic, as performing the right action, at the right time, while remaining in fellowship with God through faith in Christ in those actions and in defending the position in which we have been provided by Him and through Him.
Those who refuse to acknowledge legitimate authority of a nation seeking to remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, might very well find themselves in fear and terror of having to face a righteous God, if they lack a justification which is righteous by Divine standards.
Such, though, is how every man, righteous and unrighteous finds himself when facing Divine Judgment, but through faith in Christ, there is assurance that it isn’t what we have done or haven’t done that solves the problems in life and in death, but what He provides which is veritable true, just, and righteous, which gives us hope in things to come.
The solution or debate isn’t whether or not to use terrorism, but how to remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ in all things. Since terrorism really isn’t an issue, it simply becomes a moot point, perhaps evil worthy hateful disdain, but not a mechanism of veritable hope.
There are also some popular churches which teach religion in the same fashion the Talmud teaches the Mishna, rather than simply letting the spoken Memra be used by God the Holy Spirit in the human spirit and mind of the believer in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, continually sanctifying the mind and spirit of the believer in fellowship with Him.
“I have concluded that when a socialist brings us tearful accounts of the victims, he is using truth to advance some other falsehood-based agenda.”
Absolutely. Where are the tearful accounts of the victims of the Rape of Nanking? That was so bad that the Japanese had Nazis barfing.
When Nazis can’t tolerate what you’re doing, that’s pretty bad.
The Japanese started a bloody war of conquest with no more justification than their own racism, racism of a strength and scope never seen in the West. If you don’t want war waged upon you, don’t do that stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.