birdog1960 Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 Is your concept of a just war similar to your concept of wealth inequality - that it's just only when there are symmetrical casualties? no. i believe the concept originated in Catholicism (appropriate given the religious basis for this conflict) http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine. pay attention to the section about the concept in today's world. i subscribe to the principles so concisely documented here.
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 no. i believe the concept originated in Catholicism (appropriate given the religious basis for this conflict) http://www.catholic....st-war-doctrine. pay attention to the section about the concept in today's world. i subscribe to the principles so concisely documented here. The rejection of such being Martin Luther's little-known "96th Thesis." Which is why Germany argued the invasion of Poland was justified... ...that, and the declaration of war by Polish Jewry in Switzerland six years previous.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 no. i believe the concept originated in Catholicism (appropriate given the religious basis for this conflict) http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine. pay attention to the section about the concept in today's world. i subscribe to the principles so concisely documented here. So you're insisting that Jews and Muslims follow Catholic doctrine?
GG Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 no. i believe the concept originated in Catholicism (appropriate given the religious basis for this conflict) http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine. pay attention to the section about the concept in today's world. i subscribe to the principles so concisely documented here. I'm sure the IDF also subscribes to a Catholic interpretation of the Old Testament
birdog1960 Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) I'm sure the IDF also subscribes to a Catholic interpretation of the Old Testament clearly not. they seem to have little concern for morality at all. where else have we seen that in recent history? The rejection of such being Martin Luther's little-known "96th Thesis." Which is why Germany argued the invasion of Poland was justified... ...that, and the declaration of war by Polish Jewry in Switzerland six years previous. oh yeah... the "reformation " Edited July 11, 2014 by birdog1960
FireChan Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 therefore i must necessarily regret the revolution to be able to regret the way native americans were treated? who is the idiot here? i believe in the concept of a just war http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/netanyahu-war_b_5574984.html. much of what israel engages in is not just imo. You claimed the outside intervention from secondary parties changed the issue. I applied that to the Revolution. Are you paying attention? Where do you live? Give back your property to the Natives if you wanna be the moral authority.
truth on hold Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 The extremists were elected... Yes, netanyahu and his merry band of settler extremist thugs
....lybob Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 How about we just stop sending foreign aid to Israel, Egypt and Pakistan
truth on hold Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) You're right, there isn't. But that's because there's nothing to debate on the issue. What 40 some odd Jews at a conference, holding no authority, and not authorized to speak for anyone at all, have to say on any issue at all is irrelevant. They can't affect any action. Further, a boycott of someones services or goods is not a hostile act. It's a peacful, non-aggressive, free market choice. Unless of course you're going to argue that an individual's choice to not eat at Chick-Fil-A because they don't support gay marraige is an act of war. Perhaps you'd like to make that argument, Joe? Irrelevant. I don't "want" them to do anything. It's simply what they should do as their only moral action, given that the Palestinians are waging an actual war on them. Are individuals choosing not to eat at Chick-Fil-A because of their stance on gay marraige waging a war? Powerful businessmen and bankers boycotting your country in the middle of the great depression is indeed a very threatenining, existential risk. They were an enemy of the Nazi state and they had power to do serious harm. The nazis had the power to retaliate and by your warped logic they did the rational thing. Its that simple. Your myriad attempts to spin and twist artificial distinctions simply exposes your hypocrisy. Edited July 11, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack
birdog1960 Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 How about we just stop sending foreign aid to Israel, Egypt and Pakistan sounds good to me. methinks the libertarians should agree.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 Powerful businessmen and bankers boycotting your country in the middle of the great depression is indeed a very threatenining, existential risk. They were an enemy of the Nazi state and they had power to do serious harm. The nazis had the power to retaliate and by your warped logic they did the rational thing. Its that simple. Your myriad attempts to spin and twist artificial distinctions simply exposes your hypocrisy. Deciding not to do business with someone out of protest for their behavior (the German state was becoming increasingly hostile to German Jews), in hopes of them seeing the error of their ways is, I will repeat, not an act of aggression or war. It is the free market at work. It is peaceful. You're asserting that the Germans had the absolute right to external commerce with anyone they wanted and that other parties should have no say in the matter, being instead conscripted into the German economy. It might be the dumbest argument you've ever made. sounds good to me. methinks the libertarians should agree. I whole heartedly agree. We should stop bribing Israel into not wiping the Palestinians off the face of the Earth.
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 Powerful businessmen and bankers boycotting your country in the middle of the great depression is indeed a very threatenining, existential risk. They were an enemy of the Nazi state and they had power to do serious harm. The nazis had the power to retaliate and by your warped logic they did the rational thing. Its that simple. Your myriad attempts to spin and twist artificial distinctions simply exposes your hypocrisy. Jewish businessmen and bankers were AGAINST the boycott, you idiot. As were most other Jews. How on earth did you ever get this misinformed?
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Jewish businessmen and bankers were AGAINST the boycott, you idiot. As were most other Jews. How on earth did you ever get this misinformed? And even if they weren't, the Germans had no right to their commerce. A boycott is a peaceful protest. Joe is literally arguing that individuals choosing not to do business with someone is an act of war.
truth on hold Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) No one has claimed that Israel are a group of saints but they are more of a self reflective society than any other in the region. Compare that to the accusations of Apartheid or Ethnic Cleansing by some of the wiser posters. words are useless, why dont they "reflect" on the fact that they blow up the homes of pali terrorists (even if theyre just suspects), because they say its a deterrent to further terrorism, and go blow up the homes of the 3 admitted jewish terrorists who kidnapped and burned the pali kid alive Jewish businessmen and bankers were AGAINST the boycott, you idiot. As were most other Jews. How on earth did you ever get this misinformed? as are many palis against hostile acts of other palis, yet TTT wants to "drive them all in the sea" Edited July 12, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack
truth on hold Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Deciding not to do business with someone out of protest for their behavior (the German state was becoming increasingly hostile to German Jews), in hopes of them seeing the error of their ways is, I will repeat, not an act of aggression or war. It is the free market at work. It is peaceful. You're asserting that the Germans had the absolute right to external commerce with anyone they wanted and that other parties should have no say in the matter, being instead conscripted into the German economy. It might be the dumbest argument you've ever made. you serious? WWII was fought due to economic reparations from WWI accords!!!!!!! economics and war are closely related, often seamless. the "dumbness of the argument" is simply your "logic" turned back on you. I think we'd all like to drive you into the sea. so when are the "democratic" "self reflective" Israelis going to demolish the jewish terrorist homes? Edited July 12, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 And even if they weren't, the Germans had no right to their commerce. A boycott is a peaceful protest. Joe is literally arguing that individuals choosing not to do business with someone is an act of war. He still hasn't answered where I pointed out that, by his logic, Pearl Harbor was an entirely reasonable response by Japan. As would be Iran or North Korea nuking Washington.
....lybob Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 He still hasn't answered where I pointed out that, by his logic, Pearl Harbor was an entirely reasonable response by Japan. As would be Iran or North Korea nuking Washington. going off the petrodollar seems like a pretty good way to get yourself offed
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 going off the petrodollar seems like a pretty good way to get yourself offed If Iran chooses not to recognize the dollar as a reserve currency like the rest of the world, that would constitute an economic act of war, and we'd be wellwithin our rights to turn then into a radioactive parking lot. [/JtSP]
truth on hold Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 He still hasn't answered where I pointed out that, by his logic, Pearl Harbor was an entirely reasonable response by Japan. As would be Iran or North Korea nuking Washington. not my logic, it's TTT's ... been stated several times. And even then you're misapplying it. He says that when you have the chance to totally eradicate your enemy ... "drive them all in the sea" ... the rational, moral thing is to do so. Did the Japanese the power to drive all Americans in the sea in 1941? Do the Iranians and NKoreans have the ability to do that now?
Recommended Posts