Bin Laden's Dead

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Your view that these non state groups somehow use state strategy is hubris at its worst.

If it's hubris at it's worst, then perhaps there's no hope.

But there is hope. However the hubris needs to be addressed, that insular feeling is what led to 9-11 in the first place. The idea that these non nation players would somehow show the same restraint states often show often means we overlook to care for our nations and peoples.

In the end there is hope. Barbaric tribalism permeates many of sects in Islam much in the same way it permeated Christianity during the early medievel period. The question is how that populations become less enamored with such acts in the same way the West understood Mosaic law but felt it application was no longer a factor in proper living. I know many Muslims who decrie the evil acts of Usama bin Ladin and raise their voices accordingly. So there is hope, a great deal of hope, but there is also realism and the need to protect one's nation from those who may temporarily hold sway upon portions of the population, and to understand that their hate is not so much irrational but an almost sociopathic ability to punish their own populations in order to direct that anger and hate at someone else (thus ensuring their own rise to power) Eventually such things fail. But they cause a great deal of damage until they do and they renew in cycle.

[Mark Beesley]

Yeah well you've illustrated why left-wingers can't function in the real world; they believe in fantasies like conservatives always wanting to be in a state of war.

You unabashaedly claimed that "Waging righeous war is a Christian ideal." Unless you are illiterate, which I do not believe you are, then you know that an ideal is something for which we strive, something to be desired, the state of perfection to which we aspire. I have given you a couple of opportunities to reconsider whether ideal was the best word to use, and you have never modified your statement. Nevertheless, I have never suggested that any other conservative, libertarian, or other label holds this same opinon as you. Indeed, I believe all rational people would agree that war is never the ideal.

But I also do disagree with the first part.

Of course you do.

And now you've got LIbby thinking I'm a leftie . . .

[Jeff K.]

BCSpace, on 03 May 2011 - 10:49 PM, said:

Yeah well you've illustrated why left-wingers can't function in the real world; they believe in fantasies like conservatives always wanting to be in a state of war.

You unabashaedly claimed that "Waging righeous war is a Christian ideal." Unless you are illiterate, which I do not believe you are, then you know that an ideal is something for which we strive, something to be desired, the state of perfection to which we aspire. I have given you a couple of opportunities to reconsider whether ideal was the best word to use, and you have never modified your statement. Nevertheless, I have never suggested that any other conservative, libertarian, or other label holds this same opinon as you. Indeed, I believe all rational people would agree that war is never the ideal.

Is the ability to wage a war the ideal or the is the ideal a "righteous" war?

[Mark Beesley]

Is the ability to wage a war the ideal or the is the ideal a "righteous" war?

I should think peace is the ideal. If that is true, then war, whether righteous or not, cannot be the ideal, unless ideal means something other than what I've always thought it meant.

[Ceeboo]

Hey Cinepro

Two planes, early in their cross-continental flights and thus full of fuel, are flown into two of the tallest office towers in the world just at the time of a weekday morning when people are arriving to work.

Honestly, if they were going for "maximum deaths", I'm not sure what they would have done differently.

Nah!

To lend my support to some other contributions in this bizarro-thread:

The cowardly terrorists were most kind and indeed thoughtful in putting forth great effort to not kill THAT many innocent US men, women, and children.

I believe that they CLEARLY picked a time of day, weapon used, and target to minimize (best they could while still remaining murderous monsters who attacked us) the innocent death toll of American civilians. ( I even heard a solid rumor that their first and preferred plan was to attack at 11:00 PM on Sunday night using spit wad shooters)

And I'm not sure your friend being an "Arab" lends credibility to the objectivity of his opinion on the subject.

I am not certain that this is merely an opinion. I believe the "friend" is spot on, and given his brilliant observations, worthy of serious support regarding his ridiculous statements.

Edit to add quote from Osama:

I don't think he REALLY meant all that.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 04 May 2011 - 08:51 AM, said:

Is the ability to wage a war the ideal or the is the ideal a "righteous" war?

I should think peace is the ideal. If that is true, then war, whether righteous or not, cannot be the ideal, unless ideal means something other than what I've always thought it meant.

I think you and I would have to disagree. If "peace" is the ideal (versus a righteous war), there would have been no war in heaven. To me the issue is what is righteous, the action of peace and war are secondary.

[Mark Beesley]

I think you and I would have to disagree. If "peace" is the ideal (versus a righteous war), there would have been no war in heaven. To me the issue is what is righteous, the action of peace and war are secondary.

Righeous is an adjective. I don't think it can be an ideal. It appears you are attempting to spin this.

Peace is the ideal. War never is.

A righteous war may be preferrable to an unrighteous peace (whatever that may be), but it is not the ideal.

A righeous peace is preferrable to a righeous war, and that, my friend, is the Christian ideal -- righteous peace.

[BCSpace]

You unabashaedly claimed that "Waging righeous war is a Christian ideal." Unless you are illiterate, which I do not believe you are, then you know that an ideal is something for which we strive, something to be desired, the state of perfection to which we aspire.

Sure. Nothing wrong with aspiring to ensure that the wars we fight are righteous and that our cause is just.

[Nathair/|\]

Certainly, the fact that Bin Laden is no longer a threat and that justice has been done to him are both worthy of our celebration. I don't think anyone can deny that, or that Bin Laden is worthy of death. However, Judge Napolitano brought up a good point recently. Under our constitution and the rule of law, should the president have the authority to order a non-judicial execution? If he can do so, what's to prevent him or a successor continuing the precedent and maybe using it against a political opponent?

[BCSpace]

However, Judge Napolitano brought up a good point recently. Under our constitution and the rule of law, should the president have the authority to order a non-judicial execution? If he can do so, what's to prevent him or a successor continuing the precedent and maybe using it against a political opponent?

Perhaps a law or amendment that restricts it to our enemies in war.

[Nathair/|\]

Perhaps a law or amendment that restricts it to our enemies in war.

That makes sense to me. I think it would have to be an amendment, though and I'm not sure how we would legally determine that. Maybe only leaders of our opponents in a declared war? Or maybe require Supreme Court approval? Understand, I'm all in favor of taking out people like Bin Laden, I'm just concerned that we follow the rule of law when we do it. Of course, if a private citizen, on his own were to do the deed; without state involvement, that would be a different issue with a different set of ethical concerns, IMO.

Your's under the legal oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Mark Beesley]

Nathair and BC, before you venture too far into this subject matter, I would suggest you do some research on the rules that govern war, and the differences that may occur between killing an enemy combatant, executing a war criminal, and due process rights afforded to common criminals. I have not done the research, but I think it would be rather strange if people now began to decry the order to kill or capture Osama bin Laden while at the same time remaining quiet on the indeterminate detention of Muslims at Guantanamo. It's all rather messy.

As for Napolitano, his employment with Faux News casts a shadow on his opinions.

[Calm]

If "peace" is the ideal (versus a righteous war), there would have been no war in heaven.

You really think that Heavenly Father preferred kicking a third part of his children out of their home because of their rebellion to having them stay because they willing choose to submit to his will? That he did not sorrow in this and other conflicts where there was anger and hate to the level of war?

Righteous peace is a higher "ideal" than "righteous war", therefore I don't see how "righteous war" can be some sort of ideal situation if that is what is meant by "ideal". If OTOH, "righteous war" is meant to be a standard we strive for when we contemplate responding to aggression with actions of war, I could see using the term that way as appropriate. We should strive to ensure that all of our responses to conflict, whether war or something less violent, are righteous and the more of responses that lead to peace and love between his children, the more joy for God and his family, imo.

[Skylla]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: There were already two warnings. Thread closed due to politics.

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff