RE: The Other Victims
John Paul the Great taught us that the torturer suffers more than the tortured. Both the IDF and the U.S. Armed Forces are now trying to deal with a constant stream of soldier suicides, attempted suicides and traumatized veterans, many of them women, who supported the mistreatment of prisoners.
Please pray for these other victims. The DAV is a great resource for aiding them. It is always looking for volunteers.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Until we get more information, it's hard to know what to make of the "more than 100 deaths" number, other than it's bad on any interpretation. But "the deaths of over 100 detainees in US custody" could potentially include those who came in with serious wounds which eventually killed them as well as inmate-on-inmate violence.
Howard:
Sadly all of the available evidence links the deaths to mistreatment - which means that there are probably hundreds more who were mistreated but survived; one of the reasons we have so many traumatized soldiers.
God bless
Richard W comerford
Um, while this is very wrong, it is still a ridiculously small number compared to previous wars. We should work hard to correct all abuses, but I think you are a little overboard on the waterboarding thing. Compared to other wars we did an amazing job making shure that non-combatants were not killed, treated prisoners far better than ever before, etc. I dare say that the American soldiers in this war acted more justly than in any war to date. Of course, that is with the caveat of what we know whent one. In every war there are hundreds of things that noone will ever know about. However, it is hard to have conversations about these things.
Blake,
I think I would challenge your perspective, if for no other reason than that the "conventional war" part of the Iraq invasion was over in, what, 2 weeks?
After that, the ratio of non-combatants to combatants killed is -- oh yeah, unknown, since no official estimates were released of civilian causalities. Just wagering a guess, though, I'd put it close to 1:1. Then there is the issue of those who were judged to be combatants because, hey, what would non-combatants be doing on the wrong side of a Predator drone attack?
Similarly, I'd be interested in the RATIO of deaths from mistreatment of prisoners to total prisoners taken in this war vs. previous wars.
The biggest issue to me is not the numbers, though, but the difference in mindset. The Bush administration talked a lot post 9/11 about "taking the kid gloves off". No matter how you slice it, that sends a clear message down the chain of command that abuse is OK.
Blake Helgoth:
The U.S. Government, as official policy, has condoned water boarding or water torture only twice: During the PI insurrection and GWOT. The victims in both cases were Muslims and during the PI insurrection also Catholics.
We did not torture Huns, Nazis, Japs or Commies. It should alarm Believers that the only two times the USA pursued a torture policy the victims were other Believers - to include Catholics.
And of course there is the matter of the other victims of torture: namely our own soldiers who support or engage in torture.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard,
"Sadly all of the available evidence links the deaths to mistreatment"
Wan't kind of evidence is there? This seems a very serious acusation of our soldiers. I have no evidence one way or the other except to have known many in the military. Based on that would give them the benefit of doubt. (A lot of benefit).
No. It's a very serious accusation of war criminals like Dick Cheney, who routinely confuse brutality with courage, order peons to do their dirty work, and then hide behind the respect due our troops to accuse critics of being un-American. This stuff was *policy*, dude, not the actions of "a few bad apples". And much of it was carried out by the CIA, not troops.
JamesD:
The link provided by Mr. Shea (which provides further links on this topic) make it clear that our own government admits to numerous instances of the mistreatment of prisoners leading to the the deaths of approximately 100 prisoners at the hands of American citizens.
Also the following may be of interest to you:
"It's wrong and it doesn't work", according to interrogation expert Stuart Herrington.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...ixzz0JuhMAU6I&
C
A retired Army Colonel, and professional interrogator, discusses this matter at length. He writes in part:
"I served 30 years in the U.S. Army as an intelligence officer, which included extensive experience as an interrogator in Vietnam, in Panama and during the 1991 Gulf War. In the course of these sensitive missions, my teams and I collected mountains of excellent, verified information, despite the fact that we never laid a hostile hand on a prisoner. Had one of my interrogators done so, he would have been disciplined and most likely relieved of his duties."
This is very similar to what we were taught back in the Dark Ages. I am constantly amazed at who are the opponents and proponents of torture and water boarding.
Again I beg prayers for the other victims of torture - namely the IDF and American soldiery who were involved in this very nasty business.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Gosh Mark, with the 4th of July fast approaching, how can you be so un-American by talking about bad things that our country has done? You must be part of that cabal of liberal media elitists who seek to undermine the soldiers and want terrorists to live among the US of A in order to plot their next act of blowing up innocent people.
Seriously though, we have engaged in a policy that most of the real experts (not arm chair generals) consider to be flawed and ineffective, a policy that destroys any and all moral authority and serves to make more people from around the world have a real good reason for hating us (remember that we were told that they hate us because of democracy a couple of years ago?) and likely puts any US soldier who gets captured in real danger.
ugh!
Everyone here seems to making a huge deal out of waterboarding and other torture carried out by the US. Why single out this particular hideous practice of the US? It seems that you too have joined the band-wagon started by the press to discredit the military and any use of force by the United States, ever (except to prevent baby seals from being killed maybe). We support mass sterilizations in South American countries in the name of population control (it is policy), we give counties like China most favored nation status and allow them to export their good to us although we know they are produced by slave labor, etc. Hey, and don't forget, we are the county that actually used the A-bomb. The press did not stir up this conversation because they cared about the Muslims we were torturing. They did it for political gain and because they think any use of force on anyone other than white male European decedents, for any reason, is intolerable. No matter what the offense! You are playing into their hands. Yes, it is wrong, but why not go after more heinous crimes?
Blake
Because it doesn't jive with the myth that we've all grown up with that we do not do these sorts of things. Your list is far from exhaustive (I know you already know that), but tell me when you can think of a time when a US leader (esp one as high ranking as the VP, and also the Pres) flat out said something as insane as it being okay to torture our enemies? We are supposed to be the virtuous city on the hill that fights against the evil powers that do torture people. Nowadays, we have a former VP condemning the current Pres for suggesting that torture is a bad policy! that is the thing...we all know deep down (for example) that some cops do torture people, but we like to pretend that they are a few bad apples. Now, one of our leading political parties seems to argue that it was okay to do so. That is the problem...in other words "we have met the enemy" by looking in the mirror at ourselves. a very cathartic event
Blake Helgoth:
"Everyone here seems to making a huge deal out of waterboarding and other torture carried out by the US."
It is not just everyone here. It is also teh U.S. Armed Forces. In 2006 the Department of Defense studied this matter and found "that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness".
The study is found here.
http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf
The Army then published a manual (AR 34-52) which reiterated the ban on torture.
Torture corrupts.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
@ Blake, "Hey, and don't forget, we are the county that actually used the A-bomb...."
And that kind of vitiates any American claim to be a sinless country, doesn't it.
When did the US ever claim to be a sinless country? Even the Puritans and Pilgrims were really, really big on days of penitence.
The thing you need to watch out for is not any claim of the US being sinless. Rather, it's people being extremely penitent about the next to last major US crime which they now would never do (it being out of fashion), while not recognizing what they're doing at the moment as any kind of sin.
Maureen
anytime anyone in the public spotlight condemns the USA for our sins, they are typically called anti-American or that they want the soldiers to lose the war or any other similar rant (Sean and Rush appear to be big on these things, of course not all conservatives feel this way, but that sorta of talk is what grabs the headlines)
Mark,
I share your basic views (I think) about the evil of torture. However, I don't think the sarcastic and snarky tone of your post is useful. I think it turns off people who are on the fence on this issue and might otherwise be persuaded by clear arguments. (It turns me off and I agree with you on every important point). Further, I don't think it arms people who already agree with you to better do battle because it doesn't give them those strong, persuasive arguments to use against those who would apologize for torture.
Sincerely,
Jeff
Jeff Sherman:
For several years I have watched Mr. Shea's comment boxes flood with fanatical proponents of preventative war, total war and torture. Almost all of these fanatics were anonymous. They also usually identified themselves as Republicans, Catholics and conservatives. The fanatics, as fanatics usually are, were imolite, arrogant and not open to discussion.
Mr. Shea tried to deal with them in various ways. Finally he became, in my opinion, somewhat brusque. When you have stood alone defending the Faith day in and day out for several years come back and tell em how sweet your responses still are.
And if you are offended by brusqueness in defense of Truth do not read the lives of the Saints.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard,
Catholic Just War doctrine does not eliminate preventative war as an option. Maybe, instead of getting so irritated with an opposing view, you should consider the actual teaching of the Church. Just because someone considers preemptive war in line with Catholic doctrine, that does not make them a fanatic. However, by using the word fanatic, it is easy to make people believe that those that hold that opinion are idiots.
If a man storms out of his office with a gun you are reasonably convinced that he intends to kill his neighbor, you have a moral obligation to take whatever means are necessary to preempt his attack.
Also, for all those who think force and weapons are contrary to the Gospel, the Apostles carried swords, presumable to use. Christ never told them it was wrong. Turn the other cheek simple does not apply when one neighbor is being attacked, only when you are the one being attacked.
Blake Helgoth:
"Catholic Just War doctrine does not eliminate preventative war as an option."
This is the age of Mr. Google Mr. Google had thsi to say relative to USCCB writing to Secretary Rice:
"The Catholic Church teaches:
“[E]ngaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise
serious moral and juridical questions.” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no.
501)" See: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archiv...07/07-
181.shtml
"If a man storms out of his office with a gun you are reasonably convinced that he intends to kill his neighbor, you have a moral obligation to take whatever means are necessary to preempt his attack."
No. I used to serve on a SRT. This was a common scenario. This is also Police Academy stuff 101. (It is further a common tactic used by scumbag divorce lawyers)
You cannot read someone's mind. In any mid size police department's jurisdiction their will be literally thousands of people who are lawfully entitled to own and carry a firearm. On any given day some of these folks are going to be angry, upset and unhappy. Just because an allegedly angry person, allegedly in possession, of a firearm leaves work early, allegedly in a huff does not justify the use of any level of force particularly deadly force.
"Also, for all those who think force and weapons are contrary to the Gospel, the Apostles carried swords, presumable to use."
Bad argument. Read the Gospels first. Then read the history of Christians bearing arms from the time of Christ (Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and later St. Paul seemed to have a particular fondness for soldiers and prostitutes.)to the Reformation.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard,
1) In case you are unaware, the USCCB hardly has the authority to declare doctrine. The charism and authority of the office of a bishop was given to individual bishops, not national conferences. So, saying the USCCB says, proves nothing. Even if a bishop teaches something, it proves nothing except that those in his diocese are bond to follow this teaching. Unless the bishops teach in union with the pope, it is not guaranteed to be infallible.
2) If you read what I said, and I chose my words very carefully, you would realize that I said 'you are reasonably convinced that he intends to kill his neighbor', not, 'allegedly angry person, allegedly in possession, of a firearm leaves work early, allegedly in a huff does not justify the use of any level of force particularly deadly force.' Whatever mean necessary does not mean that deadly force must be used, only that it can be if all other option are exhausted, one being attempting to get the police involved. Also, one needs to be careful not to confuse public law with catholic morality.
3) The problem with the war in Iraq was not the use of deadly force, but the lack of a plan for restoring peace after the fact. (See George Weigel's article - http://www.firstthings.com/artic...nd-iraq-wars-
36
4) Are you saying that the tradition of the Church is against Catholic soldiers? Read your history. Maybe you could start with the Battle of Lepanto.
Blake Helgoth:
"In case you are unaware, the USCCB hardly has the authority to declare doctrine."
Read the article. It cites the Universal Church's Social Compendium.
"If you read what I said, and I chose my words very carefully, you would realize that I said 'you are reasonably convinced that he intends to kill his neighbor"
I did read it. Your scenario is never, never land. Neither law enforcement nor military can read minds. The guy on the ground with the gun can never be "reasonably convinced". Too many variables.
"The problem with the war in Iraq was not the use of deadly force, but the lack of a plan for restoring peace after the fact"
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01. Meanwhile the bad guys, who did have something to do with 9/11/01, are on the offensive in Afghanistan. Eight years after UBL is still at large. Mr. Weigel is a theologian - not a soldier. He does not know what he is talking about.
"Are you saying that the tradition of the Church is against Catholic soldiers? Read your history."
No. Start with the Gospels. As I posted above: "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and later St. Paul seemed to have a particular fondness for soldiers and prostitutes." The Centurions mentioned in the Gospels are soldiers.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Ok, for one, the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE does not have the authority to declare something doctrine and does not have the charism of infallibility either.
For two, you are not a theologian, are not willing to enter into theological thought and refuse to have an intellectual conversation, so I am done. There is no arguing with emotions.
Blake Helgoth:
"Ok, for one, the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE does not have the authority to declare something doctrine and does not have the charism of infallibility"
No. Wrong again. You should actually read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. It is not an assembly of "the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE" teachings. Rather, it is an assembly of the teachings of Popes and Councils from over 2,000 years on the issue of Social Justice. From the Introduction:
"Continuing to expound and update the rich patrimony of Catholic social doctrine, Pope John Paul II has for his part published three great Encyclicals — Laborem Exercens, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis and Centesimus Annus — that represent fundamental stages of Catholic thought in this area. For their part, numerous Bishops in every part of the world have contributed in recent times to a deeper understanding of the Church's social doctrine. Numerous scholars on every continent have done the same.
1. It was therefore hoped that a compendium of all this material should be compiled, systematically presenting the foundations of Catholic social doctrine."
"you are not a theologian"
Thank God.
"are not willing to enter into theological thought"
That is right. I am merely citing the clear and constant teachings of the Church on these matters; and, as a free bonus, throwing in a few common sense observations from an old soldier.
"and refuse to have an intellectual conversation,"
Kinda hard to argue with the clear and constant teachings of the Church.
"so I am done".
Thank God again.
"There is no arguing with emotions."
I agree. You are very emotional. You should not get all wound up about preventative war.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford,
1) George Wiegle is not the one who does not know what he is talking about.
2) In the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, it does not rule out preventative war. Maybe you should read it again. Also, it is not a collection, but an interpretation that sometimes sites quotes.
3) At the time the decision was made to go to war the best info. that the president - the only one with all the info. to decided if war was just or not - made it appear that Iraq was preparing to strike. It the Church had declared it a just war, the chaplains would have been forbidden to administer the sacraments to combatants. Cleary, this never took place.
-Just to clear up any confusion you may have caused anyone.
Blake Helgoth:
"George Wiegle is not the one who does not know what he is talking about."
No, but the Army Chief of Staff does. Prior to the invasion the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army told SECDEF Rumsfeld and POTUS that the Army simply did not have enough soldiers to invade and pacify Iraq. They warned that if the USA went ahead and invaded we would be in Iraq for years. SECDEF fired them.
SECDEF then decided to invade principally with just 3-Divisions: 4th ID, 3rd ID and 1 MAR. Then Turkey decided not to allow 4th ID to transit. That meant the USA was down to two heavy divisions. Also the 3rd ID had only about 700 infantry dismounts (full strength) in its Bradleys. The US was now committed to a slow, cumbersome, road bound invasion, dragging a huge logistical tail behind it. This is an ideal situation for an insurgency to take root - and it did.
In these matters the Chief of Staff of the Army knows what he is talking about. Mr. Wiegel does not.
"Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, it does not rule out preventative war. Maybe you should read it again. Also, it is not a collection, but an interpretation that sometimes sites quotes."
Each point of the Compendium cites The teaching of a Pope or a Council. In this case: "John Paul II, Message for the 2004 World Day of Peace, 6: AAS 96 (2004), 117." wherein the Supreme Pontiff teaches on the necessity and proportionality of just war. There was no necessity or proportionality in the invasion of Iraq.
"At the time the decision was made to go to war the best info. that the president - the only one with all the info."
No. The Secretary of the Army and Army Chief of Staff advised against invasion. SECDEF Rumsfeld fired them.
"made it appear that Iraq was preparing to strike"
Strike who? Iraq did not have a functioning Army, Navy of Air Force or weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01.
"It the Church had declared it a just war, the chaplains would have been forbidden to administer the sacraments to combatants. Cleary, this never took place."
Clearly you are confused.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Well...well...well. It certainly looks like you've been given a gift and you're having a bit of fun on this particular thread Richard.
IMO, it's clearly no contest.
Well, enjoy it my friend... but if at all possible, try to remember that most of us were all young, naive, and headstrong at one time or another.
So teach and have fun... but don't forget to keep the gloves on! 
LOL
.
ED:
It is not I. It is Mr. Google. It is no longer possible to argue about what the Church teaches regarding faith and morals anymore. It is all there at our fingertips.
However conservative Catholics - when it comes to things like torture and war; and liberal Catholics - when it comes to things like abortion and sodomy, seem to loose their keyboards.
Only us pre-industrial age dinosaurs seem able to hold on to our keyboards.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
just for the record, both Benedict and JPII roundly condemned the war on Iraq before and after it started.
I wonder, do they speak for the Church?
Dale:
"I wonder, do they speak for the Church?"
Clearly only Mr. Shea speaks for the Church.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard,
lol The wise Mr Shea...he is like the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. Does that make him a freemason?
pax
"Only us pre-industrial age dinosaurs seem able to hold on to our keyboards."
Well, Richard -- from one dinosaur to another -- IMO, history will sadly show that *ALL* of America's 'modern' problems can be entirely blamed on those no-good NY Yankees and all their silly fans.
Sad... but true!
.
Dale:
Mr. Shea, of course, is not a True Catholic (TM). He is a convert (like that other pesky fellow St. Paul). Therefore there may well be a DaVinci Code type connection between Mr. Shea and the Masons.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Therefore there may well be a DaVinci Code type connection between Mr. Shea and the Masons."
Well, I hate to pass rumors, but a close friend told me that his sister's husband told him that his oldest uncle told him that a close friend told him that his very own mother told him that her distant cousin actually told her that someone very high-up in the government confidentially told her that Shea might be a 98.6 degree Mason.
FYI... a 98.6 degree Mason is very rare to find in the Northwest!
.
FYI - JP II and B XVI may have been critical of the war, but neither declared it an unjust war.
http://www.firstthings.com/artic...-then--now---
27
Blake Helgoth:
"FYI - JP II and B XVI may have been critical of the war, but neither declared it an unjust war"
And?
When was the last time a Pope declared a war unjust?
Did Pius XII when: Japan invaded China, Russia invaded Finland,Germany and Russia invaded Poland, Germany invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Noway (and everywhere else), Japan invaded Indochina, Indonesia, Burma (and everywhere else) declare any of these wars unjust?
When was the last time that a Pope actually declared a war unjust?
Mr. Weigel, in his famous articledated April 2006 wrote: "The debates before and after the brief ground-combat phase of the war"...which have been broached since the ground-combat phase of the war ended" but "ground combat is still going on more than 3-years later,
Last week we buried an old comrade, with 30-years service, who died from burns suffered over 80% of his body when his vehicle was hit by an IED in Iraq.
Did Mr. Weigel ever go in harms way for the USA? Did he ever wear a uniform? Who is he to pontificate about "ground combat".
More importantly did Mr. Weigel, even once in his lengthy article, deign to cite or quote the teachings of John Paul the Great on this matter?
So who are we Catholics supposed to listen to? The teachings of the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, the Successor to Peter; or the ramblings of a policy wonk; a cheer leader for war, who has never gone to war himself?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
RE: CARITAS IN VERITATE
The new Encyclical Letter was released today. No. 47 read in part:
"The fact that some States, power groups and companies hoard non-renewable energy resources represents a grave obstacle to development in poor countries. Those countries lack the economic means either to gain access to existing sources of non-renewable energy or to finance research into new alternatives. The stockpiling of natural resources, which in many cases are found in the poor countries themselves, gives rise to exploitation and frequent conflicts between and within nations. These conflicts are often fought on the soil of those same countries, with a heavy toll of death, destruction and further decay. The international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future."
Mr. Weigel argues, in part, as his justification for the invasion of Iraq, essentially, that the Saddam government was an evil government. That may very well be. However there are many evil governments in the world. Some far more brutal than Saddam's. (Our government, for instance, murders about 4,000 of its citizens a day in their mothers' womb.)
However Mr. Weigel did not touch upon the 800 pound guerrilla in the room - oil. What the Holy Father called a: "non-renewable energy resource".
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Well, Richard... obviously this thread is NOT meant to end on a light and humorous note.
Perhaps (?) that is truly fitting considering the subject matter.
Sorry to hear about your old comrade...
In any case... it's astonishing to me that this subject (whether the Iraq War was just or not) is *still* even being debated on Catholic sites today.
IMO... anyone still trying to justify the antics of the previous Bush Administration must have been in a coma over the last several years or is, unfortunately, just not playing with a 'full deck'.
I *do* admire your continued patience to keep r-e-p-e-a-t-i-n-g the same facts over-and-over to every poster who bothers to make such silly and/or asinine claims and statements... but have you ever seriously thought of just ignoring many of these fools to just stop them from continuing to push your obvious *immediate* response buttons?
Let's face it... if they haven't gotten it by now Richard, it will take much more than a few statements on a blog to change their minds. Don't you think?
Please don't misunderstand my point.
I sincerely respect your position and viewpoint... but I'm wondering (since it must take so-o-o much of your personal time) if you should continue to allow these complete strangers (who may not be serious) the POWER to continually push your buttons on the *same* subjects over-and-over-and-over again?
Perhaps your wife, family, and/or friends deserve a bit more of your personal time than these idiots?
Just a thought from my heart... hope it doesn't offend you brother!
Take care and God Bless!
.
ED:
The Gospel never changes. It has to be preached. The good news must be spread. Even we lay people must preach it. We must pass it it faithfully. In effect a follower of Jesus Christ will from time to time sound like a broken record.
If I can convert one soul it is worth the effort. If I can save one young solider from the horror of supporting the mistreatment of a prisoner it is worth the effort.
And it is not much effort. If I am not on the road I sit here and work cases. It is a little break from work.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Thanks for your response Richard.
Obviously, you feel compelled to do what you are presently doing in the manner in which you are doing it. Amen... so be it!
May God grant you the strength, courage, and wisdom to always *recognize* and *do* only His will.
God Bless
.
ED,
God bless you man, but calling those with perfectly orthodox views, just because they differ than your own, fools, or that they are not playing with a full deck just shows the maturity we dealing with here. Why not try arguing some facts.
Richard finally brought up some facts that caused me to change my point of view a little when he asked when the last time a pope declared a war unjust. I had not taken that into consideration up to this point. That is why we have these conversations, so that we can come to a better understanding, not to try and ram our point of view down someone's throat or to belittle them with silly names.
"Why not try arguing some facts."
#1) Why should I spend my time teaching you Blake?
It's already obvious how you childishly respond when you don't agree, understand, or like the tone of a comment.
For example, here's your recent reply to Richard who was obviously being *very* charitable to take the time to teach and babysit you:
"...you are not a theologian, are not willing to enter into theological thought and refuse to have an intellectual conversation, so I am done. There is no arguing with emotions."
Frankly, Blake, I don't have the time to spend babysitting immature and spoiled brats.
#2) FYI... unlike Richard... I have very *little* patience with adults who stubbornly and foolishly STILL place more value in the opinions of a George Weigel than in the opinions of JPII and/or B16 after this many years... and... after so-o-o-o much needless bloodshed.
Yes... I honestly believe they are fools!
I pray for them... but I don't spend a great deal of my time babysitting them. That's why, IMO, you should drop to your knees and thank God for people like Richard who have the time and patience to deal with you.
Take care my friend.
.
Ed,
More people were needless killed in the state of New York last year than in the war, why not get worked up about that?
So if I go out and open fire into a crowd of people, there is no moral problem with that as long as the death toll does not exceed the number of traffic fatalities in NY last year?
Good to know!
To: Blake
From: Mark Twain
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."
.
Blake Helgoth:
"More people were needless killed in the state of New York last year than in the war, why not get worked up about that?"
One of the many sad things about insurgencies is that no one knows how many people have been killed. The insurgents hide their looses. They, and their allies, also try to inflate the number of innocents killed by the counter-insurgents.
On the other hand the counter insurgents try to hide the existence (and casualties) of certain specialist units (I believe now referred to as "black" units)and inflate the number of insurgents killed.
It is unpleasant business all around.
A single immortal is worth the entire created universe. War, and the taking of human life, impacts on the eventual destiny of the immortal soul - heaven or hell, for all eternity.
We, as citizens, have a moral responsibility to varying extents, when our soldiery goes to war. If our soldiery are exposed to unnecessary dangers, or hardships, or are denied medical care and pay,or commit murder, torture, rape or theft we are to a certain degree responsible.
If we ignore the war deaths (and threats to the immortal souls of our soldiery) from the GWOT we place our own immortal souls in danger.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Ed,
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
-name calling does not an argument make.
"A path to life is his who heeds admonition, but he who disregards reproof goes astray." -- (Proverbs 10:17)
.
Blake,
Imagine JP the Great or B16 or the Little Flower trying to make their points about Catholic teaching in the manner that some on this site displayed towards you. It would never happen. Passionate, yes. Belittling, no. They would follow the Gospel about doing unto others. Anything, even violating our Lord's words, can be justified if the cause is great enough or the motives righteous. Ole Satan is laughing himself silly. There is a great book to read called "The Hidden Power of Kindness" -- I need it; you need it, lest we both get snookered by Satan. God bless.
"He who winks at a fault causes trouble, but he who frankly reproves promotes peace." -- (Proverbs 10:10)
.
10 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
