Supporting The Troops Is Supporting The War

[joebudda]

Joe,
Can you answer my question? I think it is important to the discussion.

Lisa

What question would that be?
Your death penalty/abortion question? If so you are wrong and has no relevance to this discussion other then you attempting to shift its focus. That supporting the troops and not supporting the war is hypocrisy.

 

[Psalms34]

Why the need to make stuff up to justify it?

Any justification is just an opinion to condone the killing of others.

I personally believe that opinions are not as important the the lives of individuals.

But who is killing whom? If you are referring to Iraq, how many died yesterday? I think it was 40? Was it a US soldier that killed the 40? No. It was a Shiite suicide bomber randomly murdering people in their civil war. Who are the US soldiers killing? Could it be the people that are instigating such acts of killing/murdering civilians? But it seems that does not factor into the equation, it’s still considered the US to be at fault. If the US is there or not, there will still be killing, and probably even more so, we just won’t hear about it because the media will loose interest in reporting it if the US were not there and an easy target for blame.

I’m not into the karma thing, not even as a joke. I do believe in rule of law however, and that justice can be divinely implemented by God the creator. That if God wishes, He can show mercy to whom he chooses, and also that he can inflict swift justice to those He feels it is due, by what ever instrument he decides on carrying out that judgment with, even using US troops for instance. I am not saying that is definitely the case, but that He could use US troops to carry out justice, as He could use troops of other nations to carry out justice, and has I’m sure.

 

[Lisa0315]

What question would that be?
Your death penalty/abortion question? If so you are wrong and has no relevance to this discussion other then you attempting to shift its focus. That supporting the troops and not supporting the war is hypocrisy.

No, it is quite relevant as I am trying to ascertain whether it is just the troops you disdain, or if you consider taking life in any form, murder, and abhorant. You see, you have called most of us hypocrites, and I would like to see if you are also.

Lisa

 

[JoshuaW]

I support the actions of individuals (our troops) that lead to the death of other individulas in this war. If those individuals don't want to be dead, they can cease the insurgency and participate in the new government of Iraq in a peaceful manner. Otherwise, I support having our troops introduce them to dying

And what if participating in the new government is not an option because of religious or tribal animosity? Perhaps the only option left is to rise up against the government, as our founding fathers decreed to be the final jusifiable resort of political change.

 

[joebudda]

But who is killing whom? If you are referring to Iraq, how many died yesterday? I think it was 40? Was it a US soldier that killed the 40? No. It was a Shiite suicide bomber randomly murdering people in their civil war. Who are the US soldiers killing? Could it be the people that are instigating such acts of killing/murdering civilians? But it seems that does not factor into the equation, it’s still considered the US to be at fault. If the US is there or not, there will still be killing, and probably even more so, we just won’t hear about it because the media will loose interest in reporting it if the US were not there and an easy target for blame.

It seems you are attempting to put individuals into groups in order to justify individuals forcing their will onto others.

I’m not into the karma thing,

Me neither. I don't believe in magic.

I do believe in rule of law however, and that justice can be divinely implemented by God the creator.

Well I think you are deluded then. There is no reason to assume there is such a thing.

That if God wishes, He can show mercy to whom he chooses, and also that he can inflict swift justice to those He feels it is due, by what ever instrument he decides on carrying out that judgment with, even using US troops for instance. I am not saying that is definitely the case, but that He could use US troops to carry out justice, as He could use troops of other nations to carry out justice, and has I’m sure.

Well I think this is just superstitious nonsense.

 

[joebudda]

No, it is quite relevant as I am trying to ascertain whether it is just the troops you disdain, or if you consider taking life in any form, murder, and abhorant. You see, you have called most of us hypocrites, and I would like to see if you are also.

Lisa

Where have I shown any such disdain? I think maybe you have an overactive imagination.

And you are simply wrong to assume it has any barring on this conversation.

And it is being a hypocrite to "support the troops and not the war". I think I have explained why well enough, or do you need me to explain it for you again? If so maybe you can let me know what you are confused about?

 

[MachZer0]

So now you justify it (your opinion) by blaming the death of individuals on the individuals themselves for being there.

That's generally they way things work. For instance, when we execute someone for committing a murder, his death is his own fault for committing the murder in the first place. If you rise up in an insurgency killing innocent civilians as your method, your death is your own fault

This is collectivism at it finest. Not only do you group these 90,000 civilians out of their identity but you also blame them for falling into this collective you created for them.

Sorry, but the 90,000 deaths are not attributable to our troops. Nice strawman though

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

But who is killing whom? If you are referring to Iraq, how many died yesterday? I think it was 40? Was it a US soldier that killed the 40? No. It was a Shiite suicide bomber randomly murdering people in their civil war.

That must have been a misprint. One law of CF is that Muslims and Islam cannot be held responsible for anything, no matter what the evidence is against them.

So those 40 people were actually killed by the Mossad, by the Freemasons, or by the Reptiloids. And it's all America's fault, of course. Everything is America's fault, because prior to 1776 the world was a paradise where no one ever got hurt.

 

[MachZer0]

And what if participating in the new government is not an option because of religious or tribal animosity? Perhaps the only option left is to rise up against the government, as our founding fathers decreed to be the final jusifiable resort of political change.

Which is not the case of course, but another nice strawman. By the way, our founding fathers didn't kill their fellow countrymen as a means of revolution

 

[Psalms34]

Well I think you are deluded then. There is no reason to assume there is such a thing.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

Well I think this is just superstitious nonsense.

Well I have no interest in "superstition" either. Logic prevails. Fulfilled prophecy is logical and gives credibility to the whole of scripture. Thus Romans 13 is quite relevant and not of "superstition" but from a proven source.

 

[NeverClever]

So supporting the “troops” is supporting the war. If someone supports these individuals killing other individuals they are supporting the killing of individuals, ergo supporting the war. To attempt to justify it boils down to hypocrisy.

This logic is sound, if you labor under the illusion that the only role of a Solider is that of killing.

 

[joebudda]

That's generally they way things work. For instance, when we execute someone for committing a murder, his death is his own fault for committing the murder in the first place. If you rise up in an insurgency killing innocent civilians as your method, your death is your own fault

It is the individuals action that murdered, but if he is put to death it is because some other individuals decided he no longer has individual rights.

I am not saying that there should or shouldn't be consequences for such behavior. But lets see it for what it is. Individuals forcing their opinion that he no longer has a "right to life".

An why should the individuals who are our "troops" who end up taking the lives of other individuals immune from such "consequences" for their action? I smell hypocrisy in this scenario as well.

Sorry, but the 90,000 deaths are not attributable to our troops. Nice strawman though

It is not a strawman because these deaths are a result of individuals actions which create war. And many of those individuals that lost their lives were a direct result of "American troops" actions. The point is their lives were taken from them without their consent because some individuals thought that their lives were worth less then some opinion.

 

[joebudda]

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

I can quote you from Harry potter if you would like. I admit fantasy is fun, but it isn't reality.

Well I have no interest in "superstition" either. Logic prevails. Fulfilled prophecy is logical and gives credibility to the whole of scripture. Thus Romans 13 is quite relevant and not of "superstition" but from a proven source.

If you believe that your perticular god intervenes yet can't not support its existence then it is superstition. Just like breaking a mirror equating to bad luck is.

 

[joebudda]

This logic is sound, if you labor under the illusion that the only role of a Solider is that of killing.

What other reason are they over there other then to create war?

 

[NeverClever]

What other reason are they over there other then to create war?

Given how flexiible that word is, how do you define war for this discussion?

 

[MachZer0]

It is the individuals action that murdered, but if he is put to death it is because some other individuals decided he no longer has individual rights.

And had he not murdered someone, then he wouldn't have been executed. thus, he brought about his own demise

I am not saying that there should or shouldn't be consequences for such behavior. But lets see it for what it is. Individuals forcing their opinion that he no longer has a "right to life".

And I'm good with that. If a dude sets off a bomb in a crowded shopping area and kills a bunch of people (just one example) I for one support our troops in determining that he no longer has a right to life

An why should the individuals who are our "troops" who end up taking the lives of other individuals immune from such "consequences" for their action? I smell hypocrisy in this scenario as well.

No hypocrisy. they're immune because we sent them there to end those individuals' lives. They're doing our bidding, and doing it well

It is not a strawman because these deaths are a result of individuals actions which create war. And many of those individuals that lost their lives were a direct result of "American troops" actions. The point is their lives were taken from them without their consent because some individuals thought that their lives were worth less then some opinion.

Some did lose their lives accidentally by the direct actions of our troops. that is a consequence of war. Most, however, did not lose their lives as a direct action of our troops but rather as a direct action of the insurgents. And because of that, I support our troops in removing the right to life from those insurgents.

 

[Lisa0315]

Where have I shown any such disdain? I think maybe you have an overactive imagination.

And you are simply wrong to assume it has any barring on this conversation.

And it is being a hypocrite to "support the troops and not the war". I think I have explained why well enough, or do you need me to explain it for you again? If so maybe you can let me know what you are confused about?

I don't need anything from you except that you stop dodging the questions that I have posed. If you make a claim that all killing is wrong, then, you should have no problem voicing your position on abortion and capital punishment. A true pacifist would be very passionate about all the preservation of all life. Why aren't you?

Lisa

 

[joebudda]

Given how flexiible that word is, how do you define war for this discussion?

War is a collective concept of individuals forcing their will onto others using violence in attempts to control other individuals.

Or you can use the dictionary definition.
http://www.tfd.com/war

I don't see how we define it changing the facts and results of war.

 

[CCGirl]

It seems many people here do not understand the concept of not supporting the warriors, the war makers. It isnt even a relevant issue here.

 

[joebudda]

I don't need anything from you except that you stop dodging the questions that I have posed. If you make a claim that all killing is wrong, then, you should have no problem voicing your position on abortion and capital punishment. A true pacifist would be very passionate about all the preservation of all life. Why aren't you?

Lisa

I am not dodging anything that has baring to this discussion. You seem to just trying to shift its focus.

The discussion being people are hypocrites that claim they support the troop but not the war.

If you wish to have such a discussion then please start your own thread. But don't expect me to take part in it. I find it to be disingenuous of you to try to change the topic as you are attempting to do.