You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

'Just' wars


A split from the Mohummed cartoon thread.

The idea that to be threatened with death is an act of aggression for which you should be able to defend yourself, on an individual scale and a wider scale.

There are not many valid justifications for violence, but self-defence in the face of unjustified threat is unquestionably one. If someone is threatening to kill you for no good reason, then you are well within your rights to fight back tooth and nail - even to the point of killing the aggressor. i don't think anyone can deny that logic.

On a grander scale, if a large body of Muslims were saying they wanted to kill me - for no good reason (ie, the drawings i've done) - and if i really believed them, then wouldn't i be morally justified in attacking first? In other words, if a gang of angry Muslims started screaming that they were going to kill me... wouldn't i be justified in killing them first (assuming that the police couldn't do anything to stop them, which they often would not be able to)?

And Indi, I think you are right, really, about forfitting your life... it is an obvious act of aggression, and on a wider scale, if you say all gay people should be hung, it is essentially an act of war against all gay people for example, and on a personal level if you truely believe someone threatening your life, I think you would be within morals to protect yourself, even by your own aggresion.

Well, I'm hesitant to adopt it for the reason that this seems to me to be exactly what the US did post 9/11. Bush assumed the right to attack anyone who threatened the US - and do it 'pre-emptively'.
Certainly Afghans and Iraqis threatened US citizens routinely, so if we accept the proposition it seems we must accept 'pre-emptive war'.....

And I am going to move my inital answer to this in the next post.
I think... okay... my philosophy here is not set in concrete...


If a gay person was on their way to be hung in Iran, say, and they stabbed and killed a captor, that is moral. If a gay person was not on their way to be hung, but instead knew someone was about to 'out' them, and killed them, this would also be self-defense under this regime.

Does a gay person in Iran have a moral right to stab and kill any person they know to support their death? Hmmm.. I don't know. Probably. I think so.

Does a gay person in Iran have a moral right to stab and kill any Muslim person in Iran. No, I would say definately not.

When it comes to countries at war it gets even muddier. (And muddier still when we are talking about a dictatorhip). For a start it is inevitable that 'innocent' people are going to get killed. Also people for whom may change their choices if they have an education and opportunities.

If we look at the current situation, this idea does not apply. After 911 we went to war, with several excuses.

One was that Iraq had WMD. Which was a lie. But possibly if you are threatened with serious mass anilation, that is cause for a pre-emptive attack. But like I said, it was a lie.

Another was that Afghanistan was 'harbouring' terrorists. That doesn't hold any sway with me. Going to war with a country because in that country there are a few people who threatened the US, and they upheld their soveraign right to choose not to prosecute them...well...

If England chooses to 'harbour' Julian Assange I fully support them and furthermore acknowledge that England is at present more honourable than my, and Julian's, own country. Julian has not committed any violence but has been accused of all sorts of things, including being a terrorist.

What would have happened if we actually did go to war with Afghanistan with the true purpose of liberating the women? For a start, the place of women in Afghanistan would be a whole lot better than it is now.

I guess I generally don't like war unless one country is literally threatening the other, with either violence, or conditional violence (eg become an Islamic country or else...)

But then what do you do about the real terrorist threat? After all these years, I am still uncomfortable with my position, which is why I have stopped talking about it in general.

The wars don't work, were never going to work, to stop terrorism, and have a whole heap of disgusting side effects, such as dead innocents.

The only thing that could ever have worked was an approach based on lifting these countries out of their educational and physical poverty, hearts and minds 100%, and higher security. But really, how can you do that anyway without breaking their soveriegnty if they don't want to educate women, ie you have to go to war to get that anyway...

You can wait and support rebels aka Libya.

Bah, even getting my thoughts down makes no coherent sense.

Then again, in what sense can you claim that hanging gay people is not an act of war, or at least, aggression, towards gay people?

Or athiests? Or Christians? Or women?
I think I would go check the legal aspects first before doing something irrational like taking a violent course; instead I'll let the authorities handle it.

For example, if a person has expressed his desire for my death or death for people like me, then I might check for example 'conspiracy to commit murder', death threat, terrorist threat, or something. This is if a person lives in the same state. If it's a group of people against a state or the constitution, then it's act of rebellion. For example if a group of homophobes armed themselves with the intention to kill homosexuals(who are protected by the constitution) then maybe it's an act of rebellion I guess? or is it sedition Question (obviously I'm a moron when it comes to laws and politics lol)

If a person or group of persons who expressed desire for death to a particular person or group of persons, lives from a different state, your state should maybe call it 'persona non grata' or maybe terrorist threat, I dunno. And I would not plan to go to that country or my country should provide travel advisory against their country.

If it is between states, then international laws should be checked. If one declares war then it's war but hopefully they leave civilians out of it.

My point is maybe we should just act like civilized human beings and not act like barbaric people.

If you're asking what is moral, then it's a different story.
I think it would depend which is dangerous, which has the upperhand, and what is imminent. And in some situations, it's better to run away than meet the worst case scenario where neither person's decision is moral or immoral but either you or the other person is dead. That's why we have laws to prevent this kind of conflicts and resolve the issue before everything gets bloody hell and let authorized people to enforce the law; this way, risking the abused party's life is prevented. In the case of war between states, we have international laws, security, and peacekeeping. For example, is it moral for a country to go after terrorists from a different country? If that country is authorized/bound under international laws to do so, then it's the same question as whether it is moral for policemen to point a gun on criminals or on people harboring them.
@Hello_World. The discussion so far does not make sense to me, looks more like a philosophical discussion. Can you give us a short paragraph of exactly what you would like to discuss from a political point of view?
Related topics
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith leaked online
Favorite Star Wars Character
Favorite Star Wars Movie
Star Wars - Revenge of the siths
Star Wars Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi (Spoilers)
Star Wars III, The revange of the Siths
Store Wars
Whats your favorites movie series?
What is your favourite Star Wars game?
Buying pimp wars Style script
Star Wars 3 Revenge of the Sith
war never solves anything.. except
Any Star Wars fans here?
Star Wars vs Star Trek!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.