• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hamas Continues to Use Gaza's Residents as Human Shields

Simon W. Moon said:
Almost 2 millennia of history behind just war theory isn't enough for it to be a part of traditional values anymore?
Click to expand...




***yawn***


Tell me what is "just war theory" to you and what is not "just" about Isael defending herself against years of rocket attacks?
 
Proportionality is a long-established principle underpinning the Laws of War. The concept is a narrow one that strictly concerns protections for civilians. The applicable principle states, "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Proportionality means that expected civilian casualties are not excessive relative to the anticipted military advantage from attacking a military objective.

Proportionality does not mean that a country cannot use overwhelming force to counter aggression. It does not rule out military doctrines such as the Powell Doctrine. It only concerns civilians protections. Therefore, Israel is not acting in a "disproportionate" manner by using air, land, and naval forces to combat Hamas' rockets.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Proportionality is a long-established principle underpinning the Laws of War. The concept is a narrow one that strictly concerns protections for civilians. The applicable principle states, "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Proportionality means that expected civilian casualties are not excessive relative to the anticipted military advantage from attacking a military objective.

Proportionality does not mean that a country cannot use overwhelming force to counter aggression. It does not rule out military doctrines such as the Powell Doctrine. It only concerns civilians protections. Therefore, Israel is not acting in a "disproportionate" manner by using air, land, and naval forces to combat Hamas' rockets.
Click to expand...

Military advantage = not destroying Hamas & increasing extremism = 0
Civilian casualties = around 175 so far

175 > 0
 
donsutherland1 said:
Proportionality is a long-established principle underpinning the Laws of War. The concept is a narrow one that strictly concerns protections for civilians. The applicable principle states, "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Proportionality means that expected civilian casualties are not excessive relative to the anticipted military advantage from attacking a military objective.

Proportionality does not mean that a country cannot use overwhelming force to counter aggression. It does not rule out military doctrines such as the Powell Doctrine. It only concerns civilians protections. Therefore, Israel is not acting in a "disproportionate" manner by using air, land, and naval forces to combat Hamas' rockets.
Click to expand...

Instead of proportionality relevance to war perhaps we should be discussing Israeli's anticipated military advantage.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Tell me what is "just war theory" to you
Click to expand...
There are very many resources out there that cover it much better than I could.
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
..and what is not "just" about Isael defending herself against years of rocket attacks?
Click to expand...
Sometime after I make the assertion that national self defense is not just, I'll explain it. Until I make such a claim, I'll refrain from offering any explanation.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
***yawn***


Tell me what is "just war theory" to you and what is not "just" about Isael defending herself against years of rocket attacks?
Click to expand...
RH,

You're going up against the best debater DP has ever seen.
 
To the concept of just war

St. Thomas Aquinas The Summa Theologica XIIIth century.

Of War:
St. Thomas Aquinas, On War


"We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."




Still stands all corect, as it is based on teaching of the Bible, but not on ideas of some smart men, who has decided that they are smart.

How one can put it in a better way, however smart one is?
 
Last edited:
"There were young knights among them who had never been present at a stricken field. Some could not look upon it and some could not speak and they held themselves apart from the others who were cutting down the prisoners at My Lord's orders, for the prisoners were a body too numerous to be guarded by those of us who were left.

Then Jean de Rye, an aged knight of Burgundy who had been sore wounded in the battle, rode up to the group of young knights and said: 'Are ye maidens with your downcast eyes? Look well upon it. See all of it. Close your eyes to nothing. For a battle is fought to be won. And it is this that happens if you lose."

-passage from the 14th-century Froissart’s Chronicles
 
Blaise Pascal - "Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?"

Douglas MacArthur - "I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a method of settling international disputes."

Anyone can quote someone else.
 
"Whereas what we have here? A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary." - Walter Sobchak


I just wanted to get into the whole Quoting people thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom