[Potemkin]

No , war is not a free for all , where anything goes . There are rules of conduct , pertinent to just war theory .

https://www.usna.edu/CoreEthics/Orend_Just_Conduct_in_War

https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/

Interesting. Where does nuking cities fit in with that ‘just war theory’? Asking for a friend.

[wat0n]

Is Just War Theory just the warfare version of Natural Law?

[Potemkin]

Is Just War Theory just the warfare version of Natural Law?

Looks like it. Lol.

[wat0n]

Looks like it. Lol.

Well, I think so too. Both are basically wish lists (not a bad thing, IMO), needing recognition and the right material conditions for actual implementation.

[QatzelOk]

...mass rapists...

By keeping sex crimes featured prominently in their media, the oligarchs are warning all their **Jeffrey-Epstein-friendly politicians** :

"Do as we say and no one sees the pix of you and those high school cheerleaders."

I wonder what percentage of Western politicians are part of this honey-trap dialectic. All of them? Has this become mandatory for AIPAC to approve of your candidacy?

[wat0n]

Maybe sex crimes are prominent because many people consider them to be a very bad thing. I don't doubt people like @QatzelOk don't, though.

[late]

Is Just War Theory just the warfare version of Natural Law?

"In the history of the early Christian church, many Christian writers considered that Christians could not be soldiers or fight wars. Augustine of Hippo contradicted this and wrote about 'just war' doctrine, in which he explained the circumstances when war could or could not be morally justified.

In 697, Adomnan of Iona gathered Kings and church leaders from around Ireland and Scotland to Birr, where he gave them the 'Law of the Innocents', which banned killing women and children in war, and the destruction of churches.[6]

Apart from chivalry in medieval Europe, the Roman Catholic Church also began promulgating teachings on just war, reflected to some extent in movements such as the Peace and Truce of God. The impulse to restrict the extent of warfare, and especially protect the lives and property of non-combatants continued with Hugo Grotius and his attempts to write laws of war.


Historian Geoffrey Best called the period from 1856 to 1909 the law of war's "epoch of highest repute."[10] The defining aspect of this period was the establishment, by states, of a positive legal or legislative foundation (i.e., written) superseding a regime based primarily on religion, chivalry, and customs.[11] It is during this "modern" era that the international conference became the forum for debate and agreement between states and the "multilateral treaty" served as the positive mechanism for codification."

More at the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

[wat0n]

So it is, in practice. It's interesting, given medieval Christians were not... Hmmm nice to civilians when warring either. Certainly much worse than most wars today, if not all of them.

[Deutschmania]

Interesting. Where does nuking cities fit in with that ‘just war theory’? Asking for a friend.

Are you asking for my personal opinion , or for the prevailing legal opinion ? If the former , I shall say that I am of a mind that such whole scale slaughter of the surrounding population cannot rightly be given justification . This is also why I myself happen to be a pacificist , as I feel that nearly no modern war could ever be considered to be just . Strictly on the subject of the ethical use of force , I am inclined to agree with the author of this article . https://www.commonsenseethics.com/blog/what-everyone-ought-to-know-about-violence-and-self-defense More to what @late mentioned , and more to the topic of this thread , Islamic canon law likewise has an equivalent just war theory , and except for the likes of the Khudai Khidmatgar , most Muslims accept the need for a just war , in accordance with Islamic Military Jurisprudence . As to the historic Christian view of violence , there are a number of Christian sects , for example the Amish , whom reside in the area surrounding my home , that teach that a follower of Christ Jesus , the Prince of Peace , must never take up arms , even in self defense . I feel that , in my opinion , the question comes down to whether or not a Christian may in accordance with the Bible participate in political affairs , or if that would be a worldly matter . If Christians are permitted by the dictates of their faith to hold such public office , Romans 13:1-6 would apply to them , in respects to not bearing the sword in vain . If however a true believer in Christ is not to be involved in what might be considered to be worldly matters , unbecoming of a follower of Christ , then they shall feel compelled to follow in the footsteps of Jesus , even unto death , as my one of my own ancestors , Hans Jacob Hess , did when he was martyred . He didn't put up a fight , even in the face of persecution . So yes , I am familiar first hand with the controversy surrounding the just use of force , especially as it pertains to the Christian religion . And various of my family at large , even while still professing a common Christian worldview , have differed on this point of what is the role of a Christian in relation to warfare . And even though I might be considered to be no more than a cultural Christian , rather than one in the conventional sense of the term , my opinion is still to an extent informed by biblical principles , in which the value of peace must be balanced with the need for justice . Therefore , in conclusion , I feel that for me I will never initiate force , or even retaliate , and would only use no more than proportionate force in a defensivist manner .

[wat0n]

Your use of force as an individual is not the same as the use of force by a group or a state. Other people may and will not follow your principles, and in any event you have no way to compel others to respect them if you just take a passive, idealistic position.

That's why we can at best hope to make war somewhat less brutal. That's as good it can get.

[Rich]

That's why we can at best hope to make war somewhat less brutal. That's as good it can get.

Well normally the overwhelmingly best way to make a war less brutal is to make it shorter. All attempts to link the conflict in Gaza with the conflict in the West Bank or with so called Palestinian refugees in Muslim countries prolong the conflict indefinitely.

I haven't really spent a lot of time thinking about Gaza until recently, except to debunk Jewish Supremacist and Muslim propaganda. I'm not a Jewish or a Muslim supremacist so I don't think the conflict deserves some special attention as so many do. But having thought about it now seems clear to me. Neither side's demands are realistic or reasonable. I believe the return of Gaza to Egypt is both in the interest of Gazans and Israelis. But failing that the only solution is Gazan independence. If Gaza is not to be reunified with Egypt then Hamas must be accepted as its government.

Around the world probably millions have demonstrated for "From the River to the Sea," They are as much to blame for the continuation of Gaza's Apartheid status as Benjamin Netanyahu, Joe Biden and @wat0n .

[wat0n]

Well normally the overwhelmingly best way to make a war less brutal is to make it shorter. All attempts to link the conflict in Gaza with the conflict in the West Bank or with so called Palestinian refugees in Muslim countries prolong the conflict indefinitely.

I haven't really spent a lot of time thinking about Gaza until recently, except to debunk Jewish Supremacist and Muslim propaganda. I'm not a Jewish or a Muslim supremacist so I don't think the conflict deserves some special attention as so many do. But having thought about it now seems clear to me. Neither side's demands are realistic or reasonable. I believe the return of Gaza to Egypt is both in the interest of Gazans and Israelis. But failing that the only solution is Gazan independence. If Gaza is not to be reunified with Egypt then Hamas must be accepted as its government.

Around the world probably millions have demonstrated for "From the River to the Sea," They are as much to blame for the continuation of Gaza's Apartheid status as Benjamin Netanyahu, Joe Biden and @wat0n .

Hamas won't stop fighting Israel, it has made that much clear. Egypt doesn't want Gaza either.

If Hamas was willing to actually agree to peace, it would have been worth pursuing but made it clear it wasn't and still isn't willing to.

And yes, one issue with actual law of war is that it can extend conflicts. Another one is that it can in practice encourage operating within civilian areas.

[Rich]

Hamas won't stop fighting Israel, it has made that much clear. Egypt doesn't want Gaza either.

If Hamas was willing to actually agree to peace, it would have been worth pursuing but made it clear it wasn't and still isn't willing to.

From the Donbas to the Port
From the River to the Sea.

I'm not really that interested in the morality or "justice" of these demands. They are both absurd warmongering extremist demands to make from nuclear powers.

And yes, one issue with actual law of war is that it can extend conflicts. Another one is that it can in practice encourage operating within civilian areas.

if you're going to have serious rules of war it has to be with proper armies. You can't arbitrate war methods with guerillas. The problem was the liberals failed at the first hurdle in the Franco Prussian war. They saw an advantage so in their normal narcissistic way they thought the rules should b changed to suit their whim of the moment. It was agreed that we wouldn't drop bombs from the air. Then the Italians went into what is now Libya. They had a massive air advantage, so of course the rules had to be changed again to suit them.

After 9/11 the Liberals demanded that rules be changed back to retrospectively making attacking buildings illegal. As I say the narcissism of the Liberals just beggars belief. I long ago decided that you just needed to tell them where to go when ever they started whining about their enemies not playing by the rules.

I remember when we tried to starve the Germans into surrender by blockading them in World War 1. In fact we carried on starving them even after they surrendered. But I guarantee you that if the boot had been on the other foot, if had been the German militarists that had been blockading the Liberals and trying to starve them into surrender, they would have said it was illegal and immoral.

[QatzelOk]

Maybe sex crimes are prominent because many people consider them to be a very bad thing. I don't doubt people like @QatzelOk don't, though.

Jeffrey Epstein considered sex crimes "a fanstastic thing" because they could be used to empower "the people he was working for."

Would you be working for the same people, wat0n?

[wat0n]

Jeffrey Epstein considered sex crimes "a fanstastic thing" because they could be used to empower "the people he was working for."

Would you be working for the same people, wat0n?

What happened with Epstein and his accessories?

[QatzelOk]

What happened with Epstein and his accessories?

Don't tell me that YOU are Jeffrey Epstein.

How did you escape that prison in Manhattan?

Whose body was used as your double?

Where are you living now? (Don't answer this last one if it might put your life or career in danger)

[wat0n]

Don't tell me that YOU are Jeffrey Epstein.

How did you escape that prison in Manhattan?

Whose body was used as your double?

Where are you living now? (Don't answer this last one if it might put your life or career in danger)

You did not answer the question, @QatzelOk.

[QatzelOk]

:roll:

You did not answer the question, @QatzelOk.

Oh yes I did.

You just don't like my answerTM.

[skinster]

More on hasbara and might also explain why is wat0n like that when talking about UNRWA

Israel deploys army of bots to spread anti-UNRWA propaganda
A network of websites and fake social media accounts have sought to spread false news linking UNRWA to the 7 October Hamas attack among US progressives

Israel is executing an online influence campaign using hundreds of fake social media accounts to advance "Israeli interests" among progressive western audiences, including US lawmakers, Haaretz reported on 19 March, citing an investigation by Israeli media watchdog group Fake Reporter.

The campaign is focused specifically on amplifying reports claiming the involvement of UNRWA workers in the 7 October attack on Israel. As The Cradle has reported previously, Israel provided no evidence for its claims, which were part of a campaign to compel western nations to cut funding to the agency. UNRWA plays a crucial role in delivering aid to Palestinians amid Israel's campaign to impose famine in Gaza.

Researchers at Fake Reporter pinpointed three fake ‘news sites’ specifically created for the operation. The sites amplified reports copied from other real news outlets, such as CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Jerusalem Post, and The Times of Israel, which promoted Israel's narrative about the war.

Hundreds of fake social media accounts then intensively promoted the "reports" from the specially-created websites and other news outlets.

The three websites at the center of the campaign were established before the war in Gaza but became active only after it began.

The fake social media accounts seemed to be ‘cyborgs,’ meaning they operate using a combination of artificial intelligence and real people with fake online personalities. The avatars claimed to portray average US citizens, including white, Jewish, and African–American ones.

The avatars were all created on the same date, used the same profile photos and naming conventions, and shared other characteristics that indicate they are all part of the same network, Fake Reporter found.

Over 500 fake accounts were opened for the campaign on Facebook, Instagram, and X.

Their avatars began to post messages about a wide array of topics, including the alleged lack of safety for Jewish Americans on college campuses, discrimination against Jewish students, and false allegations Hamas committed mass rape on 7 October.

At the end of January, after acquiring tens of thousands of followers, the fake accounts pivoted toward spreading Israel's false allegations about UNRWA employees participating in the 7 October attack.

The avatars worked to inorganically amplify the ‘shocking’ and ‘disturbing’ allegations about UNRWA.

They responded to social media posts by US lawmakers, influencers, and prominent news outlets.

The campaign's avatars targeted posts by African–American Democratic lawmakers, including Ritchie Torres, Cori Bush, and Jamal Bowman, who received the most such comments.

Haaretz noted that targeting Democratic African–American lawmakers seemed to be an attempt to counter the wave of support they have given to Palestinians amid Israel's ongoing campaign of Genocide in Gaza.
https://thecradle.co/articles/israel-de ... nda-report

[wat0n]

I'm still living rent-free in your head, I can see.

Unfortunately, I don't wanna watch rape videos. I'll leave that degeneracy to you, @skinster.