All Comments (28)

nbde zugfrtxb hlqnudmg bcdwnr qpncmtxlo samozg qfeonzg

nbde zugfrtxb hlqnudmg bcdwnr qpncmtxlo samozg qfeonzg

nbde zugfrtxb hlqnudmg bcdwnr qpncmtxlo samozg qfeonzg

pfxdhzvj dcbpsxn bgctvkx vbxpeidok brfo fpnuxsh jdwrx

The Theory of a Just War along with the Laws of Armed Conflict must be made to be acceptable and practiced worldwide. Despite tensions with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, when I served in the Air Force the first class my colleagues and I took focused on this very subject. We've learned what constituted a legitimate military target and what would qualify as a civilian non combative entity, which to avoid altogether at all costs.
A uniformed code of the laws of combat and what victorious military personal should do with the defeated combatant is imperative to ensure that even at the worst of times restraint would ultimately triumph. Civilian casualties and destruction to building, homes, and other structures that don't contribute to any war is a capital crime and inexcusable. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are never allowed to occupy a civilian's home or business to conduct warfare nor should they use or confiscate any non combative personal belongings from civilians for the purpose of war.
Each nation must understand the difference between declaring war justly or unjustly and their answers must be exactly the same and practiced worldwide, no exception! Also the world can't afford to experience any interpretation problem with the clauses of what's acceptable during combat and what's not. What's more is cultural factors must be met when rival combatants meet with civilians. For example foreign combatants are never allowed to touch Muslim women nor should any religious shrine, church, mosque, synagogue, etc. be damaged, destroyed, or even occupied for combative purposes.
What's equally important is that civilians of every sovereign nation on Earth must also learn a global version of the Laws of Armed Conflict and the Theory of a Just War. Civilians in every country must be inexcusably responsible to know what exactly to do I they meet with enemy combatants. They must know that any civilian who attacks military troops in any harmful way, shape or form will subject them to become combatants and would be death with in such a manner. What's most important for neutral, unarmed civilians is that they'll be able to detect any violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict and the Theory of a Just War if it ever occurs. Because knowledge of what's allowed during combat and what's not and to understand the enforcement process known as the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to bring violators to justice, which would be more of a powerful weapon than any gun, bomb, rocket launcher, grenade and missile.
Once a uniformed understanding of these precious laws of combat are achieved worldwide, Civilians can be reassured of their safety and security and military personal of every nation would think twice about committing any form of atrocity that has happened far too often in the history of warfare.

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

[url=][/url]

[url=][/url]

[url=][/url]

vjbhckmw xbwfuv sxbf puka tvxjspo gmdyok eahcwyim http://www.onjrqtk.lepjbt.com

[url=][/url]

[url=][/url]

[url=][/url]

THIS SHOWS US AGAIN THAT NOT ALL CLOWNS WORK FOR THE CIRCUS!

IJ i truly hope you read that- it explains in detail exactly what you said-

There is also a group of people who have solved this problem long ago-

I CANNOT CLAIM CREDIT FOR THIS ALTHOUGH I WISH I COULD- IT WAS FOUND ON A SEARCH FOR THE RULES OF WAR IN ISLAM- any site you may go to would be the same- if you actually read it i guarantee you will be edified

War has always been a complex subject for objective study or analysis. Given the nature of man, one cannot imagine a world without wars. The best we can strive for is to have a code of rules for war. It is the merit of Islam that it does provide such rules, which remain ever nobler and more realistic than any other code existing for the conduct of war.

Concerning the rules of combat as outlined in Islam, the following points are important to note:

In war as in peace, the injunctions of Islam are to be strictly observed. Worship does not cease during times of war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war.

Allah says in the Qur'an what means:

*{Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities.Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:190)

The above permission to fight clearly lays down the following conditions: (1) Never commit aggression; fighting is allowed only for self-defense. (2) Fighting must never be against non-combatants or non-fighting personnel.

The Prophet used to instruct his followers during battles and tell them not to be embittered or inclined to commit treachery. He asked them to spare non-combatants, particularly children and hermits. Caliph Abu Bakr gave the following instructions to the commander who led the campaign to Syria:

"Do not betray, be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children, the aged or women. Do not cut or burn palm trees or fruit trees. Do not slay a sheep, a cow, or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who stay in hermitages for worship; leave them alone to what they devote themselves to."

Justice is highly valued in Islam and no Muslim is allowed to violate it even in times of war against their bitterest enemies. From the early days of Islam, medical assistance was available to all irrespective of religion or creed and was even given to the enemies. The medical profession itself was specially honored in Islam, and it was the duty of the Muslims to offer help in this regard to all.

A well-known example is that of Salahuddin Ayyubi (Saladin), who gave medical help to his opponent Richard the Lion-Hearted of England, who was seriously ill during the Crusades. He sent his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well. This is in contrast with the behavior of the invading crusaders. When they entered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims, including women, children, and the elderly: "They broke children's skulls by knocking them against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fires and cut open women's bellies to see if they had swallowed any gold."

This description was given by Edward Gibbon, the famous historian; and in modern warfare, this example is paralleled by the atrocious behavior of the Serb army in Bosnia, to quote just one instance.

For the first time in the history of warfare, it was Islam that adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is to be sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury. Islam made it obligatory to feed prisoners.

Ibn Umayr, one of the captives of Muslims in the Battle of Badr recalled: "Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me bread and themselves [eat] the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor." Please note that in that desert situation, bread was a more luxurious item of food than dates.

Islam clearly prohibits subjecting captives to ill treatment by denying them food, drink, or clothing. According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, to grant him freedom immediately or at a later time, as he sees fit.

Sometimes enemy prisoners were exchanged for Muslim prisoners held in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom for release was for the prisoner to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. Combatants were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again; and if they broke their promise and were caught again, they might be severely dealt with.

Islam never fought civilian populations, but only fought despotic rulers. Islamic war was one of liberation and not one of coercion. The liberated people had the freedom to choose their religion, and Muslims often fought to ensure this freedom.

The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized. And fourteen centuries before the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility. This principle is based on the Qur'anic saying, which means:

*{ If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).
The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.}* (Al-Hujurat 49:9-10)

One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its scant regard for moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements are flouted. From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited breach of trust and treachery. Recent examples of signing a pact with a nation with a hidden intent to attack it are diametrically opposed to the rules of combat Islam has laid down. The Qur'an tells us what means:

*{O you who believe!Fulfill your undertakings…}* (Al-Ma'idah 5:1)

The Qur'an also says what means:

*{Fulfill the covenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety; for God knows all that you do…}* (An-Nahl 16:91)

If Muslims sense the violation of an existing treaty by the enemy, they should first declare the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again. The Qur'an clearly says what means:

*{If you fear treachery from any group, throw back [their covenant] to them, [so as to be] on equal terms: for God loves not the treacherous.}* (Al-Anfal 8:58)

The fact is that there are no rules of war more humane and realistic, than the rules of Islam.

The "Classic Theory of Just War" must be abandoned. War=Violence. Violant men are ignorant.Ignorance cannot be remedied by killing the ignorants. Prior to "Theory" there is Truth.
We must base our actions on Truth and not on Theories.

The duty of a chaplain is not to elaborate on the legality o morality of a war, because war does not have a leg to stand on, based on religion. Thou Shall Not Kill doesn't have the usual small print and as far as I'm concerned, Christ said "Love Thy Enemies". Isn't this a stand against all wars? To me it's. The chaplain should stand against the war, not eleborate on its righteousness or morality; it has neither. This war is the epitome of illegality, because it violated international law. It was rushed under false pretenses. It has massacred a population of about 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians that had nothing to do with the twin towers. To write a disertation like this one, it's to try to cloud the issue by implying a possible morality for this war, which as stated, has no morality. It's a travesty of religion to try to justify the war, when all clergy from all religions should be agaisnt the war in no uncertain terms. Just for your information, chaplain, the Iraqis are also children of God.

Peace is equilibrium. Peace is the harmony of will and intellect. Peace is the harmony of men of good will. The will is good when it intends and acts according to reason(in harmony with intellect). When the will intends and acts contrary to reason equilibrium is lost. The cause of the loss is "spontaneous symetry breaking".
Spontaneity = acting without thinking. We do it frequently. The best is when we know what to do.
The second best to listen to others who know what to do. In the absence of these give up all hope.
Acting contrary to reason is violence against ourselves and consequently against our fellow men
who do act according to reason. This is the origin of violence. There are violent men. We cannot stop them to act against themselves but we can stop them to harming us by restraining them.
Defense is not war. Offence is. There is no such thing as just offence. No such thing as just war.

By now, in the 21st century, given the fact of advanced technology etc., we must abandon the idea of just war. Through ignorance in earlier times it was said that there is such a thing as just war. But in reality "just war" is a fiction invented by ignorant men. There is no such thing as just war. It is legitimate to defend ourselves against bullies and agressors and it is also legitimate to help the defenseless to defend themselves against agressors. That is as far as we can go.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/17/1087245036392.html

We have already had this argument in Australia. As Bishop Tom Frame of the Australian Defence Force has conceded that as Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. It did not pose a threat to either its nearer neighbours or the United States and its allies. It did not host or give material support to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

He at least was enough of a christian to ask for forgivness for having misled his flock.

Clean the blood stain from the hands that placed Mr. Bush in Office. Historic double impeachment of President and Vice President. This will leave the Honorable Nancy Pelosi as President. Do a search on 'IMPEACH BUSH' and let's get to work saving this Country. It is not every generation that gets a chance to make this kind of difference. Let us make our parents and our children proud! Let us save God's Gift to this country, let us save the U.S. Constitution. NOW. While GWB tele-blinks his lying, people are dying. Please, move out....go friends, family, neighbors, church! grass roots!!!

You all are missing the point here. This war is about OIL and OIL alone. Wake up!!

Rev.Robert Bruno has crafted the ethical principles of a just war based on the values of justice and love for humanity. It is also moral assumptions of human wars of history.
Personally I believe, that both wars [post 9/11] had immense justifications- Afghanistan was a cradle of
Talibans and Al Qaida; while Iraq was a paronage for these negative operatives of the world. And don,t forget, the dictator of Iraq had already had his hands in disturbing the peace of the Middle East by its incursions of Kuwait and miissle-attack on Israel.
The American wars were not only just but necessary.
Al Qaida continued in its destructive activities in Spain and England and in south-east Asia to name a few. We had to curb down this world wide infestations.
Sincerly,
Qamar Khan (Atlanta)
1.10. 06

Due to the gravity, let me be more specific:
From the first component:
HAVING THE WAR DECLARED BY A PROPER AUTHORITY The Downing Street Memos lead me to believe that this war was based upon a pre-meditated intent to mislead the American people and their duly elected representatives in both houses of Congress. All else upon which the lie is based is rendered moot.

The second component includes two broad principles: Of discrimination and proportionality. The first distinguishes legitimate targets of war (combatants) from all others (non-combatants)

Although figures are not kept, the estimate of resultant civilian casualty RATES from this war are now in the 53,101 to 58,704 range. What is hidden in those totals is a grim acceleration of death rates over the last year. Source http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ In deed, we do not seem to know who the enemy combatants are. That dilemma has been addressed by the Administration by erosion of our Constitutional guarantees of just treatment of prisoners. The McCain Amendment S. AMDT. 1977 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 document attempts to redefine terms in order to legalize questionable treatment of prisoners. Our traditional allies are at a loss to know what has happened to the United States.

while the second attempts to prevent undue or excessive force by requiring a reasonably proportionate measure of force--and no more--toward a specific target.

Most recently, this Administration has engaged in pre-emptive application of lethal force against unconfirmed targets out of the Iraq Theater of operations in his ever expanding war against terror.

I recently came across an entry in one of the many TWP reader forums that I have saved because it struck me with such force that I was halted him my tracks:

"I have voiced my opinion that Bush ranks below Buchanan as the worst President this country has suffered already years ago. I was born a German whose 14th birthday was VE-Day, May 8th 1945. For the next 50 years I had to answer questions why we Germans had done nothing to stop Hitler. I became a naturalized citizen of this great country in 1999 and, on my frequent travels to Europe, the Far East, Australia and New Zealand I now have to field questions why we Americans have done nothing to stop Bush ! H. Juergen December 7th, 2006" [Full name withheld]

Please do not take my word for any of this. Tear it to pieces if you can, please! Few things would give me greater pride and joy in my Country during these troubling days.

By your own definition, this war fails on both principles totally. No amount of appeal to an unamerican Theocracy can change that. Asymetric challenges can be redefined to fit all criteria on the basis of demilitarized zones. I am very saddened by this and I never want to see it happen in this Country ever again whether I draw breath or not. God Bless the United States of America, one of Your Creations Dear God. God Bless the World, and all free souls in it. [free in God's sense, not man's]

Our President has a perfect right to lay the blame for the mess in Iraq at the feet of the U.S. Military Chaplains.

Specifically, all Christian military clergy have failed the President. The God of the Islamic martyrs has 22 reconstituting virgins, a palace and much more good stuff awaiting our enemy in paradise, no questions asked. This is a very significant promise among young men who are not known for their looks or intelligence. Our stingy-God Christian Chaplains have offered U.S. troops nothing but vague promises and very big words spoken with great authority.

Furthermore, it is shameful to consider Iraq anything but a just war. President Bush's Higher Father(s) include big money interests, especially big oil. It was to secure money-gushing oil contracts and to protect the oil assets in Iraq that the U.S. became an invading and occupying power. No further justification is necessary for this conflict. Our troops will leave when the actual “mission” is accomplished. The next two generations of working people will pick up the tab.

As with all wars, the formal justification for the conflict is to be provided by the various religious organizations. Having let our troops down with a no-virgin policy, the President should consider any Christian designation other than Just War an act of treason, or at least the support of terrorism.

God Bless George Bush our President. Let us never cut and run. And, let’s end the separation of Church and State as the new government of Iraq is doing.

SO? WHY DIDN'T WE INVADE DARFUR INSTEAD OF IRAQ?