ZBomber Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144614,00.html This is getting out of hand...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Was it ever really "in hand"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith Was it ever really "in hand"? Point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Still, this really sucks. But I can't really say I didn't expect it to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 I don't expect democracy will work everywhere. they don't want freedom. they want religion. you can take all their stuff away and make sure they have nothing and beat them with a stick. but if they have their religion, they will not fight you. however, if you give them everything and they don't have their religion they will fight you. middle easterners in general, are not educated enough either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I think you're confusing majority of middle easterners with extremists. They (the extremists) don't want religion, they want to use religion as a tool to control people. And no, people want their cultural identity, for most in the middle east, this means their Muslim heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith I think you're confusing majority of middle easterners with extremists. They (the extremists) don't want religion, they want to use religion as a tool to control people. And no, people want their cultural identity, for most in the middle east, this means their Muslim heritage. I think that is right to a point too. ...So are you saying you support Bu$h and his middle eastern warmongering? Are you saying democracy WILL work if we get rid of the extremeists? Are you saying middle easterners in general want to live like americans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by kipperthefrog So are you saying you support Bu$h and his middle eastern warmongering? What the hell are you talking about? That has nothing to do with anything. Originally posted by kipperthefrog Are you saying democracy WILL work if we get rid of the extremeists? That's not what I said, that's not even a thought in my mind. Originally posted by kipperthefrog Are you saying middle easterners in general want to live like americans? Where the hell did you get that from? Seriously, none of what you said made any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 we invaded Iraq, put democracy in there, then the extremeist kidnap the arch bishop. sounds like revenge to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 Um.... no.... it seems liek you just put words into Sith's mouth with that last paragraph asking him if he is saying certain things...... Anyways, the Archbishop was returned today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Pardon the inqurry, but is it just me? Or is Sithy always looking to start an argument with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by kipperthefrog Pardon the inqurry, but is it just me? Or is Sithy always looking to start an argument with me? Well, this is the debate forum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by kipperthefrog we invaded Iraq, put democracy in there, then the extremeist kidnap the arch bishop. sounds like revenge to me. .... and the extremists have what to do with the general opinion on "democracy" being established? The extremists just want to control people (everyone actually), they do this to instill fear and to rule by fear. Originally posted by kipperthefrog Pardon the inqurry, but is it just me? Or is Sithy always looking to start an argument with me? You say a lot of foolish things I have to correct so others don't get the same misguided ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 i think what kipper may have been getting at was that just because we think our westernised democracy is the best thing ever, doesn't mean everyone else wants to be like us. It is certainly fairly arrogant to assume so. The whole british empire was founded on the noble but misguided principle that all these "backward" people would want to be just like us... so we went out and tried to make them like us. Centuries later we are still being blamed and asked to appologise for it, it is still the cause of a number of conflicts in the world, and many countries are stuck part way between their original way of doing things and ours. But then, it did do a lot of good too. This newfound crusade to "help" all these poor unfortunate people who don't have the "benefit" of our wonderful way of life may well end up having a similar set of consequences, both good and bad. Regardless, it is hardly a sign of them being backward and ill-educated that they place a greater value on religion than on democracy. Democracy isn't the be-all and end-all of philosophies about life... especial in the broken form it is implemented in the US. (and based on laws and opinions since 9/11 it is clear that the US puts a greater emphasis on religion than freedom as well). As for the education issue, i'm not aware that "middle easterners" are particularly badly educated. Many are very well educated. What they may lack, from our point of view, is balance in both their education and their media. But then, you could hardly call much of the US media or education balaced either, so they could probably level the same charges at us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 So, a Bishop from Syria got his ass in the fire. So what. Being a Bishop, he's a legitimate, military target. Being a foreign Bishop, I fail to see what legitimate business he had in Iraq in the first place. That's the Church for you: Meddling busybodies who don't realise that it's considered bad form (at least in the civilised world) to interfere unduely with the internal affairs of soveriegn states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Religious leaders are legitimate military targets?! *frantically consults Just War Theory papers* I'll have to get back to you on that one... But what you're really saying is that if this guy didn't want to be kidnapped he should have given up his miter, right? Additionally, where did it say he was a foreigner? Perhaps you're confusing the Syrian Catholic Church with the nation of Syria. Exerpt from a site that may help explain: QUESTION OF THE MONTH #47 (November 2004) Question: How many Rites are there within the Catholic Church?(P.S., Fanwood, NJ) Answer: There are 21 Rites within the Catholic Church. The various Rites are as follows: 1) Eastern Rites of Alexandrian tradition: Coptic, Ethiopic (2) 2) Eastern Rites of Antiochian tradition: Malankara, Maronite, Syrian (3) 3) Eastern Rite of Armenian tradition: Armenian (1) 4) Eastern Rites of Chaldaean or East-Syrian tradition: Chaldean, Malabar (2) 5) Eastern Rites of Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) tradition: Albanian, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian (12) 6) Latin Rite (1) Please note that all of the Churches and Rites above are part of the "Roman Catholic Church" (i.e. members are governed by the Holy Father, the successor of Peter). The Latin Rite is only one of 21 Rites within the "Roman Catholic Church" These aren't really denominations, since they are all united with the Western (or "Latin") Rite under the Pope's authority, and they believe the same things, but they also have their own traditions. It gets somewhat more confusing because there are various other churches that are close in terms of doctrine and history, but are not in full communion with Rome, such as the Orthodox churches and the Coptic church (different from the Coptic Rite in the Catholic Church). So, to sum up, I'm assuming that this bishop is an Iraqi, of the small Catholic minority in Iraq, and part of a Syrian Rite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar So, a Bishop from Syria got his ass in the fire. So what. Being a Bishop, he's a legitimate, military target. Being a foreign Bishop, I fail to see what legitimate business he had in Iraq in the first place. That's the Church for you: Meddling busybodies who don't realise that it's considered bad form (at least in the civilised world) to interfere unduely with the internal affairs of soveriegn states. So, because he is a bishop of the Catholic Church, he's not allowed to travel to the Middle East? Please, explain more, this is quite interesting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 That is an interesting question Z, but I think I answered this particular case above. Sorry, a late edit before you posted. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted January 29, 2005 Author Share Posted January 29, 2005 Bah Kurgan, you're always a step above me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Originally posted by Kurgan Religious leaders are legitimate military targets?! Wrong. Catholic leaders are legitimate, military targets, because Catholicism is a country (the Vatican) not a religion - you can be one or the other but not both. Hence, ranking Catholic officials are legit targets, just as - for example - Dubya, Rice or Cheyney would be. Of course, the definition of 'ranking' would be up to debate, but Bishop is - unless I am much mistaken considerably above common-footslogger-priest, right? But what you're really saying is that if this guy didn't want to be kidnapped he should have given up his miter, right? Or choose a church that doesn't meddle in the affairs of sovereign countries. That might be a tad hard to find, but that's hardly my problem. Additionally, where did it say he was a foreigner? Perhaps you're confusing the Syrian Catholic Church with the nation of Syria. Touché. My mistake. So, because he is a bishop of the Catholic Church, he's not allowed to travel to the Middle East? Please, explain more, this is quite interesting.... Of course he is... Just as Bush is allowed to travel in the Middle East. But he's not allowed to claim the protection that being a civilian affords. Though, of course, in that particular part of the world, that protection is not exactly... hard cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Wrong. Catholic leaders are legitimate, military targets, because Catholicism is a country (the Vatican) not a religion - you can be one or the other but not both. Hence, ranking Catholic officials are legit targets, just as - for example - Dubya, Rice or Cheyney would be. Of course, the definition of 'ranking' would be up to debate, but Bishop is - unless I am much mistaken considerably above common-footslogger-priest, right? Bishops are higher rank, a priest of a diocese (churches in a specific area) and archbishops are in charge of an arch diocese (a set of dioceses, sorry if I misspelled anything here). A priest is a "rank" and the priest may be freelance (often called a "secular" priest) or in charge of a church (a "pastor") or assisting another priest who is in charge of a church (pastoral vicar, iirc). Deacons are "servants" and thus fairly low ranking, although they have a position of respect in their parishes. Monks, brothers, nuns and sisters have their own ranking systems, but they are lower than priests, though they may be respected by lay people, especially if they are teachers. Servers (altar boys/girls, acolytes, lectors, extraordinary ministers of communion) likewise are servants, but they're not really considered clergy, since they haven't taken any special vows, but merely assist in the liturgy. Anyway... This act of war against the Vatican Citystate shall not go unpunished! I demand that the United Nations form a committee to address this attack on their soveriegnty immediately! Right? Or choose a church that doesn't meddle in the affairs of sovereign countries. That might be a tad hard to find, but that's hardly my problem. How do you define "meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations"? That's key here. Is paying taxes to the US government "meddling" (because of our foreing policy)? Osama Bin Laden thinks so, so he's declared American citizens to be fair game in his jihad against America. Likewise if you're at war with Vatican City, I suppose one might use similar logic to say that all Catholics who donate or tithe to their church are also supporting the policies of Vatican City and thus "fair game" for a war on the Catholic Church. Anyway, is this a war against Catholicism, a religion, or a war on Vatican Citystate? I figured this was just a case of persecution against a religious minority in Iraq (Christians). By some twisted logic one might say that Christianity is a "western" religion and therefore attacking Christian leaders is a way to "strike back" against Western influences in a nation that "should be" a stronghold of Islam. However I doubt this is the feeling among those who kidnapped the Archbishop, or who bombed churches in Iraq, since if anyone knows the historical roots of Christianity in the middle-east, it's people living there. Some ignorant white people might think that Christianity is "our religion" but people in that region would (should) know better. Touché. My mistake. No problem, many people aren't aware of the 20 other Rites in the Catholic Church. Of course he is... Just as Bush is allowed to travel in the Middle East. But he's not allowed to claim the protection that being a civilian affords. According to what I understand of the Geneva Conventions and Just War Theory, assasination is not an acceptable war-time tactic. Bush, as a foreign dignitary has "diplomatic immunity" as well, unless of course the country he's in doesn't recognize this internationally recognized law. At worst he can be sent home, unless they're at war or something. Though, of course, in that particular part of the world, that protection is not exactly... hard cover. True. Terrorism itself is "illegal" and so I doubt that will stop them from doing what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 By some twisted logic one might say that Christianity is a "western" religion and therefore attacking Christian leaders is a way to "strike back" against Western influences in a nation that "should be" a stronghold of Islam. Well, technically its middle eastern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Well, technically its middle eastern. I agree, which is why I said "twisted logic." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Kurgan This act of war against the Vatican Citystate shall not go unpunished! I demand that the United Nations form a committee to address this attack on their soveriegnty immediately! Right? Wrong. The Church lost its right to that protection long ago by interfering with the internal agendas of other, sovereign countries. How do you define "meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations"? That's key here. Is paying taxes to the US government "meddling" (because of our foreing policy)? Osama Bin Laden thinks so, so he's declared American citizens to be fair game in his jihad against America. My mistake. I should perhaps have said foreign sovereign countries. The Catholic Church had no legitimate business, for example, meddling in the last US elections or trying to bully the EU into praising it. Likewise if you're at war with Vatican City, I suppose one might use similar logic to say that all Catholics who donate or tithe to their church are also supporting the policies of Vatican City and thus "fair game" for a war on the Catholic Church. Nah. They'd be civilians, wouldn't they. Anyway, is this a war against Catholicism, a religion, or a war on Vatican Citystate? The two are one and the same. If the Church wants the protection that being a religious group affords, they would IMO have to obey two simple criteria: 1) Stay the f*** out of politics. They've got absolutely nothing legitimate to do there. 2) Surrender the Vatican to the EU, along with its funds, and disband their central command structure, allowing the individual countries in which they operate to govern the affairs and preachings of their priests directly and in any way they see fit. Any claim to sovereignty - at all - whether theologically, financially, or politically should render null and void any protection inherited from their religious traditions. The same demands should be leveled against all other religions. In short: Submit to secular authority, or your priests are fair game. I figured this was just a case of persecution against a religious minority in Iraq (Christians). Don't make me laugh. Persecution? Against the Church? When they have endured oppression for a millenium, like the one they forced upon Europe, then and only then can they come back and talk of 'persecution'. By some twisted logic one might say that Christianity is a "western" religion and therefore attacking Christian leaders is a way to "strike back" against Western influences in a nation that "should be" a stronghold of Islam. You confuse the Church and Christianity at large. The Church is a political entity (and a subversive and borderline treacherous political entity at that), and thus should not enjoy the protection offered by freedom of religion. If they want to spread their gospel in Iraq, then by all means, go ahead - but if the locals are gunning for them, then that'll have to be their own lookout. I personally would not lay down the life of one single Coalition soldier to save their missionaries. According to what I understand of the Geneva Conventions and Just War Theory, assasination is not an acceptable war-time tactic. That surprises me somewhat... What would be the bounderies of the term 'assassination'? Would a precision strike against a command HQ unit by infiltrated snipers be considered assassination? After all, we are talking military command structure here. Bush, as a foreign dignitary has "diplomatic immunity" as well, unless of course the country he's in doesn't recognize this internationally recognized law. At worst he can be sent home, unless they're at war or something. The key, I believe, here is at war or something... AFAIK it's somewhat debatable whether Iraq is still at war with the US. After all, no treaties of peace have been signed, the former government has never AFAIK officially surrendered - and the acts of war certainly havent ceased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 on the other hand, didn't bush declare the war over? By that logic i'd say he (or anyone else visiting) could be classed an "illegal combatant" and arrested, put in legal limbo, declared exempt from all treaties and tortured. Isn't that how these things are done? Of course, anyone in the US who exercised the right to bear arms but wasn't a member of an official army could be declared an illegal combatant and shipped off as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.