This thread is for the discussion of Just War Theory and its application to Islam's encroachment into the West. Given recent events in New Zealand, this seems like an ideal time to discuss such matters.
Background: Just War Theory is the Western moral framework used to determine when war is morally justified (jus ad bellum) and what actions are justifiable during a state of war (jus in bello).
In general, modern war tends to be asymmetrical in nature. That is to say that it does not take place along clear battle lines, but is a patchwork of enemy combatants, friends/allies, neutral parties, and every shade of gray between them. The legal/moral landscape is thus highly blurred. In principle, Just War Theory applies to these conditions exactly as they would if there were two opposing trench lines dug into the ground.
In application, Just War Theory dictates that the only lawful targets of violence are those targets that directly commit violence themselves, or any party that directly and materially supports those who do so (a munitions factory, for example). In this framework, the destruction of a fishing village that is not directly supporting the enemy war effort would be considered a war crime, even if food and taxes were indirectly assisting the enemy war effort.
However, if that same village aids and abets enemy combatants directly, such as by knowingly sheltering spies or hiding artillery pieces, it may (depending on circumstances) be considered a lawful target, including the women and - in extraordinary circumstances - the children. BUT, it's important to note that this principle reverses itself if the villagers aid and abet the enemy out of fear of reprisal: in this instance, they must be counted as enemy prisoners of war.
Which takes us to Islam. Because leaving Islam is punishable by death, it is impossible to know which Muslims are mere prisoners, and which abet the enemy out of a genuine desire to do so. This, of course, is by design. It enables the enemy to win either through direct violence, or by forcing their enemy (the West) to commit unforced propaganda errors, effectively handing them the moral high ground and thus the hearts of the people (which is to say, victory).
In its current form, the Western legal and ethical framework for Just War appears to be totally unequipped to deal with Islam in an asymmetrical environment. Islam's two-pronged counter to any attempt to subvert it is that: [1] it not only encourages but requires its practitioners to engage in deception as a matter of dogma (called taqiya) and [2] its various barbaric practices are protected under the veil of cultural nuance (that is to say, political correctness).
Since this board contains its share of geniuses who enjoy puzzles, thought experiments, ethical questions, and war theory, I pose to you: what moral/ethical framework would you propose that the West adopt to replace or modify current Just War Theory, which dates back to Augustine at its foundation and was formally codified by Thomas Aquinas, and has since remain virtually unchanged.
Keep in mind that your framework, if followed faithfully, should avoid playing into the enemy's propaganda campaign. It must therefore survive in the modern environment where video cameras connected to the internet sit in every pocket, and virtually every citizen is looking for viral content to generate notoriety or otherwise monetize.
Jonathan Lopez
Violence is okay to maintain balance If you value peace you must value balance With balance there is tranquility But there is also the calm before the storm, and, after it as well I'd say that yes, violence against muslim invaders is just, as, they are an inherently imbalancing force, one of many that we must eliminate. Not that this ins't just stopping change. That would be militant conservatism. We should oppose imbalanced conservatism as well, and in my view, violence is still justified in this case, Even more so, perhaps, than an imbalenced liberal- after all, it is far easier to move a stone than a speck of dust. Note that I don't think we should be violent. That isn't a good way to ensure victory in the long run. It's not that simple.
Ayden Wright
>or by forcing their enemy (the West) to commit unforced propaganda errors A pair of quotation marks were meant to go here: ...forcing...to commit "unforced" errors...
You seem to be espousing a form of radical centrism, but I'm not clear on how it applies to violence of war, precisely.
Matthew Peterson
It’s a morally bankrupt theory. I’d speculate it was done more to protect the ruling class/interests from the more dire aspects of war, all while enjoying the capitalist and innovative spoils that come from preparing and waging war. War waged in total is a war that cannot maintain itself in perpetuity as we saw in the past and see again now.
William Anderson
Muslims aren't the bad guys the jews are, Muslims in the west need to be killed as invaders.
Jordan Brown
I propose we retain Just War, adhere to it, defend our religion, our families, and our nation and be blessed.
The war is fought against Luciferian bankers seeking to enslave us with debt. Learn the truth below.
Ian Johnson
Are you saying that all war is total war? In Just War Theory, total war is a special class of war, wherein all violence is considered justified. It is, in effect, "no holds barred." The problem with total war (aside from the moral implications) is that it lends itself to propaganda campaigns and risks becoming the foundation myth of the emergent post-war society (i.e. the Holocaust, whether you believe it happened or not).
Logan Mitchell
The Serbs have already figured it out. No need to ram the open door.
Cooper Rivera
I don't think you can pretend to follow Just War theory when you kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, arm terrorists, topple stable governments and even democracies
This is just nonsense for assholes back home to jerk off to between talk of humanitarian bombings and spreading peace through war
Jackson Moore
Total war, victory or death.
Adam Sullivan
I say that any war NOT waged as total war becomes an unresolvable conflict. It is a war with an asterisk and therefore not really what war serves a social purpose for: as the ultimate answer to a question or conflicting set of ideals or access to resource. It sets all other attempts at these problems aside as the proxies they are and answers the issue in full. What you have otherwise is a consistent meat grinder that uses up the lower classes and sometimes the best and bravest of a society without an end.
Jackson Lopez
Just War Theory is simply the current legal doctrine of the West. Whether it's always adhered to can be discussed, but anyone who breaks from it is a war criminal. You might argue that we have a lot of war criminals, but it doesn't change the doctrine.
Henry Carter
Total war. Absolute destruction, complete elimination. Just War Theory is a mental game played to rationalize the brutal realities of the endeavor. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter... So, we know the theory is a crutch, and that crutch appears to have become a liability. Perhaps we should redefine or re-evaluate what can generally be accepted as worth killing over, and then broaden the acceptable definition of military targets when that threshold is crossed. It’s that’s already happened, though, without any engagement from the vast majority of interested persons, and the decision was made to avoid the conflict in favor of corporate and banking interests.
Landon Harris
>checked and bumped for interest
Brody Sanders
The counter to your point is that, perhaps all such war is total war, but waged with propaganda as its chief concern. The point is therefore circular.
Joshua Lee
I'm not clear what modifications you are proposing. Can you elaborate?
Logan Rogers
I don't think it's even remotely adhered to. I don't think anyone except some politicians and officers sitting safe in their offices even contemplate this shit. And even those guys are only thinking about how they can look like they're doing justice while spreading instability that they can profit off of. And when a doctrine isn't really being followed, it ceases to have meaning. This is the height of western indulgence. These ideas of how wars "should" be fought, what's "okay." Excuses to bomb the shit out of people who aren't playing ball the way we want them to. It's the luxury of a nation that is never in any danger itself.
Jaxon Anderson
Propaganda war is no different than a debate. If you war is total and encompasses all sectors and populations that is all the propaganda needed and all that could be asorbed by a war ravaged society.
Violence is the final arbiter of man. Why the fuck would the victors care what the world thinks of them? Wars might begin under the guise of moral imperative, but that is never the sole or even primary reason.
Ethan Morales
The US doesn't really follow it in many cases, the Iraq war being the best modern example.
Kevin Sanders
You seem to believe that Just War Theory is a rulebook to be followed or ignored. This is incorrect. It is simply the Western perspective on war strategy and the strategic consequences and implications of various tactics. The reason it is considered valuable is because the doctrine itself is thought to be universal. However, if it can't overcome Islam (which remains to be seen) then it must not be so.
Charles Wood
T. Judge Holden
Nicholas Powell
Does anyone have the sound track to the video
Camden Stewart
Propaganda is a weapon of war. Creating enemy propaganda for them only subverts your effort.
Josiah Stewart
>Since this board contains its share of geniuses who enjoy puzzles, thought experiments, ethical questions, and war theory, I pose to you: what moral/ethical framework would you propose that the West adopt to replace or modify current Just War Theory, which dates back to Augustine at its foundation and was formally codified by Thomas Aquinas, and has since remain virtually unchanged. You're blaming the wrong targets. Islam is opertunistic but its the urbanites who're the ones who are causing the problems. The urbanites want birthrates to drop while also replacing the population with ousiders. This benefits the middle and upper classes in urban centers but it ruins the country as a whole. The main enemy is thus not the Muslims but the urbanite who uses the Muslim as a pawn for leverage against the rest of the country.
Urban centers must be forced to bow down to the nation as a whole. After that, then warfare against the outsiders brought in and used by the urbanites can be discussed.
A war against the urban establishment would be justified. Their actions harm the country while also harming other countries in order to ensure that they can harvest their people to replace the natives at home. Considering how urbanites are cool with killing children and even encouraging terrorism, total war has already been declared by them.
Can define the enemy combatant more precisely than 'urbanite?' And in your view are they the only lawful targets, or are those who support them (materially or otherwise) also lawful targets?
Liam Jenkins
No, its the urban establishment that's the 'bad guy' in the world. De-industrialized urban centers no longer give the world value and thus spend their time trying to find ways to steal from others and keep others down. Everything the urban establishment does is to remain in power despite not producing wealth like they once did long ago.
Daniel Collins
It's not clear to me who you believe is a lawful combatant, but from the sound of it you believe violence would be justified against anyone living in a large city.
I believe this strategy would prove problematic.
Luke Kelly
Victors don't care for enemy propaganda. They have their own. The Arab world could be eliminated quite quickly if we wanted it. Whoops. False flag we're going in! Whoops another Arab gassed his own people guiz, we're Goin in. Whoops whoops wboops. The only reason anything can leave a war zone on a phone is because cell networks and critical infrastructure are left intact. In total war this is not a problem. Burn it to the ground, what data network, that problem doesn't exist anymore. Strafe refugee convoys, what humanitarian disaster? Reduce cities to rubble with thermobaric weapons. Kill...Them...All... especially women, especially children. Beat them into a corner and contain them. Once contained regroup. Then thrust. The only reason all of these colonies etc were lost was because someone cared a little too much for the local wildlife. This time perhaps we won't.
Gavin Russell
The urban establishment. The people who live in cities and have lived there for many generations and have accrued wealth and power within their families. Its not the Jews or the rich but the people who live in the wealthy-but-old part of town. The people who control city councils, universities, secret clubs(eg Masons, Elks, etc) and sit on the boards of various organizations. These are people who have not merely financial capital but, more importantly, social capital in their area. They may not run the new businesses but they get to decide who get a permit to run their new business.
Every town and city has their long-term residents that have lived there for many many generations(even as far back as the establishment of that town/city in many cases) and have thus gained a sort of social capital that can't be attained by the sociopath or the extreme extrovert. These peoples' names are on buildings, parks, etc. They're the ones who run the towns and cities. They're not necessarily the politicians or CEOs but they do have connections and power. For instance, they're the ones who sit on college boards and help decide to hire the professors that teach sons to be faggots and daughters to be whores. These sorts of people see the urban center as the center of the world and the country as nothing more than a collection of urban areas rather than a vast expanse of land for a free people. As such, they don't care about the nation or money but rather control. This is one reason why you don't see new towns being established despite modern technology making that easier than ever(most towns in America's Midwest were basically created by the railroad companies).
Say you live in a small town and there's a last name that's common there but no where else. That family is part of that town's establishment and they don't want competition. This is why they hold true to family values despite pushing destructive liberalism on you and your family.
Video can be hand carried to a place with infrastructure intact.
Killing indiscriminately demoralizes your own troops and relinquishes the moral high ground. You can't waive your hand and extinguish human empathy, even if it were convenient or desirable to do so.
Ian Turner
So jail people who haven't lived nomadically but instead grown roots in a specific area? This is the opposite mentality of what I expected to find on this board.
Gabriel Martin
>against anyone living in a large city. No. There are many innocent people who live there. Its the people who've lived in the cities for many generations and are part of the social establishment. They're not the poor people in Section 8 housing nor are they the rich fuck living in the new mansion. They're the people who live in the old but wealthy part of town often in small mansions built over 100 years ago. these are the people the media will NEVER fuck with unless they do really shitty things.
Do I believe they should be targetted with violence? That's a stupid question because saying "yes" would basically be a crime. Besides, they may use various means to remain in power but their power can be challenged or even destroyed if they're called out and challenged. This can probably be done non-violently. Besides, they try to pin one group against the other in order to stay in power. The ideal solution to the problem of the establishment is use their tactics against them. I think the Blacks, for instance, deserve to know who it really is who's fucking them over and the Muslims deserve to know who it is who keeps on trying to incite violence against them.
If the establishment didn't coopt BLM so quickly, it would've been fun watching them burn down all the houses filled with mahogany and priceless heirlooms of the fuckers who ran shit for generations.
Wyatt Hernandez
>So jail people who haven't lived nomadically but instead grown roots in a specific area? This is the opposite mentality of what I expected to find on this board. You have it wrong. Its not people who've lived in an area for generations that's the problem. the problem is when those kinds of people become socially powerful in an area and dominate the institutions in order to avoid competition from others. the family of mechanics who've lived in an area for 100+ years are harmless but the family who's members are on the boards of local colleges, organizations, etc are a danger. They're a danger because their goal is always to remain in power and backstab any competition. That's why colleges keep pushing all this really stupid shit all of a sudden: they're run by the urban establishment and it wants to make sure that poor people getting college degrees don't compete with their special privilaged children. This is why they encourage kids to get worthless degrees and rebel against society while making sure their own children get degrees in law, medicine, engineering, architecture, etc. They want you and your kids to have degrees in genders studies and homosexual literature so that you're not a threat to them. They want your daughter to abort her kids and become a feminist slut so that she's not taking the good men from their privileged daughter. They want your son to become a fag who chops his dick off so that he's not competing for the same women as their son who may not be as smart, handsome, or tough.
Its not nomadic people are superior. They're technically not but, what I'm saying, is that people who are tied to the country rather than to a small social center shouldn't be victimized by the people who are part of the establishment.
Reddit is the place that sees ones social standing as being the source of their rights.
Alexander Campbell
What did those antiques ever do to you? Did your rich uncle sodomize you with a Tiffany & Co vase?
Lucas Young
>jail The victims of their reign probably won't give them the benefit of living in jail. The Blacks, for instance, owe no mercy to the people who insisted on putting abortion clinics in all their neighborhoods while pushing feminism and faggotry on them. The Muslims, for instance, don't owe mercy to the fuckers who are using them as pawns against Right-Wingers and trying to incite violence between the two groups - something that only ends in suffering as the Muslims of New Zealand found out.
While I won't tell you to burn mahogany, I hope the fucked-over masses realize that nothing will get better for them so long as the homes full of mahogany still stand.
I'm talking about Just War Theory, you are talking about policing the citizenry. I'm not sure blurring the lines in the manner you're doing can be construed as anything but advocating that a large swath of elite citizens are lawful combatants of war. I disagree with this mentality for a number of reasons. It circumvents a fair trial, deprives them of due process, and would lead to a lynch mob mentality and ultimately degenerate into something akin to communism. It's also not a universal principal in the sense that there is a sensible way to apply it. Just War Theory, if replaced by your mentality, would leave a giant hole in the West in terms of how wars should be justified and waged. The whole idea is to create a morally good framework. If you want to claim there is no such thing as that which is morally good, because all is relative, then I will disagree but at least will understand your position. However I believe that a framework that is not universally good (in the sense of being morally upright) is doomed to failure. Compassion wins people over. That's how Christianity went from a handful of apostles to millions upon millions of people. Whether you are Christian or not, the principal appears to be universal.
Robert Lee
Consider this a bump, because i don't think i am educated enough to construct a plausible framework on the subject. A major tenant of Islam is to spread itself throughout the world, through force or through absorption. Through propaganda and "political correctness", they have made it so a large portion of the world thinks their barbaric practices are to be defended and accepted, or in some cases denounced and brushed away as "Not all Muslims". And obviously not all Muslims are violent extremists, however their culture does have clear stated purpose, which is to spread Islam. This leads me to believe that an effective War Theory would have to rely heavily on the use of propaganda, not against the people of Islam but against the ideology itself, showing it's intents and eventual outcomes. When your enemy is not a nation or a people but an idea, you must combat it at it's roots: The mind. I don't believe that war has always been this way, but in this connected age, we must win the hearts of not only our own people, but the world, to gain support for a military movement and to avoid repercussions (unforced errors).
Alexander Lewis
I'm saying that the Just War theory is correct but you're picking the wrong target.
Brayden Morgan
Not to shit on this thread, but shouldn't we be talking about the groups that are bringing muslims, or just immigrants in general, to white countries? You can't get rid of a disease by removing the symptoms...you know, like those above the masons or who use "urbanites" as mouth pieces? This thread seems rather pointless otherwise and is just propagating violence in general, which is a bad move because there is no clearly defined enemy. It's senseless.
>It circumvents a fair trial Not really. They're inherently criminal. Laws can change and ex post facto laws can get the fuckers for what they did. Just like how all the nazis were tried and many executed at the Nueremburg trial for things that were legal in Germany, and even the world, at the time. >deprives them of due process Don't think they should be. They deserve a fair trial for their actions. If you sit on the college board for a college that pushes faggotry and feminism and someone's son cuts his dick off because the college encouraged him to and he kills himself, then obviously you should be punished for that since you intentionally pushed that sort of faggotry as a means of removing competition(the kid who castrated himself). Obviously you should be responsible for that sort of crap if you're the one pushing it for selfish reasons. I'm not saying you should be killed as a result but members of the urban establishment should be barred from being part of any organizations and their names should be stripped from public buildings, parks, etc.
>and would lead to a lynch mob mentality Its their own fucking fault for that. They declared total war against the citizenry of the the country. They pushed for eugenics, illegal immigrant slave labor, abortion, faggotry, unions, and other crap in order to harm the people as a whole and businesses that challenge their power. If the mob kills them, then justice has been served in the end albeit in a less civilized and less desirable way.
>ultimately degenerate into something akin to communism. No, it would be true capitalism. Business is often the enemy of the urban establishment that tries to suck its blood. While some shitty businesses ally with the establishment as a means to fuck over competition, business as a whole would benefit from the erasure of the current urban establishment from positions of power.
>If you want to claim there is no such thing as that which is morally good, because all is relative, then I will disagree but at least will understand your position. There is moral good. The urban establishment have used total war against their rivals. They need to be put back in line and stripped of power. This is justifyable because we have a big government that seeks to make life better for the people. That government should thus ensure that IT is no longer tied down by the urban establishment for the benefit of that establishment. The process of doing this may be, in essence, total war but it would be justifiable. I'm not talking about war for the sake of war. I'm talking about fighting back against an enemy that has already declared total war but being moral and compassionate about how that war is fought against them. I don't think that everyone who's part of the urban establishment should be rounded up and shot. Yeah, I'd peronally enjoy watching it happen but I know that's not the ideal outcome. What needs to happen is that their power over the political system and over public institutions(eg colleges) needs to be diminished. The justification is the act of total war that they've already declared on their rivals - even the innocent highschool kids at a fucking Pro-Life rally that the establishment literally incited violence against. When the establishment wants innocent kids to be murdered like that, then the establishment needs to be dismembered(hopefully peacefully).
The establishment is the one that believes in moral relativism. They're the ones who think its OK to incite violence against highschool kids, ruin the lives of their rivals, replace the lower class with foreign slaves, and even incite violence between various groups of poor people. That shit isn't moral. The weakening of the urban establishment is the moral option and justified.
Angel Green
I want big corporations to rule the world, not big cities.
Chase James
Just explain to them that god does not exist and religion is a fairy tale. It worked for me. We need to all join together in a global community and say no to war and just work to make a better world for all.
just put a bunch of rockets on the back of the moon and slam it into the earth fuck it
Thomas Watson
>fuck it SMOD 2020
Matthew Edwards
Bumping a very educational thread
Grayson Taylor
You are advocating a course that ends in communism. Which is odd given you want corporations to run the world. Fact check, they already do. The large multinational oil companies, defense contracting companies, and now the tech companies, along with the super rich, view the economic landscape from a perch above any one country government, and they often have a stranglehold on lobbying those governments in more than one country, that’s political donations, bribes, and so much more depending on where you look. It’s often those players lining up on different sides of the line that spark conflict.
I don’t believe morality is relative, but I do believe justice can be. That’s where the rub in the Just War Theory surfaces. I also believe some folks just need killing. If the safest way to efficiently do that costs innocent lives, that’s the uncomfortable choice that has to be made about just how bad particular folks need killing. It’s nearly impossible to kill an idea, but folks get killed over ideas ALL the time in history. Why do we somehow think we’re more enlightened and therefore any different? The arrogance actually springs from the left, and the left looks nothing like it did even 40 years ago.
