Is there a religion of peace on earth that does not advocate killing non-believers?

[Michael Landon]

Taoism.

- ML

 

[Kludge]

Kludge you may not feel remorse or wrong about it, but it would be a collective punishment: cruel, unusual and barbaric. Do you mean to say that you don't have any sympathy for 9/11? I mean its one thing to say you don't feel sympathy for the dead soldiers-- and I sure as hell don't-- but it is totally unexpected from a libertarian to advocate TOTAL WAR if wronged. That's a recipe for long extended wars because as people die, they leave behind resentmnt. And many victims have many times nothing to do with the conflict. They are largely apathetic. Sheeple are sheeple. In this country and the world over.

If these sheeple are going to kill us, they should be killed. Ignorance or stupidity isn't an excuse. If a mentally ill fellow attacks you with lethal force, is he protected because he doesn't understand what he's doing? When you contribute to a violent government unjustly attempting to kill others, you're part of the problem, and I think it would be easily justifiable for any military commander to decide to exterminate a population.

Not having clear guidelines, objectives and codes of conduct can be disastrous even if one's defending: it's biblical justice, kill every one and that's barbaric. And nothing harms a bonafide resistance more than when it itself blurs the lines.

I don't think you can prove that. When there is a PR war to gain the citizens' support because we think we can, there is reason to be pure in principle and prevent all unnecessary deaths, but when it is a war against an aggressive people, citizen deaths would be beneficial. It is collectivism and unfortunately, it is necessary in war.

But again, this conversation probably isn't worth having because both Dr. 3D and myself are both (almost?) always anti-war.

Now naturally, when it would come down to survival, people/individuals can and do use whatever means necessary to survive because extreme situations creates extreme minsets, but those situations are ...well fortunately rare and quite apparent when they do occur ..the Tutsis and Bosniaks, the Euro Jews the Afghans are/were at some point close to that brink of destruction and annihilation, but for instance there hasn't been a point in history when we ourselves have ever faced a situation like that. And that's the main point. Just because a side has moral higher ground philosophically, it can still lose it if it does not conduct itself responsibly. And just because it is weaker and does not have the mean to carry out TOTAL WAR is no excuse. It should still be very clear on what's right and wrong.

Yes, I've agreed there has never been a point where we have had justification to carry out war. Against Japan in WWII, there was justification, but Japan also had justification to attack us given our pro-Allies policies - on the same basis, I'll add, as why Al Qaeda has justification to kill US citizens.

Because of this, in part, I don't understand why people are thinking about domestic policy at all in politics. We are wrongly killing people all over the world. It is inexcusable.

 

[outspoken]

I do not recall Jesus advocating murder or raising his sword to anyone. You say that to most Christians and your liable to get your head cut off!

 

[Imaginos]

Buddhism.

 

[Imaginos]

Taoism.

- ML

And that too.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I do not recall Jesus advocating murder or raising his sword to anyone. You say that to most Christians and your liable to get your head cut off!

It's funny you mention Christians cutting off heads to defend the reputation of Jesus. The Constitution has a death penalty and the death penalty is re-authorized presently in 37 states.