|
作者
|
內容
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/10/8 下午 08:10:14
|
|
|
戰爭終於正式開始了,你認為今次的戰事是否符合教會所說的「正義戰爭」?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/10/9 下午 03:13:00
|
|
|
很難咯 - 拉登是兇手的證據? 美國自說自話,十足當年岳武穆的"莫須有";美國政府(不是國民)的利益,全都在一個"戰"字,不打不成,說不上正甚麼義;美政府的發爛渣,發在拉登身上,說穿了,是因為此人是他們美國一手栽培的恐怖份子,為美國打恐怖戰的"炮灰",如今掉轉槍頭backfire自己,甚麼生化戰,死仕戰,全是fbi的玩藝兒,卻用來對付自己!認真的說:天作業猶可活,自作業不可活,在道德上美政府今次輸清廿光。
不過,開戰容易收科難,美總統靴般大的腳,跟本不是政治可以解決得來!
美國的良心們如有智慧,應懸崖勒馬,立即跟阿拉伯國家修和,消弭積怨,方為對策;否則,誰人會打"長久戰"?歷史告訴我們,只有哪些不戰就必死的民族才會如此:中國人八年抗戰,不打就必死,沒選擇;如今阿拉伯國家的人民亦面對同一情勢;美國嘛,錦衣玉食的超強國,作此事能多久,大家走着看罷;當趕阿拉伯人入窮巷，弄得不能收拾,就會明白何謂悔不當初了。
錯得很的做法哩。
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/10/15 下午 12:56:05
|
|
|
“Just Wars” should not be concerned with who has a good reason to fight. But rather, one should look at the morality in waging wars. Of course, there are people who do not believe that morality can exist in wars.
The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be :
1. having just cause
2. being declared by a proper authority
3. possessing right intention
4. having a reasonable chance of success
5. the end being proportional to the means used.
If we used this moral framework on this particular case, US vs “anti-US”, we may find there are a lot of grey areas where the truth would never be brought to light!
As far as US is concerned :
1. just cause – already very debatable
2. Yes, was is declared be proper authority – the US government
3. Right intention? Highly debatable : balance of power, Jewish interests in US……
4. Chance of success – good chance to kill the “suspects” but bad chance if the enemy is the whole anti-US world. War is not the solution to the problem, US must rethink her middle east policy.
5. Proportion? Each US missile must cost millions of Dollars and how much are afgahn homes cost?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/10/15 下午 03:07:13
|
|
|
As for 'proportion', I think we can even refer to what Rev. FANG Zhi-rong said in this week's KKP - President Bush's statement :for any nation who has not openly supported the US move, they would be tacitly condoning the act of the terrorists (there abouts). This is clearly 'disporportionate'. As rev. Fang rightly pointed out, there is no need for any one to play God. Not even the victims. If we have faith, we would humbly ask God for his wisdom. It is vital to have a determination to stamp out terrorism, but it should not be at a "for whatever cost' attitude. Otherwise, by itself, it would be terrorism too.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/10/16 下午 05:04:38
|
|
|
Ethical Conditions Outlined for U.S. Military Operation
The Vatican´s position :
"The response to the barbarous acts of Sept. 11 cannot be an act of vengeance but of justice, in order to rectify the grave injustice committed," he said.
"The intervention cannot be an occasion to display hatred, and the means chosen for the reparation of such an injustice must be peaceful," Archbishop Tauran added. "Only when all political, diplomatic and financial means have been exhausted, can one think of taking recourse to force."
For this to happen, three key conditions that must characterize the response to the terrorist attacks:
--"the use of force must have clearly defined objectives."
--"[an] operation like this must respond to certain moral criteria: to protect innocent lives, and not make civilians the object of direct attacks."
--"use of force must be proportional to the harm that is combated, and not simply a response to the means used by the adversaries. The use of weapons of mass destruction must always be excluded, because of their power to devastate entire areas."
"We recognize that Operation Enduring Freedom is a response to the terrorist aggression against innocent civilians, acts that violated all international laws and humanitarian norms.
"Today we all recognize that the United States government, like any other government, has the right to legitimate defense, because it has the mission to guarantee the security of its citizens."
In the light of the Gospel, peace is not simply the absence of war.
"It is something more than a principle," the Vatican aide said. "It is a spirit, it involves the renewal of hearts, it requires the adoption of spiritual principles."
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/10/16 下午 05:41:12
|
|
|
Opus justitia pax: peace is the result of justice.
What is "justice"? Vae victis - woe the vanquished? Certainly the victims in New York demand a 'reddress'.
What has Christian iusnaturalim (natural law) to say on this? Ironically, its founder Rev. Francisco de Vitoria's statute is among those in the gardens of the UN in New York! The order of natural ethics governing the moral precepts that lead men to justice and peace have been gravely eroded in the past 100 years. Mens' rational sociability rests not on animal instincts, but on rational and well-balanced decision to respect others' rights and others' integrity. We may ask - how far has this basic precept been observed by USA? By the Arabic countries? By the new-born nation of Israel? This is not an answer that can be extracted from just a few phenomena: it calls for a detailed study of the past relationship between these societies. Having established conflicts, these three have since regressed into animal behaviour - they resorted to the law of the strongest, not the law of justice.
Hence, you feel uncomfortable when the US toss missiles costing billions of dollars onto barren land where the meagre existence of its inhabitants are already threatened day to day without the use of any force of arms.
Yo achieve equilibrium essential for justice, the use of force is simply bizzare. The halt to senseless menslaughter and restoration of a moral basis of some sort is in dire need. The 'common' good for all - Pelstinians, Arabic Muslims, Western Jews and Americans alike are called for. Otherwise, there is simply NO moral dimension for this use of force.
|
|
