The symptom is straightforward: he believes that when the leader of the Catholic Church speaks about war and human dignity, it is a personal attack on Donald Trump.
Trump is an insecure petty little Douche Bag with obvious delusions of granduer!! Gees, our President never ceases to amaze me at how low he can go. So tired and exhausted.
Thank you for a succinct statement of fitting outrage, Mitch. Though no longer an R.C., I tend to be conservative when it comes to public expressions of religiosity. When some public expression of religiosity calculates to offend others morally AND -- this is a big AND -- to hurt others spiritually, that crosses the line from free speech into blasphemy. Local authorities, applying the 'average person's contemporary standard', are right to erase that expression per Miller versus Caliporno (1973).
Enough about Trump's blasphemy. This very marred man seems to have a masochistic fantasy of going down in flames. Normally, I would feel badly for someone so afflicted. Not this time. Trump can indulge in his twisted fantasies on his own time. He has no right to drag the rest of us down with him.
The four basic elements outlined by The [Australian] Ethics Centre include (Jus ad Bellum):
1st, "¿Just Cause?" or "Last Resort" This idea opposes the realism of Clausewitz that war is policy by another means. The usual causes are self-defense and / or protection of innocents. As stated in the second element immediately below, neither of these reasons stand up to scrutiny.
2nd, "¿Right Intention?" Trump and his surrogates indicate that this war against Iran is a pre-emptive attack to avoid an imminent nuclear weapons capability by Iran. Implicit in that reasoning is imminent nuclear attack against Israël or the United States. That does not add up factually and intellectually. If Iran had any discernible intention, it would be to create a deterrent, looking at the survival of an odious dictatorship in Pyongyang. One other argument is that thousands of protestors had been murdered by the gangster régime in Teheran. Fair enough. Yet, one must question how innocents in Iran are being aided or protected by this attack. An unspecified number -- may be high or may be low -- have already died during this allied strike.
3rd, "¿Legitimate Authority?" No way. Trump did not consult Congress prior to the attack. The duly elected legislative branch has neither declare war nor invoked of the War Powers Resolution. Irresponsibility for this usurpation of power by Trump is shared by the craven quislings of my erstwhile Party; such enabling does not 'legitimate authority' make.
4th, "¿Proportionality?" This is a difficult question to answer. It does seem that the United States and Israël are seeking to avoid the civilian population, notwithstanding the possible presence of human shields. That, however, falls under the just conduct of war (i.e., Jus in Bello). That the United States attacked while she was in negotiations with Iran argues that any military action at that moment by the United States, for reasons other than a documented and immediate need for self-defense or protection of innocents, would be disproportionate.
Time will tell as one discovers how many civilians have been killed at the hands of Israël and the United States.
Trump is an insecure petty little Douche Bag with obvious delusions of granduer!! Gees, our President never ceases to amaze me at how low he can go. So tired and exhausted.
😊💔🌎
Judy
Thank you for a succinct statement of fitting outrage, Mitch. Though no longer an R.C., I tend to be conservative when it comes to public expressions of religiosity. When some public expression of religiosity calculates to offend others morally AND -- this is a big AND -- to hurt others spiritually, that crosses the line from free speech into blasphemy. Local authorities, applying the 'average person's contemporary standard', are right to erase that expression per Miller versus Caliporno (1973).
https://youtu.be/v5hbZOWao_s
Enough about Trump's blasphemy. This very marred man seems to have a masochistic fantasy of going down in flames. Normally, I would feel badly for someone so afflicted. Not this time. Trump can indulge in his twisted fantasies on his own time. He has no right to drag the rest of us down with him.
So let us go onto the four elements of Just War theory by Saint Augustine.
https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-just-war/
The four basic elements outlined by The [Australian] Ethics Centre include (Jus ad Bellum):
1st, "¿Just Cause?" or "Last Resort" This idea opposes the realism of Clausewitz that war is policy by another means. The usual causes are self-defense and / or protection of innocents. As stated in the second element immediately below, neither of these reasons stand up to scrutiny.
2nd, "¿Right Intention?" Trump and his surrogates indicate that this war against Iran is a pre-emptive attack to avoid an imminent nuclear weapons capability by Iran. Implicit in that reasoning is imminent nuclear attack against Israël or the United States. That does not add up factually and intellectually. If Iran had any discernible intention, it would be to create a deterrent, looking at the survival of an odious dictatorship in Pyongyang. One other argument is that thousands of protestors had been murdered by the gangster régime in Teheran. Fair enough. Yet, one must question how innocents in Iran are being aided or protected by this attack. An unspecified number -- may be high or may be low -- have already died during this allied strike.
3rd, "¿Legitimate Authority?" No way. Trump did not consult Congress prior to the attack. The duly elected legislative branch has neither declare war nor invoked of the War Powers Resolution. Irresponsibility for this usurpation of power by Trump is shared by the craven quislings of my erstwhile Party; such enabling does not 'legitimate authority' make.
4th, "¿Proportionality?" This is a difficult question to answer. It does seem that the United States and Israël are seeking to avoid the civilian population, notwithstanding the possible presence of human shields. That, however, falls under the just conduct of war (i.e., Jus in Bello). That the United States attacked while she was in negotiations with Iran argues that any military action at that moment by the United States, for reasons other than a documented and immediate need for self-defense or protection of innocents, would be disproportionate.
Time will tell as one discovers how many civilians have been killed at the hands of Israël and the United States.