Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Agback" data-source="post: 1288607" data-attributes="member: 5328">No, I think I have completely misunderstood Barsoomscore's point.If I walk up behind Barsoomscore and beat his head in with a mace, that isn't a fight, it's a murder.If the Syrians start at the border and march to the sea, shooting every Jew they see, that isn't a war, it's a massacre.If the Luftwaffe starts bombing Rotterdam (for example), although the Germans have started the violence, it is still not clear that there is going to be a war. The Dutch have it in their power to abstain from resistance, and give the Germans the choice of conducting an annexation or a massacre (or both). Neither an annexation nor a massacre nor a combination of the two is what we term a 'war'. So without the Dutch resisting, the Germans cannot fight a war with the Dutch.Only when people on both sides are fighting do we call it a war. And so a group of defenders (or, rather, victims) who are prepared to be massacred rather than fight can prevent a war by not defending themselves, even if the attackers resort to lethal violence in the absence of opposition.Being killed isn't Evil, is it? If making war were evil, Good people might submit to subjection and slaughter. As Christ enjoined us to do.Regards,Agback[Edit] My error was a false dichotomy. Just because an aggressor has determined that there is not going to be peace, does not leave war as the only alternative.</blockquote>