Bishop of Manchester: Britain has a moral duty to accept refugees from its wars

[Paprika]

The problem is that Britain is in such a state that it actually relies upon immigration now.... that the UK ends up in a really bad position.

Right, when a culture is suicidal and doesn't want to sustain itself it's screwed.

[Leonhard]

there is no proportion in war. The goal of war is to win.

Lets lay out the principles of Just War as they exist int the Bible and has been taught by the Church.

First of all there must be just cause. I agree that The State of Israel has a just cause, it wants to protect its citizens from terrorists attacks occurring from within the Gaza Strip and other places that borders the country. Secondly The State of Israel is a competent government to enact this, and I'm not disputing that it has the rights to do so.

Proportionality has to be considered when you're engaging in war, which is one of the principles of Just War. Otherwise there would be a presumption towards aggression and more violence. The evil committed in the war, must not vastly outstrip the evil it tries to prevent. Otherwise the war will be unjust. Israel's attacks on the Palestinian people fails this severely. They're specifically targeting civilian populations, which also calls into question whether they have the right intention. Is this really about putting an end to a threat, or is about punishing the Palestine people? The latter would be evil, and is not something we should have anything to do with.

Finally it must be the last resort. All other reasonable options must have been explored. Since its not unreasonable for the The State of Israel to pull out of the territories it took in 1967, and to give recognition as a state to Palestine (which it already has in the eyes of many countries, and hopefully soon the US as well), I don't think anyone can claim that this has been covered as well.

And those are just the considerations for when you're about to start a war, there's further principles for how war is to be conducted once its underway. Christians are not free to simply say that anything goes during war time.

Hence I think Christians ought to be suspicious, and distance themselves from Israel's attacks on Palestine.

Israel effectively ended the rocket threat on its southern border - for now. And the Israelis are not killing any one right now, and haven't been since that last incursion ended.

When you're defending yourself, do you kill your attacker, his family, those who happened to live in his apartment and his colleagues as well? Yes, that will take care of your aggressor, but it is not necessary.

That is just not correct, again there could have been a two state solution back in Clinton's time, the frame work was there in the Camp David summit. I mean really, one of the requirements was the return of Gaza - the Jews gave it ALL back - and what did it get them

Have you forgotten that the State of Israel just suddenly waltzed in with tanks and drove out the Palestinian people from Gaza, just because it felt it had to expand its lebensraum? They were not ceding anything significant here, Sharon just stopped the insane crusade the Lipkin government had was heading towards driving out the Palestinians by force of gun if necessary.

Unfortunately it seems like Israel is heading back towards that mentality.

Stop with the propaganda

What's propaganda about it. Is The State of Israel, or isn't it, heading towards the eradication of the Palestinian people? If it did that, you can either call it genocide, or something less than the truth.

[Darth Ovious]

The problem is that Britain is in such a state that it actually relies upon immigration now. During the election debates one of the MP's pointed out that 1/4th of our NHS are immigrants from other countries, she was replying to a member of UKIP in what she saw as being a racist statement by that member. However this is actually a tacit admission that we don't produce enough Doctors and Nurses from our education system in order to fulfil what we need in the NHS for it to function properly in the first place. Of course combine this with the fact that immigration is a two way street. It's not enough to just have a pro-immigration policy but immigrants are going to want to actually come to your country in the first place then it gets even messier. The reason why immigrants come to the UK is first most to get a better standard of living. However considering that both China and India are going to become the next economic super powers in perhaps the next 20 years then we could end up in a situation where we don't get immigrants wanting to come to the UK but they may have other options. Immigrants that we got from China and India in the past may stay within their respective countries if they become better off and also if any other big countries become more pro-immigration with their policies then immigrants may choose those countries as options instead meaning that the UK ends up in a really bad position.

[seer]

If you mean by this analogy, "Does The State of Israel have the right to use proper force to protect itself against its enemies." The answer is yes, I'm not disputing that. However that's not what its doing anymore. When 50-100 Palestines die to every Israeli casuality, 99% of which ostensible are civilians uninvolved in the terrorist attacks, then there's no longer an act of protection.

First Len, there is no proportion in war. The goal of war is to win. Israel effectively ended the rocket threat on its southern border - for now. And the Israelis are not killing any one right now, and haven't been since that last incursion ended.

This is not an act of self-preservation by The State of Israel anymore. They're actively trying to make the living conditions of the Palestinian people harder, denying them recognition as a state and denying them territories claimed suddenly by Israel in 1967. Their end goal is to make the Palestinians move, or to exterminate them.

That is just not correct, again there could have been a two state solution back in Clinton's time, the frame work was there in the Camp David summit. I mean really, one of the requirements was the return of Gaza - the Jews gave it ALL back - and what did it get them Len?

Though I honestly think that any semblance of American support would vanish if The State of Israel implemented a 'Final solution' to the 'Palestine problem'.

Stop with the propaganda brother...

[seer]

Anyone "threatening life and limb" in same style as Iran has clearly shown no actual intent to cause immediate harm ... we usually call them "blowhards." And if you try to beg off an arrest for battery by saying "Well, how could I know that he wasn't serious?" you might be lucky and get the charge dropped to only aggravated battery.

No Sam, if such a man made this kind of threat in the restaurant I would not let he take a next step. If he went for his pocket for instance.

Iran's a blowhard. And Israel knows it. But it's useful to pretend otherwise for the folks who are just itching to do the dirty work of bombing civilians for no good reason.

Iran does not have the ability at this time to destroy Israel, or win a war with them. But they have expressed their intent and are reaching for their pocket to pull out a nuke. Israel would be foolish not to take this seriously.

[Leonhard]

Maybe you should read up on OT laws, the Palestinians would have been obliterated in war.

The OT laments war several times in several places. From a careful study of all relevant texts, the theory of Just War emerged in the Augustinian period of Christianity. Earlier Christians had tended to consider soldiers unworthy of being Christians, unless they litterally put down their swords (Tertullian). It was clear that in some limited circumstances war could be justified. I don't think Israel's war against Palestine is justified.

I don't dispute that they are now intentionally turning Palestinian territories into unlivable ghettos with the intent of ethnically cleansing them and taking all their land.

That's pretty much what they're doing.

[Leonhard]

Nonsense Sam, in such cases how do I or Israel know that this isn't credible? I'm not just speaking of a loud mouth, but of someone threatening life and limb. And I don't know who you hang around with but I don't know a man who wouldn't do the same.

If you mean by this analogy, "Does The State of Israel have the right to use proper force to protect itself against its enemies." The answer is yes, I'm not disputing that. However that's not what its doing anymore. When 50-100 Palestines die to every Israeli casuality, 99% of which ostensible are civilians uninvolved in the terrorist attacks, then there's no longer an act of protection.

This is not an act of self-preservation by The State of Israel anymore. They're actively trying to make the living conditions of the Palestinian people harder, denying them recognition as a state and denying them territories claimed suddenly by Israel in 1967. Their end goal is to make the Palestinians move, or to exterminate them.

Though I honestly think that any semblance of American support would vanish if The State of Israel implemented a 'Final solution' to the 'Palestine problem'.

[Sam]

Nonsense Sam, in such cases how do I or Israel know that this isn't credible? I'm not just speaking of a loud mouth, but of someone threatening life and limb. And I don't know who you hang around with but I don't know a man who wouldn't do the same.

Anyone "threatening life and limb" in same style as Iran has clearly shown no actual intent to cause immediate harm ... we usually call them "blowhards." And if you try to beg off an arrest for battery by saying "Well, how could I know that he wasn't serious?" you might be lucky and get the charge dropped to only aggravated battery.

Iran's a blowhard. And Israel knows it. But it's useful to pretend otherwise for the folks who are just itching to do the dirty work of bombing civilians for no good reason.

[seer]

And if all you had was someone shouting at you without posing a credible threat to safety, you'd be staring down a battery charge, as normal people don't draw blood just because someone has a big mouth.

Still, you might think that's justified ... just don't pretend that it's acting in defense.

Nonsense Sam, in such cases how do I or Israel know that this isn't credible? I'm not just speaking of a loud mouth, but of someone threatening life and limb. And I don't know who you hang around with but I don't know a man who wouldn't do the same.

[Sam]

Are you joking Sam? If I was in a restaurant with my family and some one threatened to kill or harm us - believe me, there will be blood... And any "normal" man would do the same.

And if all you had was someone shouting at you without posing a credible threat to safety, you'd be staring down a battery charge, as normal people don't draw blood just because someone has a big mouth.

Still, you might think that's justified ... just don't pretend that it's acting in defense.

[seer]

Try that in a bar and see who gets charged with battery, seer.

Are you joking Sam? If I was in a restaurant with my family and some one threatened to kill or harm us - believe me, there will be blood... And any "normal" man would do the same.

[Sam]

Are you an idiot Sam? Iran is calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. Why shouldn't the Jews be worried - the sooner they strike the better.

Try that in a bar and see who gets charged with battery, seer.

"They threatened us in a non-specific way" will not justify an attack on another country being "defense". It would, however, give Iran the right to retaliate as "defense," under your statement "Every country has the right to defend itself."

But you're just looking for a way to make war with Iran, which you want regardless, more palatable to folks who don't so easily brush off the enormous human cost of such decisions.

Won't work ... at least not today. We should never again underestimate just how easily wars without justification can be sold once a generation of people forget their own history.

[seer]

... which is different than preemptively attacking another country. But if you're saying that Iran has the right to defend itself from a preemptive Israeli attack, well ...

Are you an idiot Sam? Iran is calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. Why shouldn't the Jews be worried - the sooner they strike the better.

[Sam]

Well every country has the right to defend itself.

... which is different than preemptively attacking another country. But if you're saying that Iran has the right to defend itself from a preemptive Israeli attack, well ...

[seer]

Quite. More illegal interventions to come.

Well every country has the right to defend itself.