ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, October 31, 2015

The necessity of reprisal

Some interesting and intelligent commentary on John Wright's post concerning A Time for Peace, A Time for War:
HMSLion: All the codes of chivalry, of diplomacy, and Laws of War work on an assumption that all participants will adhere to them. They represent the Golden Rule in it’s most practical form.

But those codes also recognized the legitimacy of reprisals against violators. A foe who showed no mercy could expect none.

The Enemies of Civilization have realized that there are some people who are so accustomed to acting in a civilized manner that they have forgotten that reprisals are perfectly legitimate. More than legitimate, necessary. It must NEVER be possible to secure an advantage by violating the norms of civilized conduct.

And people are starting to realize it.

I’ll add something else…part of the problem of the West is that the World Wars were fought with a level of savagery that shocked us. They were the modern equivalent of the Thirty Years War three centuries earlier – a conflict fought with a ferocity unprecedented among Christian nations.

The Thirty Years War led to significant changes in international politics with the Treaty of Westphalia, and the formalization of Laws of Warfare. A system that held for nearly three centuries, even in the teeth of the Napoleonic Wars.

The World Wars? There’s been no formal New Laws of Land Warfare, but there’s been no willingness to use nuclear weapons since then. Nor to engage in area bombing of cities. But the lack of a formal document has, I think, hindered the self-confidence of the West. Too many people are obsessively wringing their hands over the past, instead of resolving not to do that sort of thing again.

dgarsys adds: It must NEVER be possible to secure an advantage by violating the norms of civilized conduct. In other words, to keep turning the other cheek in order to “be nice” and “not use their tactics” is to play the iterated prisoners dilemma in “nice only” mode, instead of hammering the violator for betraying you.
As William S. Lind has observed, 4GW is in many ways 0GW, albeit with a technological twist that is primarily based on communications. Both of Mr. Wright's commentators are correct; the chaos is being stoked by the international community's legal overreach combined with a practical refusal to permit bad actors to be held to account if it finds them useful to its interests.

Labels: ,

125 Comments:

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 31, 2015 10:21 AM  

Russians are probably getting a double dose of Islam today with the plane crash. And I have no doubt the ghouls of the West are gleeful for their allies' work

Blogger Desiderius October 31, 2015 10:29 AM  

"In other words, to keep turning the other cheek in order to “be nice” and “not use their tactics” is to play the iterated prisoners dilemma in “nice only” mode, instead of hammering the violator for betraying you."

The firewall that has historically prevented this strategy from propagating was the instinctive mating preferences of women. That firewall was suppressed by the hormonal changes caused within women by birth control, leading to an outbreak of male effeminacy.

Anonymous TLM October 31, 2015 10:53 AM  

How many American troops would not have had to die in Iraq/Afghanistan etc, if they were clearing buildings/caves with flamethrowers instead of rifle teams. If you're going to send men to war then you are obligated to provide them with an iron will to win, and the weapons that will give them the advantage in doing so. Anything less is reckless and they will be held accountable for sending men to their deaths so cavalierly.

Anonymous RandyBeck October 31, 2015 10:53 AM  

People are starting to realize it? If so, it's not nearly enough.

Even on the right, there are too many joining with the left in saying they want Guantanamo closed.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 31, 2015 10:55 AM  

Connecting this concept of uncivilized reprisal to the iterated prisoner's dilemma is the way to convince an aspie of this, if anyone has the misfortune of needing to do so :-).

Blogger Derek Kite October 31, 2015 11:01 AM  

An important fact is that the enforcement of these rules is easy it the enforcement is early. If the other side captures and shoots prisoners you immediately capture some of theirs and shoot them.

Undermining the sjw nonsense completely probably would require the razing of educational institutions and the media, for a start. Pushing back early and often against encroachment alleviates the need to go ballistic later.

An interesting story. The Sihk immigration into Canada in large numbers led to the most deadly terror attack in our history. Something to remind the folks who think the current flood will end well. There was a war in their home country. Essentially there were two groups, roughly. The earlier immigrants who had made a life for themselves here. Extraordinarily successful, business people, prosperous. The other group was more recent immigrants or those tending more to radicalism. The traditionalists demanded that in worship people kneel, and wanted the benches removed. The more established recognized it as an encroachment into the community organization that would have serious effects. There were fistfights and even murders, shootings, an airplane was blown out of the sky. The local authorities are utterly useless, even incapable of getting a conviction for the crimes.

I think our problem is that we are lulled into thinking we have nothing to lose, there is lots of room for everybody. Without realizing that we are the ones who will have to go somewhere else, either out of the inner city, into another state, a different sales channel, different job or church. That movement is what has characterized the reaction to leftist implementation in the US. I think the Sihk had already done their moving to get away, and weren't moving again, so they stood their ground.

Good for them, but that is what successful integration looks like.

I think also those who tend towards moderation want to assume good intentions. I think there is enough evidence to disabuse ourselves of that notion.

Blogger Rye Bread October 31, 2015 11:03 AM  

We see this in other facets as well. I usually review the KIA reddit board once or twice a week. Each time I visit I see a couple of posters who declare foul when the GG aligned folks attempt to punish SJW for actions outside of "civilized" norms.

The SJW's will not cease committing said actions while the "rate on investment" is still positive for them. It needs to sink in that a principle of aggressive reciprocity is the only means to make the SJW actions cost prohibitive.

Anonymous Orville October 31, 2015 11:10 AM  

they want Guantanamo closed Guantanamo should never have been opened. Combatants should have been executed on the spot.

Blogger Gapeseed October 31, 2015 11:12 AM  

Wright's piece is astoundingly good and thought-provoking. For those who just read the snippets from Vox, please take the time and read the whole thing. It is well worth the effort.

Blogger Matamoros October 31, 2015 11:19 AM  

A foe who showed no mercy could expect none.

The laws of war among Christians was formalized in the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church to minimize both conflict and destructiveness.

Permissible weapons were listed, as well as those not permissible, such as crossbows. However, in wars with the infidel (Islam, etc.) these highly destructive weapons were specifically permitted to enable Christian forces to triumph on the battlefield.

The Protestant Revolt with the subsequent wars such as the 30 Years War was a return to pagan savagery. As noted, new laws of war were promulgated.

Lincoln's War (commonly cited as the "Civil War") was the first modern war and marked the return to savagery by the invading Yankee forces. World Wars I and II, particularly by the American forces, brought this savagery back to Europe.

See Advance to Barbarism by F.J.P. Veale (free at https://archive.org/details/AdvanceToBarabrism - yes, I know they mispelled Barbarism).

A return to the Church's laws of unrestricted warfare against Islam is the only solution to their new tactic of "peaceful invasion". They must be driven out and destroyed.

Further, the reason for the large population increase in non-White countries is the misguided altruism of "rice bowl christianity" which has permitted these people who would have died, to live, thrive and invade us - all because the idiots fed, clothed, and gave Western medical care to these people.

Christ's admonition against casting your pearls before swine is applicable here.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 31, 2015 11:34 AM  

An important fact is that the enforcement of these rules is easy it the enforcement is early. If the other side captures and shoots prisoners you immediately capture some of theirs and shoot them.

I don't know if there's a logical basis for that re: prisoner's dilemma, but it is certainly true and very important in behavioral conditioning.

I grovel and meekly request that this be appended to the OP, for the greater glory of our Dark Lord.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 31, 2015 11:41 AM  

This Halloween night, if you look in a mirror and say "aggressive reciprocity" three times fast, Tom Kratman will appear with a hammer and three railroad spikes. Be careful, if you don't have the sacrifice ready to go he will crucify you instead :-O.

WoooOOOoooOOOooo

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey October 31, 2015 11:45 AM  

"A return to the Church's laws of unrestricted warfare against Islam is the only solution to their new tactic of "peaceful invasion". They must be driven out and destroyed."

Yes, agreed. Less talking, more killing.

And the Churchian whiners and concern trolls to the back of the bus.

Blogger ncartist October 31, 2015 11:50 AM  

Lincoln's War (commonly cited as the "Civil War") was the first modern war and marked the return to savagery by the invading Yankee forces.

And to think, why, just yesterday, the Southrons were complaining that Jeff Davis fought a defensive war and that St. R.E. Lee wasn't aggressive enough.

Children, didn't your mothers tell you what is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose? Oh, right you're GenXers and Millennials: your mothers didn't know how to cook.

A return to the Church's laws...

When speaking of Rome, use "Roman Catholic."

And when you write "'the misguided altruism of "rice bowl christianity'," you throw away any weight your argument relying on the authority of the Roman. "Church."

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 12:08 PM  

Deletion without stated cause
Gives me great concern and pause
May I ask what was done wrong
So I may amend my song?

Desire not to argue I
Merely wish to best comply.
Trolling moderators is
Never my intended biz.

Mayhap was off topic or
Using language fit for whore.
Or perhaps twas some combine
Of being well over the line.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey October 31, 2015 12:15 PM  

"the reason for the large population increase in non-White countries is the misguided altruism of "rice bowl christianity" which has permitted these people who would have died, to live, thrive and invade us - all because the idiots fed, clothed, and gave Western medical care to these people."

Yes, the Churchians have a lot to answer for. They must be marginalised, and their concerns suppressed and eliminated, if we are going to win the coming race wars.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 31, 2015 12:17 PM  

I want it closed. There is no Constitutional authority to have bases outside these States. We have no business in Cuba, Diego Garcia, Midway, etc freaking etc.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 31, 2015 12:19 PM  

I want it closed. There is no Constitutional authority to have bases outside these States. We have no business in Cuba, Diego Garcia, Midway, etc freaking etc.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 31, 2015 12:19 PM  

I want it closed. There is no Constitutional authority to have bases outside these States. We have no business in Cuba, Diego Garcia, Midway, etc freaking etc.

Anonymous BigGaySteve October 31, 2015 12:25 PM  

Even on the right, there are too many joining with the left in saying they want Guantanamo closed

The problem with Guantanamo is that medical personnel to treat the prisoners has always outnumbered the prisoners. They could have sent some of them to the VAs vets died in.

The destruction/idiocy won't stop until white SJWs/leftists are dealt with in the same manner as Muslim terrorists.

Bath House Barry giving them my tax dollars has already been tried.

OT: more reason if you use twitter to get a new account every month. They are shadowbanning people that tweet about censorship
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/social-networking/73555865/Tweets-are-disappearing-on-Twitter-why

"Paul Dietrich, an activist who regularly "de-redacts" leaked documents, noticed last week that something weird was happening with one of his tweets about the Drone Papers, a widely discussed report on the Intercept, based on a cache of leaked documents.... a similar issue with a tweet criticising Hillary Clinton. The tweets and retweets weren't deleted, mind you, they just weren't showing up where they should be. Both tweets appeared to disappear more than a month ago."

"Twitter's abuse filters work by limiting how far a tweet can spread, Lotan noted, including by limiting when a retweet shows up in a user's feed. Twitter has also had the ability to withhold tweets and accounts by country, "

Anonymous RandyBeck October 31, 2015 12:35 PM  

The problem with Guantanamo is that medical personnel to treat the prisoners has always outnumbered the prisoners. They could have sent some of them to the VAs vets died in.

That's a minor point, and moving it to the U.S. wouldn't help all that much. I can't imagine it would have saved the life of one vet.

Most of all, it's not the reason the critics (even here) want it closed.

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 12:38 PM  

Twitter seems to work quite well
At furthering the cause of Hell.
Still we find some use in it
For reaching the mass idiot.

Blogger The Other Robot October 31, 2015 1:25 PM  

Reprisal needs to include the elites who made it possible as well.

I remember the final scenes in The Wild Geese. However, they did it wrong. They should have taken out his whole family.

OpenID Jack Amok October 31, 2015 1:36 PM  

I do have a disagreement with Mr. Wright's piece. I most certainly fall under his category of Scylla, who says always fight the war ruthlessly.

Scylla says war is not a game.

War is indeed not a game. It is killing people and destroying societies. You should never resort to that unless there is no other solution. From a moral standpoint, you need pretty serious justification to kill someone as a means of settling a disagreement. And from a purely practical standpoint, war is also "rolling the iron dice" and it an extremely risky method of dealing with a problem.

So don't go to war if you have other viable options.

But if you do go to war, fight it like you damn well mean it. Fight it like your life depends on it - because it does. Fight it like your children's futures depend on it - because they do.

Blogger The Other Robot October 31, 2015 1:55 PM  

"Early in 1942Professor Lindemann, by this time Lord Cherwell and a member of the Cabinet, laid a cabinet paper before the Cabinet on the strategic bombing of Germany. It described i quantitative terms the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942[corrected]-September 1943. The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed against working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space around them and so are bound to waste bombs; factories and 'military objectives' have long since been forgotten, except in official bulletins, since they were much too difficult to find and hit. ... destroy 50% of all houses."

Pages ~ 47-48 of Science and Government by C P Snow.

Blogger The Other Robot October 31, 2015 2:20 PM  

Reprisal needs to include the elites who made it possible as well.

I remember the final scenes in The Wild Geese. However, they did it wrong. They should have taken out his whole family.

Blogger luagha October 31, 2015 2:25 PM  

@16 Whether or not we can have bases outside the States, the idiocy/treason of the Supreme Court has required us to house any prisoners of war outside the territory of the United States. They have stated that if prisoners of war are brought into the United States, they will have some as-yet-to-be-specified level of rights and be able to continually sue in federal court about their treatment and release.

Blogger Matamoros October 31, 2015 2:27 PM  

@13 And to think, why, just yesterday, the Southrons were complaining that Jeff Davis fought a defensive war and that St. R.E. Lee wasn't aggressive enough.

The Confederacy fought a war adhering to the norms of war, while Lincoln fought a war of annihilation. It is a major reason the South lost - she refused to realize that the Feds weren't civilized.

@13 When speaking of Rome, use "Roman Catholic."

No. "The Church", capitalized is always the Catholic Church.

Whether or not you are Catholic, she is the historic Church founded by Christ, and she alone warrants the name by history and usage.

If you are speaking of some other church, then you name them.

Blogger Matamoros October 31, 2015 2:31 PM  

@16-18 no Constitutional authority

I agree, but let's grow up and admit that if there is going to be an world super power, it should be us.

Second, the constitution has been a dead letter since Lincoln overthrew it. Since that time it is simply something to keep the masses quiet with - although they haven't managed to overthrow all of it, to wit the 2nd Amendment.

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 2:51 PM  

Did Jesus Christ preach in Rome?
Thought I he made Judea home.
I'll not kneel to Papal throne.
Seems your chief's a viprous gnome.

Anonymous Hound's Tooth Check October 31, 2015 2:52 PM  

"Whether or not you are Catholic, she is the historic Church founded by Christ, and she alone warrants the name by history and usage. "

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches (Greek, Armenian, Assyrian, and Coptic Church, among others) are every bit as ancient as the Roman Catholic Church, and have never been subject to it, nor (with the exception of the Greek Church) even been in communion with it.



Blogger Sgt Polite October 31, 2015 2:53 PM  

I think we should close Gitmo. But first we put a bullet in each detainee and bury them wrapped in pork while televising it. Coulter was right after 9/11, we need to hunt them, convert them or kill them.

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 2:58 PM  

On Peter was the rock His church?
Then those 'neath Paul are in the lurch
For Paul has never bowed to him
But contradicts at ev'ry whim.

Forsooth in Scripture you don't swim.

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 3:03 PM  

Sure must be the lies of men.

Blogger Chris Mallory October 31, 2015 3:04 PM  

@26 We didn't ship them to Gitmo because they were POWs. We shipped them to Gitmo because the Bush regime decided they weren't POWs. Calling them POWs gives them a certain set of protections. Bush wanted to call them criminals, but not give them the protections of the Constitution or POW status.

Blogger The Other Robot October 31, 2015 3:13 PM  

Did Jesus Christ preach in Rome?
Thought I he made Judea home.
I'll not kneel to Papal throne.
Seems your chief's a viprous gnome.


Hmmm, it's good, but I would deduct one point for 'Thought I' instead of 'I thought" and two points for insisting on 7 syllables per line, although it would be hard to achieve 10.

Perhaps:

Did Jesus the Christ preach in Rome?
I though he made Judea his home.
I'll not kneel before a Papal throne.
Then there is no need for the contraction!

Blogger Josh October 31, 2015 3:13 PM  

No. "The Church", capitalized is always the Catholic Church.

Whether or not you are Catholic, she is the historic Church founded by Christ, and she alone warrants the name by history and usage.

If you are speaking of some other church, then you name them.


Shut up retard

OpenID vfmshadow0342 October 31, 2015 3:15 PM  

“I myself see in this war, if the North triumph, a dissolution of the bonds of all society. It is not alone the destruction of our property (which both the nation and the States are bound to protect), but it is the prelude to anarchy, infidelity, and the ultimate loss of free responsible government on this continent. With these convictions, I always thought we ought to meet the Federal invaders on the outer verge of just right and defence, and raise at once the black flag, viz., “No quarter to the violators of our homes and firesides!” It would in the end have proved true humanity and mercy. The Bible is full of such wars, and it is the only policy that would bring the North to its senses.”

-Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson."

Blogger ncartist October 31, 2015 3:15 PM  

Whether or not you are Catholic, she is the historic Church founded by Christ, and she alone warrants the name by history and usage.

No, the Roman "Church" is the Babylonian Mystery religion. When paganism became unfashionable in Rome, the pagans infiltrated the original church took it over and cloaked their gods under the names and rites of the Christian religion, just as is done South America and other pagan nations. Rome is the church of Simon Pater (Simaon Magus), not Simon Peter - who was never Pope or Bishop of Rome.

Blogger hadley October 31, 2015 3:17 PM  

@6: An important fact is that the enforcement of these rules is easy it the enforcement is early. If the other side captures and shoots prisoners you immediately capture some of theirs and shoot them. 

But we are supposed to be elevating them, teaching them, civilizing them. We are their friends, not their enemies. That's why we build them schools and clinics and houses and stuff.

Anonymous RandyBeck October 31, 2015 3:21 PM  

Actually, nobody really thought they'd get POW status.

Powell is often cited inaccurately as wanting that, but even he only thought it would matter to just a few of the Taliban fighters. It mattered to the State dept because the British had already decided to go with the main Geneva Conventions instead of Common Article 3. But everyone thought the majority of detainees would be held under some classification of unlawful combatant.

As it was, Bush did give the Taliban detainees Common Article 3 status. It was only the Al Qaeda detainees who wouldn't get that until 2006.

Blogger The Other Robot October 31, 2015 3:22 PM  

I can only conclude that those who have translated Mein Kampf must be anti-Semites! Why else would they have made Hitler sound so intelligent and rational?

Blogger The Other Robot October 31, 2015 3:24 PM  

An important fact is that the enforcement of these rules is easy if [fixed] the enforcement is early. If the other side captures and shoots prisoners you immediately capture some of theirs and shoot them.

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the rules of war.

Ask Kratman. If you do not have the ability to deal with prisoners ...

Blogger The Other Robot October 31, 2015 3:24 PM  

An important fact is that the enforcement of these rules is easy if [fixed] the enforcement is early. If the other side captures and shoots prisoners you immediately capture some of theirs and shoot them.

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the rules of war.

Ask Kratman. If you do not have the ability to deal with prisoners ...

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 3:26 PM  

Rules arcane are on your brain
But often rhythm's better.
Oft they'll ruin spoken sound
When followed to the letter.

Blogger Josh October 31, 2015 3:28 PM  

Stop this rhyming, I mean it!

Anonymous karsten October 31, 2015 3:47 PM  

"And I have no doubt the ghouls of the West are gleeful for their allies' work"

Gleeful for their "allies' work"? I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. were even more directly behind it than that. The Neoliberals seem quite eager to amp up this latest proxy war on Israel's behalf.

Blogger The Other Robot October 31, 2015 3:48 PM  

Did Jesus Christ preach in Rome?
Thought I he made Judea home.
I'll not kneel to Papal throne.
Seems your chief's a viprous gnome.


Hmmm, it's good, but I would deduct one point for 'Thought I' instead of 'I thought" and two points for insisting on 7 syllables per line, although it would be hard to achieve 10.

Perhaps:

Did Jesus the Christ preach in Rome?
I though he made Judea his home.
I'll not kneel before a Papal throne.
Then there is no need for the contraction!

Blogger The Other Robot October 31, 2015 3:49 PM  

Damn you Chrome!

Anonymous vfm #0202 October 31, 2015 3:58 PM  

@44 for evermore
prosody is often
more effective when
it services the message
and not the author's whim.

Purely tactical advice, orthogonal to whether I agree with you or not. I hate to see penetration aids that are all "look at me". Stealth is better.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 31, 2015 4:19 PM  

I'm not sure the audience understands, generally, what a reprisal is and why the Tranzis hate them so much. In the first place, a reprisal is a war crime. If it's not a war crime, it isn't a reprisal. However, though a war crime, a reprisal becomes legal and legitimate because it is being used to punish an enemy for his violations of the law of war, or to encourage him to comply with the laws of war; take your pick.

The Tranzis (qv) hate them because as long as reprisals are engaged in and seen to work their own idiotic fantasies of courts, especially of the international variety, have no chance. I think they think that, if they can do away with effective reprisals, then the courts will work because something must work. It is, however, not true that anything _must_ work, and courts never shall. For an explanation of why, go here: http://www.tomkratman.com/Rantyelloweyes.html.

The Tranzis have also tried to tie up the concept of reprisal in all kinds of "but not THIS" international law. But that, in itself, merely demonstrates their insuperable and incarnate ignorance. "Oh, so I cannot engage in this kind of reprisal because that would be a war crime per this statute...but a reprisal is already a war crime against _that_ other statute, so what diff?"

However, one cannot take a cookie cutter or strictly approach to reprisal. Indeed, one of the things that still shocks me is that, in the little formulaic approach to what a reprisal is and can be, JAG never seems to have figured out, "And it ought to have a reasonably well calculated chance of working to bring the enemy onto the path of righteousness in war."

It also ought not make our job on the battlefield harder. That's why going after prisoners, generally, for crimes committed against our prisoners is fraught with difficulty; we don't want to motivate the bastards to fight to the death. A better way is to concentrate on a particular class, rather than the mass. Thus, when Lincoln - very credibly - threatened to hang a Confederate officer for any Union officers executed for leading black troops, it didn't, being restricted to the officer class, motivate the confederate rank and file to fight to the death, while at the same time bringing the Confederate ruling class to force the Confederate government not to let Little Lieutenant Johnny be strung up.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 31, 2015 4:20 PM  

I'm not sure the audience understands, generally, what a reprisal is and why the Tranzis hate them so much. In the first place, a reprisal is a war crime. If it's not a war crime, it isn't a reprisal. However, though a war crime, a reprisal becomes legal and legitimate because it is being used to punish an enemy for his violations of the law of war, or to encourage him to comply with the laws of war; take your pick.

The Tranzis (qv) hate them because as long as reprisals are engaged in and seen to work their own idiotic fantasies of courts, especially of the international variety, have no chance. I think they think that, if they can do away with effective reprisals, then the courts will work because something must work. It is, however, not true that anything _must_ work, and courts never shall. For an explanation of why, go here: http://www.tomkratman.com/Rantyelloweyes.html.

The Tranzis have also tried to tie up the concept of reprisal in all kinds of "but not THIS" international law. But that, in itself, merely demonstrates their insuperable and incarnate ignorance. "Oh, so I cannot engage in this kind of reprisal because that would be a war crime per this statute...but a reprisal is already a war crime against _that_ other statute, so what diff?"

However, one cannot take a cookie cutter or strictly approach to reprisal. Indeed, one of the things that still shocks me is that, in the little formulaic approach to what a reprisal is and can be, JAG never seems to have figured out, "And it ought to have a reasonably well calculated chance of working to bring the enemy onto the path of righteousness in war."

It also ought not make our job on the battlefield harder. That's why going after prisoners, generally, for crimes committed against our prisoners is fraught with difficulty; we don't want to motivate the bastards to fight to the death. A better way is to concentrate on a particular class, rather than the mass. Thus, when Lincoln - very credibly - threatened to hang a Confederate officer for any Union officers executed for leading black troops, it didn't, being restricted to the officer class, motivate the confederate rank and file to fight to the death, while at the same time bringing the Confederate ruling class to force the Confederate government not to let Little Lieutenant Johnny be strung up.

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 4:44 PM  

Kratman gets us back on track
In knightly virtues do not lack
But put the rascal on the rack:
Twist his tits and scorch his sack!

Learn from Catholic Church, the plea:
Punish Medievally.

Or at least pay full reprisal:
Rope for rape and eye for ISIL.

Armies are to kill and burn
Let us from the Russians learn.
If you want to nation-build
Colonize; enforce your will.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 31, 2015 7:12 PM  

@30,

No, the Roman "Church" is the Babylonian Mystery religion.

I prefer "Babylonian Death Cult". Gets to the point.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 31, 2015 7:47 PM  

Also, it communicates connotations of Ziggurats that "mystery religion" doesn't quite capture.

Blogger overcaffeinated October 31, 2015 7:55 PM  

"Turn the other cheek" seems to be one of the most frequently abused passages in the New Testament. It seems obvious to me that Jesus chose the imagery of a slap on the cheek for a reason. One can see that a slap on the cheek does no lasting harm, although it is likely offensive and embarassing. So, it seems to be chosen as a symbol for situations where someone has caused emotional distress, but no real, material damage. In those cases, you can avoid causing additional discord, and, indeed, show yourself to be the better man, by refusing to rise to the provocation, and displaying your emotional fortitude, by offering your opponent an opportunity to vent his frustration on you. Jesus did not ever say "If someone cuts off one of your arms, offer the other," or "If someone rapes one of your daughters, offer him the other."

Liberals abuse this passage in two ways. One, they refuse to acknowledge that Jesus is talking about more-or-less symbolic actions that do not leave lasting harm. Jesus does not shy away from hyperbole, as for example in the "camel passing through an eye of a needle" imagery. So if he wanted to say that we should suffer grevious harm and then offer an opportunity for even greater harm, he would have chosen a more harmful image than the slap on the cheek.

Two, they never apply it to situations where, for the reasons I have stated, it seems that it actually ought to be applied. So for example if you are black and someone calls you a "lazy n-----", the appropriate Christian response seems to be to say, "I understand where you're coming from; we all have our faults." This will both defuse the situation and help put off the race war apocalypse, but will also show that you are the bigger man. You can take petty offenses, and not only brush them off but give the offender a chance to blow off some steam.

And that is really what white people have been doing the past 50 years. We have agreed with every slander levelled against us, and given the cheek-slappers every opportunity to slap us again and again. But it's coming to the point now where it's no longer mere cheek-slapping, but something more serious.

Blogger John Wright October 31, 2015 8:18 PM  

"When speaking of Rome, use "Roman Catholic." "

To the contrary, since the Protestant Heresy did not exist before Luther invented it, you may use the word Church to refer to the one, true, holy, apostolic and catholic Church. The same courtesy applies to the Orthodox Churches of the East. They are schismatics, but not heretics.

The rebels trying to pretend the sovereign rebelled against them is pathetic.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy October 31, 2015 8:48 PM  

@55: "Turn the other cheek" seems to be one of the most frequently abused passages in the New Testament.

The ‘Nonviolent resistance interpretation’ section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek gives a quite plausible argument that that portion of the Gospel of Matthew was the first version of Alinsky's Rule 4 (“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”).

Blogger Josh October 31, 2015 9:04 PM  

To the contrary, since the Protestant Heresy did not exist before Luther invented it, you may use the word Church to refer to the one, true, holy, apostolic and catholic Church. The same courtesy applies to the Orthodox Churches of the East. They are schismatics, but not heretics.

What is heretical about Protestants?

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 9:05 PM  

"Turn the other cheek" is in the same category as "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword": Obviously not true.

If only Jesus had restricted his speech to mathematical notation, he'd never have been misinterpreted. The Pythagoreans were right.

Of course, maybe he intentionally spoke in contradictory exaggerations to posthumously befuddle millenia of rules lawyers.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 31, 2015 9:19 PM  

The rebels trying to pretend the sovereign rebelled against them is pathetic.

Though I personally find much of the theology behind the Reformation highly questionable (understatement), I can't help but note that the shock it gave Holy Mother Church (I, too, only ever capitalize one church) was all to Her good. Yeah, yeah, some few millions of people, or few tens of millions, may have perished in the resultant wars, but in the big scheme of things that's mere.

Frankly, we needed the shock and probably would never have self-reformed without it.

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 9:35 PM  

Obviously Jesus meant use a mace and follow through on the cross.

Blogger Hammerli280 October 31, 2015 9:58 PM  

@50 LCOL Kratman raises an excellent point. A reprisal is not revenge. Not a war crimes trial or court-martial. It's a carefully calculated, publicly declared, one-time departure from normal laws of war as a response to enemy violations. Done properly, the mere threat of a reprisal will often defuse the situation.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 31, 2015 10:02 PM  

It can be enough but one has to account for the troops' feelings, too. If they don't see the enemy punished, they will sometimes take matters into their own hands.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 31, 2015 10:02 PM  

It can be enough but one has to account for the troops' feelings, too. If they don't see the enemy punished, they will sometimes take matters into their own hands.

Blogger overcaffeinated October 31, 2015 10:13 PM  

@TheRedSkull,

Everything can be misinterpreted. If we use mathematical notation, we are simply deferring the question to what the notation represents. You appear to believe that Jesus was attempting to win an intellectual argument, rather than a war. I think that's what the "glass bead game" represents -- a symbolic intellectual debate without any reference to reality.

It is a moral obligation to make one's conscience "well-formed." That is, scanning through this or that Biblical passage and finding something that appears to be logically inconsistent does not relieve you of the moral obligation imposed therein. There are no indulgences granted for amateur critical exegesis.

If I were to take a graduate course in physics, I would perhaps be met with certain assertions that "don't make sense" to me. Yet, physics does not depend on my comprehension of it; and it it likely that such assertions do make sense to professors of physics. So it is with religion: my lack of comprehension does not change the facts, and it is likely that an institution that has been studying Scripture for millennia has a better grasp of it than I am likely to achieve as an amateur.

So if you encounter something that appears to be "obviously not true," it may well behoove you to acquaint yourself with the relevant scholarship, commentary, tradition, etc. Because things are often not what they seem -- we must be "as cunning as serpents."

Blogger TheRedSkull October 31, 2015 10:29 PM  

I was attacking the same target as you, not disagreeing with you. Sounds like you read it the other way.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar October 31, 2015 11:34 PM  

The only rule of war is VICTORY. That war crimes tribunal may see a Hellfire missile if they try to get Americans to pay for killing the enemy. They are just as Evil as all the others who claim there are "international" laws. There are rules of God and there are rules of Nations. The only international thing I recognize is an ICBM with multiple MIRVs.

Anonymous not annonymous November 01, 2015 1:43 AM  

#33

Christ our saviour founded but one Church
So those under Paul are not in the lurch
It is most unwise to split asunder
The apostle Paul from the apostle Peter

Blogger Tom Kratman November 01, 2015 1:50 AM  

We've had this discussion before, Joshua. You're too ignorant, thoughtless, and foolish to be entitled to an opinion.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 01, 2015 1:50 AM  

We've had this discussion before, Joshua. You're too ignorant, thoughtless, and foolish to be entitled to an opinion.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge November 01, 2015 1:57 AM  

There was a book some years ago titled THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION. One of it's conclusions was that you must retaliate against unprovoked aggression. Failing to do so just encourages the enemy.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge November 01, 2015 2:12 AM  

@8 "8. Orville

"they want Guantanamo closed Guantanamo should never have been opened. Combatants should have been executed on the spot."

My understanding is that we are legally required to give them a hearing before shooting them.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 01, 2015 3:40 AM  

A hearing before shooting them, yes, but even that isn't the whole answer. The better way is to try them, find them guilty, sentence them to death, but only shoot or hang - better to hang - them when the enemy does x or y or z. For example, say we were holding five hundred unlawful and unprivileged combatants, all sentenced to death, with their names publicized. Then the enemy sets off an IED that kills 5 of ours. We take the five hundred, hang them, all nice and legal and proper, and then give the next five hundred who will be hanged at the rate of 100 for 1 if there's another attack.

The best part of that, of course, is the number of Tranzis you'll give apoplexy, because it's perfectly legal.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper November 01, 2015 3:45 AM  

Joshua, Tom's right , you don't get it but being I'm not a professional, I'll explain a bit about all out war one amateur to another.

All out war can be as dangerous in the long run for the winning side as the losing side,

Why ?

Among other bad things it

1st it increases your own casualties since the enemy has no incentive to surrender

2nd It increases economic costs since it use more material

3rd It increases the moral strain and psychological harm to your own people

4th It makes the rest of the world less stable

5th It leaves non involved powers wondering if you are a mad dog who might decide to obliterate them next and as such maybe they ought to put you down

None of these things lead to a better outcome and as such societies need to manage war to keep it in boundaries .

And no, the idea that once can make war so costly it just won't happen, its fallacious. Societies have been able to reduce large scale nation state warfare but at considerable risk and a constant risk of accidental nuclear annihilation is a high price to pay for proxy war instead of just a regular war

As far as actually using nukes, no and hell no. Once a few of them are used, they'll proliferate and a lot more will get used,

As much as any of us would like to rid the world of some people the ruin such a war would cost, not to mention the moral cost in human lives is far too high.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop November 01, 2015 5:08 AM  

@75. A.B. Prosper
Societies have been able to reduce large scale nation state warfare but at considerable risk and a constant risk of accidental nuclear annihilation is a high price to pay for proxy war instead of just a regular war

As far as actually using nukes, no and hell no. Once a few of them are used, they'll proliferate and a lot more will get used,


That sounds like an echo from the Cold War. I respectfully disagree. The world has been made safe for limited nuclear warfare, which is probably a 'better' deal than the bad old days.

A few nukes have already been used (1945 + >1000 'tests') and they have already proliferated, but a lot more have not been used, yet. There may also have been a few near uses, like the Barksdale nukes, and maybe a few stealth uses on highways and spires here and there, unconfirmed. Lots of nukes of various descriptions might already be in 'private' hands these days and who's to say otherwise? MAD can't work if you can't identify the attacker. In the midst of a continental civil war, a non-state actor can take out some section of LA, say, for whatever reason, and there might not even be anyone motivated enough to try to figure out who dunnit. There is lots of precedent for that scenario.

Anonymous Nxx November 01, 2015 5:14 AM  

There's one thing missing from Wright's excellent analysis. What motivates the moderate?

War breaks out and the men hear the bugle's call. They split into three groups:

1. Fighters who arm up and head to the front.

2. Cowards who slink away into the darkness.

3. Moderates (defeatists) who refuse to either fight or admit to cowardice.

If moderates can neither fight nor run, what can they to do? Simple: Fabricate a pretext such that it appears that they really really desperately want to fight but alas.. can't. So sorry.

The moderate is worse than a coward. The coward avoids the fight and that's that. The moderate avoids the fight and then feels compelled to demoralise the fighters.

This is because the moderate is motivated by an obsessive need to prove that his cowardice is in reality moral high mindedness.

In war moderates (defeatists) are shot along with cowards and traitors.

And for good reason.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop November 01, 2015 5:44 AM  

@77. Nxx
The moderate is worse than a coward. The coward avoids the fight and that's that. The moderate avoids the fight and then feels compelled to demoralise the fighters.

Nice. It reminds me of Lysander Spooner's calculus. Let's see how it translates-

The coward takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your nation, or that he intends to defend it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a coward. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "moderate," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "regulate" those infatuated people, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of moderation. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having slunk away, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your "voice of conscience" on account of the "moral authority" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of morale as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to running away, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

Seems legit.

Blogger John rockwell November 01, 2015 5:57 AM  

''The rebels trying to pretend the sovereign rebelled against them is pathetic.''

Projection much?

You are the rebels against God for preaching a different gospel. As well as being unrepentant for many sins including the sins of idolatry.

Likewise the Pope does not have the legitimacy that you claim that he has. Courtesy of the reinterpretation of scripture to suit your errors grown old.

Blogger JohnG November 01, 2015 7:16 AM  

@52. Reprisal isn't a warcrime. Download FM 27-10. There were certain persons you could not conduct reprisals against (prisoners, for example), otherwise they were a tactic. Like summarily executing spies.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 01, 2015 7:51 AM  

Did you bother reading the FM? And I quote:

Reprisals are acts of retaliation in the form of conduct
which would otherwise be unlawful, resorted to by one belligerent
against enemy personnel or property for acts of warfare committed
by the other belligerent in violation of the law of war, for the purpose
of enforcing future compliance with the recognized rules of civilized
warfare. For example, the employment by a belligerent of a weapon
the use of which is normally precluded by the law of war would constitute
a lawful reprisal for intentional mistreatment of prisoners of
war held by the enemy.

"Otherwise be unlawful"? That means it's a war crime that, precisely as I said, becomes legal and legitimate to enforce the law of war.

Anonymous Big Bill November 01, 2015 8:52 AM  

@81:

Thanks. That helps me understand the German commanders in WWII who executed civilians as reprisals for Partisan attacks on German occupation troops, and likewise for the same Partisan attacks in Belgium in WWI.

If a civilian population won't play by the Rules of War and be civil after its army surrenders, what can you do?

Anonymous RandyBeck November 01, 2015 10:45 AM  

A hearing before shooting them, yes, but even that isn't the whole answer. The better way is to try them, find them guilty, sentence them to death, but only shoot or hang - better to hang - them when the enemy does x or y or z.

One problem with that is that, technically, most of the jihadis at Gitmo aren't criminals. They can be held as enemy combatants because they're members/allies of Al Qaeda, but they can't be convicted because that wasn't a crime.

Congress passed a couple of laws later (which, of course, doesn't help at all if they're already locked up), but the penalties aren't severe enough even for those captured later.

Even so, the idiots in the media keep reporting "released without charge" whenever one of these guys get out as if it means anything.

Blogger JohnG November 01, 2015 11:02 AM  

@81 Guessing your English Comp sucks. Do CTRL F and hit the next couple.

Blogger Dexter November 01, 2015 11:28 AM  

reprisals are perfectly legitimate. More than legitimate, necessary. It must NEVER be possible to secure an advantage by violating the norms of civilized conduct.
...
It must NEVER be possible to secure an advantage by violating the norms of civilized conduct. In other words, to keep turning the other cheek in order to “be nice” and “not use their tactics” is to play the iterated prisoners dilemma in “nice only” mode, instead of hammering the violator for betraying you.


I wonder if white-knighting betaboy John C Wright would apply this logic to the war between the sexes?

We know full well that feminists insist that men should play by the rules of "civilized conduct" - i.e., so-called chivalry - while at the same time encouraging women to violate those norms and to disregard what the rules of "civilized conduct" require of ladies. And the response to this from Churchians is invariably, be nice, don't stoop to their level, etc. etc.

Blogger Derek Kite November 01, 2015 11:29 AM  

Randy: Were they in uniform? Then they are illegal.

The current situation where one side disciplines itself and the other side does whatever it wants is untenable. As is the holding to account one side. It will not end well, and those who use the lopsided application of the laws of war for strategic gain will elicit a response where everyone loses.

Blogger Derek Kite November 01, 2015 11:30 AM  

Oops, if they were not in uniform they are illegal.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 01, 2015 12:02 PM  

Randy, when it says ":conduct operations in accordance with the law of war" to be a lawful combatant? Indidividuals don't really "conduct operations," organizations do. Said differently, every member of Al Qaeda, ISIL, ISIS, DAESH has joined a conspiracy to wage war in an unlawful manner, hence all are guilty.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 01, 2015 12:04 PM  

Derek, they don't really have to be in uniform. They do have to mark themselves as combatants, however, and bear their arms openly. Though statutorily, it refers to wearing an insignia recognizable at a distance, case law considers it enough if they're wearing something that marks them as a combatant not on your side, a helmet works well enough.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 01, 2015 12:06 PM  

Bill, the Germans, generally speaking, went beyond what the law of war was considered to allow. They have some interpretations of aw of war peculiar to themselves, though, and that might be driven in part by a tendency toward hysteria when balked or resisted by civilians.

Anonymous RandyBeck November 01, 2015 12:11 PM  

Tom and Derek,

I agree with you in principle. The trouble is, the powers that be don't see it that way.

See pages 22 and 23; which are 26 and 27 of the PDF file itself:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2010/06/02/guantanamo-review-final-report.pdf

FWIW: That section also throws cold water on the notion that a lot of GTMO critics have that these detainees can't be tried because they were tortured.

As Shakespeare said, first you need to kill all the lawyers.

Blogger Mindstorm November 01, 2015 12:12 PM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes_against_the_Polish_nation - it could be construed that some of these millions were executed as reprisals against Home Army partisans. But these below?

"At least 200,000 children in occupied Poland were also kidnapped by the Nazis to be subjected to German indoctrination. These children were screened for "racially valuable traits" and sent to special homes to be Germanized.After racial tests, those deemed suitable, were then placed for adoption if the Germanization was effective, while children who failed the tests were mass murdered in medical experiments, concentration camps or sent to slave labor. After the war many of the kidnapped children found by Allied forces after the war, had been utterly convinced that they were German."

There no rules of civilized conduct against someone that employs the program of systematic genocide.

Blogger Mindstorm November 01, 2015 12:19 PM  

^ There are no rules....

More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potulice_concentration_camp

Blogger Mindstorm November 01, 2015 12:27 PM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmiry_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_in_Pia%C5%9Bnica

More exampls. Against the aggressor with such modus operandi all bets are off.

Blogger Dexter November 01, 2015 1:45 PM  

There no rules of civilized conduct against someone that employs the program of systematic genocide.

So, you're totally OK with the way the Germans conducted the war against the USSR, then?

The Soviets were guilty of systematic genocide before June 1941, and did not conduct the war in a civilized fashion. By your logic, Germany had no obligation to fight the USSR in a civilized fashion.

One might also note that the Allied "uncivilized conduct" (most notably, area bombing of cities) began before the German systematic genocide. The RAF did not start the night firebombing of Germany "because genocide" but because the RAF was unable to do anything else.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 01, 2015 2:36 PM  

@69

God can raise up sons from stone;
Pete stayed home so Paul was shown.

Further verse have I but halt;
Catholic war fought here is fault.
Mustn't drive away allies
When combating bigger lies.

'Sides, this war's already fought:
Trial by combat shows a lot.

(Now atheists too are in the fold,
With no indulgence bought or sold.
Such grace from Catholic warriors bold!
Oh well, at least this Pope is old.)

Blogger Mindstorm November 01, 2015 3:22 PM  

@Dexter

Try reading with more comprehension, please. When have the massacres in Palmiry and Piaśnica started? After Allied bombings of German cities?

Blogger Mindstorm November 01, 2015 3:24 PM  

I don't give a damn about what occured between Soviets and Nazis. I merely point that partisan warfare waged by Poles was justified.

Blogger Mindstorm November 01, 2015 3:34 PM  

That's due to a personal interest. One of my grandfathers kept supplies for AK (Home Army), guns, ammo and food, hidden on his property. If Nazis would caught him red-handed, they would have him shot on spot. Soviet NKWD tried to give him one-way train ticket to Siberia. He had to hide in the forest for weeks before they have moved on to another place to 'cleanse from anti-revolutionary element'.

Blogger John Wright November 02, 2015 1:33 AM  

"I wonder if white-knighting betaboy John C Wright would apply this logic to the war between the sexes?"

How do I get this appellation for penning a column calling on the West to start a crusade and crush the heathens beneath the mailed foot of Christendom?

White knighting, I suppose, in the sense of St. James the Moorslayer.

As for the war between the sexes, since I think women do not deserve the voting franchise, lest the government turn into a big nanny state, I am hardly friendly to feminists. I also thing real women like real men, who conquer them and carry them off, not who apologize and let them have their way. I am a romantic, which means, my notions of male and female behavior were formed in the Thirteenth Century, when the literary forms of romance were invented.

But to answer your question honestly, even though you meant it as a fart, yes, I think gentlemen should treat ladies as ladies for just so long as they act ladylike, and the moment they act like nags, or scolds, or whores, should be treated as such.

Like the laws of war, submitting to white blackmail, letting someone use your own self restraint against you, is not an option.

But a betaboy like you, dickless, would not understand self restraint. You have to have some passion and force to restrain before you can display the virtue of self restraint.

If womenfolk scare you, and you cannot get an erection when you are scared, the ability to control your passions is not one you need to demonstrate, since you are too wimpy to have passions to restrain in the first place.

Blogger John Wright November 02, 2015 1:36 AM  

"We know full well that feminists insist that men should play by the rules of "civilized conduct" - i.e., so-called chivalry - "

You are an insane person. No one hates the code of chivalry more than feminists. It is the precise opposite of the SJW 'code' of conduct. (Which is not a code at all, since a code defines both what is permitted as well as what is forbidden.)

I despair of trying to describe civilization to barbarians. Go read a book, blockhead. Chivalry has a particular a definite meaning in custom, law and history.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 02, 2015 1:42 AM  

John, I am beginning to wonder if I am having a bad effect on you....

;)

Anonymous Toby Temple November 02, 2015 3:23 AM  

F*cking maleducated catholics! The Roman Catholic Church is the church in Rome, nothing more.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 02, 2015 3:56 AM  

Funny, people going to an RC mass in New York would be terribly surprised to discover their church exists only in Rome.

You _do_ know what "Catholic" means, don't you?

Anonymous Toby Temple November 02, 2015 4:26 AM  

A piece of advice: I'm an ex-Roman catholic. 16 years member of the Roman Catholic Church before I left.

So I know what "Catholic" means. You are simply ignorant of Church History.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 02, 2015 4:37 AM  

Not at all, but you appear to be ignorant of the meaning of the words you use.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 02, 2015 4:51 AM  

Words? Catholic is just one word. Stop trying to correct anyone when you can't even get your words straight.

You do understand that 'catholic' has never been necessary to the preaching of the gospel when the churches of Christ were established? Hence it is irrelevant at all to even mention or use the definition of the term in this discussion.

The Church is God is the Church of God. The Roman Catholic Church is the church in Rome.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 02, 2015 4:54 AM  

correction: - The Church OF(not is) God is the Church of God...

Blogger Tom Kratman November 02, 2015 5:00 AM  

Again, Toby, you insuperable and incarnate ignorance has led you to use words you simply don't understand. Go back to school, why don't you?

By the way, 16 years a Catholic? So which was it; you left as an ignorant 16 year old or you converted later in life and were simply too inconstant to stick it out?

Anonymous Toby Temple November 02, 2015 5:08 AM  

Please, Tom. Go use that line of argument to someone else. You are simply too old to comprehend how utterly rubbish the line "the definition of catholic" is when it comes to the lame RCC claims on the one-church-to-rule-them-all charade.

You really can't be help it after all. When it comes to you're lot, since you baptize babies and turn them catholic, you simply follow the line of reasoning that a baby raised by catholic parents is catholic by will of the parents.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 02, 2015 5:25 AM  

No, you dipshit. Look, here's your problem and it's with your initial post: " The Roman Catholic Church is the church in Rome, nothing more." It's simply counterfactual. Can you get that through the neutronium protecting what passes for your brain? It is not just the Church in Rome. It is all the churches that subscribe to Roman Catholicism, which is headquartered in Rome but extends across the world, and which includes a number of other, non-Roman churches in full communion with Rome. I realize that geography may not have been your best subject, being harder, I am sure, than finger painting or basketweaving, but you should still be able to grasp some simple concepts, like Rome is a city which contains within it a headquarters, while the world is a planet that has many, many churches under that headquarters. Or is that still too hard?

Blogger Mindstorm November 02, 2015 8:42 AM  

@99 It's "counterrevolutionary". to be exact.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 02, 2015 9:43 AM  

The Roman Catholic Church is the church in Rome, nothing more." It's simply counterfactual

No, you old deceitful snake. The Roman Catholic Church is the church in Rome. This is fact. You just proved that you have a pathetic knowledge of Church History.

You insisting that it is a claim of geographical location is nothing by a intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 02, 2015 11:21 AM  

White knight fights for King and Lady,
Slaying Moors' religion shady.
John Wright has some fight in him;
Courtly ladies slip in quim.

OpenID snod-snodwon November 02, 2015 12:10 PM  

About 4GW wrapping around to 0GW: There's a concept in fighting games called 'yomi' as described by David Sirlin, in which you need at most 4 levels of yomi to have a complete fighting system with real attack and counterattack based on predicting your enemy. After yomi layer 3 you can start using your original attacks again, as shown here in real life. Pretty interesting stuff from a game design standpoint.

Blogger Matamoros November 02, 2015 1:47 PM  

@31 The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches (Greek, Armenian, Assyrian, and Coptic Church, among others) are every bit as ancient as the Roman Catholic Church, and have never been subject to it, nor (with the exception of the Greek Church) even been in communion with it.


Friend, I'm afraid you do not know your Church history. The entire Church was placed by Christ under Peter - St. Matt. 16:18.

The Apostles as they evangelized, did not establish separate churches, but local bodies of the "one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church", which were under the authority of Peter and his successors.

As an aside, you should read Vladimir Soloviev's Russia and the Universal Church, for a better understanding.

All these churches you mention have broken away, either in schism, or in heresy. That is why they no longer bear the name "Catholic".

Also, be it noted, that the Catholic Church has over 30 different rites and hierarchies under the Pope, and while all these churches are small, including the Protestant ones, the Church has over a billion adherents. Proof again that it is the Church which is the true Church.

Blogger Matamoros November 02, 2015 1:49 PM  

@37 Shut up retard

I see you are talking to yourself; but I agree, do be quiet in the face of the facts.

Blogger Matamoros November 02, 2015 1:52 PM  

@48 et al

Yes, Jesus Christ preached in Rome in the persons of His chosen Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Both have been historically verified to have been in Rome and martyred there. Know your facts before you troll.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 02, 2015 3:16 PM  

One would naturally expect ritual over reading to be popular in the Third World.

If this the standard of location,
Christ has preached in ev'ry nation.
As for spots with bones deceased,
The greatest's occupancy ceased.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 02, 2015 7:17 PM  

@116: Friend, I'm afraid you do not know your Church history. The entire Church was placed by Christ under Peter - St. Matt. 16:18.

Your reading comprehension sucks. There is a very good reason why Christ said UPON THIS ROCK and not UPON YOU in the English translation. The original greek made this crystal clear: Peter was called petros, while the rock Christ was referring to where He will build His church was called petra.

Your position is further disproven by Peter himself in 1 Peter 2:6.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 02, 2015 8:17 PM  

Seems the commentaries here have said it better, albeit at exhaustive length.

Seems to me that Jesus did build the church on Peter as foundation, and multiple other meanings besides.

What! Multiple meanings from a God-man? Improbable. Puns are Satan's domain, where there is groaning and gnashing of teeth.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 02, 2015 8:25 PM  

Got it, Toby; you're so brain-bustingly and subhumanly stupid that it's silly to speak with you as if you were an actual human being. My bad.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 02, 2015 8:48 PM  

Holy crap, I just realized this is absolutely, positively and without question the worst pun of all time. I bow down in awed fear and trembling before the sublime cruelty of the Master.

Blogger Dexter November 03, 2015 10:46 AM  

You are an insane person. No one hates the code of chivalry more than feminists. It is the precise opposite of the SJW 'code' of conduct.

Geez halfwit, figure it out.

Feminists want the benefits of chivalry AND equality but not the obligations of either.

As for your comments about dicklessness and erectile dysfunction, I can see what's bother you, old man. Project much?

Blogger John Wright November 03, 2015 2:18 PM  

"John, I am beginning to wonder if I am having a bad effect on you...."

I thought it was a good effect, Colonel. We southern gentlemen are polite around the ladies, but when we are out trampling peons' crops during a foxhunt or whipping an unruly serf, we swear like sailors and get drunk as lords. Then we gentlemen shoot each other in duels like street punks avenging signs of disrespect.

Being a gentleman is all very nice as a hobby, but being a Christian is a vocation, and hard work. The two are not to be confused. In many ways, they are opposites.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts