Pet and Vex Man debate WAR

[pe7erpark3r]

@sarah_the_magpie said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

@pe7erpark3r
ooh, a history debate, i'm game!

uh yes!

sorry, but i'm going to have to take the opposing side. the 20th century alone is littered with examples of highly-politicized wars fought over differing doctrines (WW2/korean war/vietnam war/six-day-war/iraq-iran war etc etc).

I do agree, that doctrines unite people. They form groups.

of course you could claim that some of these wars were also motivated by a desire to gain new resources or assert dominance, but i believe that they were mainly fought over opposing ideologies.

WW2 is a good example, because we have this singular person, Hitler, who pretty much impersonates all of the motivation for the war. What did he want? Did he want his doctrine, his truth, to convince everybody? Or did he want to rule the world?

I'd also even advocate that Hitler wasn't a nationalist. He didn't want the nation of germany to flourish. He wanted to end all nations, and organize the world, according to His ideas of course, and with himself at the top and the germans, his favorite instrument, as the ministers. He wanted power.

And the germans liked him, because he spoke openly about the great (social) injustice that the WW1 reparations were . And because he made the economy run again (by building Autobahnen for the war, which they ofc did not quite realize) (→ resources / riches).

Of course there was also his personal hatred for the jews and anything that wasn't clean in his eyes. He was a maniac and a rasist no doubt. But that is just not enough to start a war, to mobilize a whole people.

i also believe that wars fought over opposing doctrines are infinitely worse than conventional wars of conquest, especially if they become total wars of mutual extermination (like the eastern front of WW2, probably the most gruesome war ever fought)

I don't think WW2 was fought over a doctrine. But I do agree, that the doctrine behind WW2 is a very cruel and evil kind of doctrine, that certainly had evil sprouts during the war.

but not all wars are fought over doctrinal differences, actually most of them are not.

yes, I certainly agree, that for most wars, doctrinal differences play a minor or no role at all. And I concede that in some wars, doctrines are held high, and seem to play a dominant role. There are many things done in the name of doctrines. But by far less actually because of doctrines.

when you look at history, the majority of all pre-modern wars were essentially either dick-measuring competitions between bored & intrigue-happy monarchs (like the hundred-years war, the most pointless war ever lmao), or simple wars of conquest. the only doctrinal wars from the pre-modern times were arguably the religious ones, like for instance the crusades.

The crusades are an interesting example. Because this war especially is IMHO not at all a doctrinal war. Here is why:

[First, I concede, that that which enabled the europeans to mobilize themselves certainly was the doctrine. It wouldn't have been possible without the uniting faith!]

The holy land had become basically completely christian after the jews had been driven out by the romans. In the 7th century the arabs then capture the holy land. So the pope essentially decided it would be good to free the holy land from the islamic regime, because they tend to suppress christians, they block pilgrims, and destroy churches. So the crusades have some important aspects of a defensive war. In a way, europe played the role that America tends to play these days: world police...

However you just need to give the wikipedia article a read, to understand that the actual motivations for the military leaders and the crusaders themselves tend to diverge a lot – and I mean a lot – from the doctrine, or from defending the holy land: "feudal obligations, obtain glory and honour, or to seek economic and political gain", "The French monarchy used the Albigensian Crusade to extend the kingdom to the Mediterranean Sea", to just quote a few instances from the wiki article... The crusades really are an incredibly complex net of causes and effects, in which doctrine does play a role, but certainly not the key role...

in conclusion: although wars fought over opposing doctrines make up a minority of all wars fought in human history, they do exist.
which is why i'm offering a new thesis: "wars are sometimes fought because of doctrines"

It's a good thesis. To back it, we should find a few instances of wars that were fought purely because of opposing doctrines. I'm not entirely sure we would not find a few, but I do suspect there are not many.

[sarah_the_magpie]

@pe7erpark3r
yeah, i mostly agree with everything you said. it's true that ordinary soldiers aren't usually indoctrinated and merely follow whatever orders their officers bark at them, and that rank-and-file followers of doctrines are more idealistic than those who craft them, because their leaders are usually more motivated by power/glory.

there are two points i'd like to add to:

The crusades really are an incredibly complex net of causes and effects, in which doctrine does play a role, but certainly not the key role...

you're absolutely correct! if my memory serves me right, most of the crusaders were basically just peasants who were told that if they help to liberate the holy land~, they can keep whatever they pillage & loot along the way. they definitely weren't motivated by any doctrines :D
and, of course, the armies of the fourth crusade somehow ended up sacking constantinople instead, probably the biggest oopsie in all of medieval history.

It's a good thesis. To back it, we should find a few instances of wars that were fought purely because of opposing doctrines. I'm not entirely sure we would not find a few, but I do suspect there are not many.

well, what about the cold war? i'd say that it qualifies as a doctrinal war, because it truly did divide most of the world into two ideologically-opposed camps.

also, if civil wars count, i'd add the american civil war to the list. it was most definitely fought over principles, with the union fighting for emancipation and the confederacy fighting for states' rights & slavery

[belethor]

@pe7erpark3r @sarah_the_magpie You're both really smart! I'm not good at debating, but I wanted to tell both of you guys that it was interesting to read your opinions 😁

[Indrid Cold]

Yesh. I was going to say The Cold War, too, but @sarah_the_magpie beat me to it.

Even if you discount the doctrine inherent in communism, there's something about the Soviet brand that transmitted itself from WWII all the way through to 80's, at which point it was nothing but doctrine. I always thought it was fascinating that Krushchev was so keen to distance himself from Stalin, yet something as heavy-handed as the Stasi and the KGB still persisted.

I mean, in wartime, what would be the opposite of indoctrination? Just blind obedience? Raw belligerence? Everyone having their back against the wall? Everyone getting a paycheck from the Military Industrial Complex? (loudly coughs 'Iraq')

Viva indoctrination, I say. At least it shows you can conceive of something bigger than yourself, even if you might not be able to show your workings-out, or justify your morality to the Nth degree. No one's morality stands up as well as it should.

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

Since we had such lengthy discussions about God, I thought we should go with a topic, that doesn't give us such an easy slip from the hundredth into the thousandth... Of course you @Incredible-Hulk (Vex Man) are free to join this debate or not :joy:

Thanks for the invitation.

The thesis for the debate is

"No war is ever fought because of a doctrine."

Of course this thesis is quite absolute, and I'm rather sure we will arrive at a conclusion (or different conclusions) that is not exactly equal to this thesis. So at the beginning of this debate, I position myself rather on the side of this thesis, but not 100%.

The logic is as follows: I believe the following are the true reasons for any war

• thirst for power / influence
• resources / riches
• social injustice

We both are agree on a point that "some wars are caused by religions" and "some others wars were fought for the name of religion"
I took my time to understand Peter's arguments (we discussed some of them in PMs)

Since I am an atheist and peter is a christian, we would like to limit this debate with Christianity only. We will not talk about Islam.
The main argument of peter was - 'Christianity grows through only conversion'. It is all about current events and is no longer related to past.
I give you my counter-argument - 'Christianity actually does not grow throu conversion',
Also, we both are agree on a point "Statistically it is true that Christianity grows its followers through conversion"

Of course on the defensive side, there is always the motivation to defend oneself also.

The rules for this debate:

• Respect :sunglasses:

Mutual personal respect* (personal attacks must be counted in ad hominem arguments)

• Be concise (no super long replies)

Is there any word limit ?

• One argument after the other
• At the end of an argument chain (argument + counter + anti-counter...) there does not need to be an agreement, everyone can summarize his position and his reasons. No further debate.
• No declaration of victory on any argument / argument chain / the debate itself. This is not about winning but about letting ideas compete, and see what the arguments for them are.

At the end every debatant has the freedom to formulate his/her conclusion, and how far the other side was able to convince them.

Add some universal debate rules too - http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm

My counter-argument has four parts- I will write only first part in this post. Until this part ain't countered properly, I will not reveal other three parts.

Part no. 1- Christian extremists- Once upon a time American president Mr. Barack Obama was giving a speech against terrorism. He tried to cite 'Dark side of Christianity'. The problem with media is, they do not enough attention to christian terrorists. There are some christian extremist groups which are still active-
(i). The army of God, USA- It is known for endorsing violence against gays. This bombardier group especially Rudolph bombed a lesbian bar (Atlanta) in 1997. Also, this group kills those doctors who provide abortions. This is how this group contributes the growth of Christianity by increasing their birth rates. Rudolph is the leader of this group. The whole group reiterates proverbs 24:10-12 in many interviews. In one London clinic alone, 6000 women were affected by this group (2017).
(ii). Eastern lighting, China (based on Gospel of Matthew 24:27)- This group believes that this world is going to end soon. Therefore, the demons should be killed as soon as possible. This group considers women are inferior to men. However, it has a notion that Jesus will come on the earth in a form of Chinese women. In 2014, a woman was killed by this group because she rejected to give her mobile number. In 2002, the members of this cult kidnapped China Gospel Fellowship's 34 members because they were not joining this cult.
(iii). The Lord's resistance army, Uganda - It has spread its terrorism from Uganda to Congo, CAR and South Sudan. According to human rights watch, it has committed thousands of killings and kidnappings. The main leader of this group kony hopes that sub-sahara will implement a Christianize law like sharia law in the region. The LRA has abducted more than 67000 youth, including 30,000 children, for use as child soldiers, sex slaves and porters since 1987.
(iv). The National Liberation Front of Tripura, India- It has no tolerance for other religious people i.e. Hindus. It kills, kidnaps and tortures those Hindus who refuse to become Christians. It has established Christian fundamentalist Government in Tripura. Also, this movement hopes to secede from India. In 2000, it killed several Hindus who were participating in 'Durga Puja'. And in May 2003, at least 30 Hindus were murdered during one of its killing sprees. The Baptist church of tripura supplies army items to it. 5,000 tribal villagers were forcefully converted during 1999-2001. In 2001, 826 terrorist attacks were done by this group.

(v). The Phineas Priesthood- It believes that non-WASPs should be killed and it is an order of the God. Whoever are whites, can join this group and white Anglo Saxon Protestants are God's chosen people- a nice notion. Lerry one of the member of this group, fired over 100 rounds at targets. To be succinct, this group bombs abortion clinics and robs banks' money. It is based on Bible's old testament in which God rewarded someone for killing an interfaith couple.
(vi). The Concerned Christians- A group which is active in Israel!!! This group tried to blow up holy sites of Muslims and wants to throw Muslims out of the nation.

Christianity grows its adherents by killing homosexuals, by illegally increasing Christians' birth rates, by forcefully conversion and by throwing out other religious people. In a christian country, homosexuals do not and cannot produce christian babies.

[pe7erpark3r]

@sarah_the_magpie said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

@pe7erpark3r
you're absolutely correct! if my memory serves me right, most of the crusaders were basically just peasants who were told that if they help to liberate the holy land~, they can keep whatever they pillage & loot along the way. they definitely weren't motivated by any doctrines :D
and, of course, the armies of the fourth crusade somehow ended up sacking constantinople instead, probably the biggest oopsie in all of medieval history.

:joy: oopsie. Best comment I've ever heard on the fourth crusade :joy:

It's a good thesis. To back it, we should find a few instances of wars that were fought purely because of opposing doctrines. I'm not entirely sure we would not find a few, but I do suspect there are not many.

well, what about the cold war? i'd say that it qualifies as a doctrinal war, because it truly did divide most of the world into two ideologically-opposed camps.

I absolutely agree with you that ideologies group people together. And thus I agree that they also have the ability to divide people. However I think we are lucky, that people were not so powerhungry that an actual war broke out, or that their power hunger wasn't greater than their fear of total destruction :sweat_smile:

But yeah, the cold war is not a bad example, even though it doesn't fulfill the definition of the word "war" I had in mind.

also, if civil wars count, i'd add the american civil war to the list. it was most definitely fought over principles, with the union fighting for emancipation and the confederacy fighting for states' rights & slavery

Civil wars do count. I've always been of the conviction that civil wars tend to be fought over social injustice (in this case slavery). But I'm sadly not educated enough about the causal chain (or causal net I guess) of the american civil war. Maybe you are right...

[pe7erpark3r]

@belethor said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

@pe7erpark3r @sarah_the_magpie You're both really smart! I'm not good at debating, but I wanted to tell both of you guys that it was interesting to read your opinions 😁

thunks bud :grin:

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

Viva indoctrination, I say. At least it shows you can conceive of something bigger than yourself, even if you might not be able to show your workings-out, or justify your morality to the Nth degree. No one's morality stands up as well as it should.

:joy: always something fun to say

[pe7erpark3r]

@Vex-Man said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

@pe7erpark3r said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

Thanks for the invitation.

sure bud :smile:

We both are agree on a point that "some wars are caused by religions" and "some others wars were fought for the name of religion"

No, I do not agree that some wars are caused by religions. I agree that religion prays a role in allowing some wars to happen (as in doctrines uniting people, and promising rewards). But my thesis is that the actual cause, that is enough for a whole war to break out, is something more than just a doctrine/religion.

I agree that some wars are only fought in the "name of religion".

I took my time to understand Peter's arguments (we discussed some of them in PMs)

Since I am an atheist and peter is a christian, we would like to limit this debate with Christianity only. We will not talk about Islam.
The main argument of peter was - 'Christianity grows through only conversion'. It is all about current events and is no longer related to past.
I give you my counter-argument - 'Christianity actually does not grow throu conversion',
Also, we both are agree on a point "Statistically it is true that Christianity grows its followers through conversion"

If your argument is that christianity grows through wars, then it is accepted. However I think the question how christianity grows is worth its own discussion.

Is there any word limit ?

good idea yeah... lets say around 500 words.

Add some universal debate rules too - http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm

Good entry. Of course we'll have to modify this a bit to fit the form we are using: So I agree as far as it can be done on TWS and without forming teams (since everybody may join).

My counter-argument has four parts- I will write only first part in this post. Until this part ain't countered properly, I will not reveal other three parts.

Part no. 1- Christian extremists- Once upon a time American president Mr. Barack Obama was giving a speech against terrorism. He tried to cite 'Dark side of Christianity'. The problem with media is, they do not enough attention to christian terrorists. There are some christian extremist groups which are still active-
(i). The army of God, USA- It is known for endorsing violence against gays. This bombardier group especially Rudolph bombed a lesbian bar (Atlanta) in 1997. Also, this group kills those doctors who provide abortions. This is how this group contributes the growth of Christianity by increasing their birth rates. Rudolph is the leader of this group. The whole group reiterates proverbs 24:10-12 in many interviews. In one London clinic alone, 6000 women were affected by this group (2017).
(ii). Eastern lighting, China (based on Gospel of Matthew 24:27)- This group believes that this world is going to end soon. Therefore, the demons should be killed as soon as possible. This group considers women are inferior to men. However, it has a notion that Jesus will come on the earth in a form of Chinese women. In 2014, a woman was killed by this group because she rejected to give her mobile number. In 2002, the members of this cult kidnapped China Gospel Fellowship's 34 members because they were not joining this cult.
(iii). The Lord's resistance army, Uganda - It has spread its terrorism from Uganda to Congo, CAR and South Sudan. According to human rights watch, it has committed thousands of killings and kidnappings. The main leader of this group kony hopes that sub-sahara will implement a Christianize law like sharia law in the region. The LRA has abducted more than 67000 youth, including 30,000 children, for use as child soldiers, sex slaves and porters since 1987.
(iv). The National Liberation Front of Tripura, India- It has no tolerance for other religious people i.e. Hindus. It kills, kidnaps and tortures those Hindus who refuse to become Christians. It has established Christian fundamentalist Government in Tripura. Also, this movement hopes to secede from India. In 2000, it killed several Hindus who were participating in 'Durga Puja'. And in May 2003, at least 30 Hindus were murdered during one of its killing sprees. The Baptist church of tripura supplies army items to it. 5,000 tribal villagers were forcefully converted during 1999-2001. In 2001, 826 terrorist attacks were done by this group.

(v). The Phineas Priesthood- It believes that non-WASPs should be killed and it is an order of the God. Whoever are whites, can join this group and white Anglo Saxon Protestants are God's chosen people- a nice notion. Lerry one of the member of this group, fired over 100 rounds at targets. To be succinct, this group bombs abortion clinics and robs banks' money. It is based on Bible's old testament in which God rewarded someone for killing an interfaith couple.
(vi). The Concerned Christians- A group which is active in Israel!!! This group tried to blow up holy sites of Muslims and wants to throw Muslims out of the nation.

Christianity grows its adherents by killing homosexuals, by illegally increasing Christians' birth rates, by forcefully conversion and by throwing out other religious people. In a christian country, homosexuals do not and cannot produce christian babies.

I do agree, that doctrines do motivate a lot of evil. Also "christian" doctrines like the ones you mentioned. But all of the things mentioned do not fulfill the defintion of "war". This is terrorism. Even if the president of the US calls what the US do a "war against terrorism", these certainly do not fullfill the criteria of an all out war (like the korean war). At least as far as I can judge from what you wrote about those incidents/terroristic groups.

I will make a new topic soon, about the question of how christianity grows. We can debate this topic there.

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r
@pe7erpark3r said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

@Vex-Man said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

@pe7erpark3r said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

We both are agree on a point that "some wars are caused by religions" and "some others wars were fought for the name of religion"

No, I do not agree that some wars are caused by religions. I agree that religion prays a role in allowing some wars to happen (as in doctrines uniting people, and promising rewards). But my thesis is that the actual cause, that is enough for a whole war to break out, is something more than just a doctrine/religion.

Plays*
But I say some or a/the few (but not 0) wars are actually caused by the religions or doctrines. I stand for this thesis. Also, I say religious or doctrinal elements are enough for a whole war in my examples.
Taiping rebellion- Hong got divinity of Jesus and according to him, he was a brother of jesus .He was inspired by 10 commandments of Jesus and somewhat communism too. He went to thistle mountain to conspire against religious traditions of that place. On that moment, he wanted to arrest a lot of leaders of that religious group and wanted to join God worshiping society. He did not only accepted thistle mountain charcoal burner who claimed to channel God but also a farmer who claimed to channel Jesus. Also, he claimed that worshipers will go to heaven during prayers. Then he divided his society into four parts and liked to fight against demons. In 1850, he declared that he will be fought for the heaven and Jesus had urged him to do so. Demons were supposed as Qing dynasty. In 1851, unexpectedly he won but he continued this battle. When he won Yongan, he strictly told his soldiers to follow almost all commandments. Then he occupied Nanjing and he declared to cease warfare. He had Nanjing for 11 years and he left secular matters of governance thereafter. Europeans helped Qing dynasty to seize back and it was not expected by Hong. In 1864, Hong was found to be dead and during Nanzing seizing 30 to 70 million Taipingings were killed. It was an all out war because both sides destroyed farmland, butchered cities & villages, and killed animals. This war was not against only soldiers but also showed merciless to civilians. The Qing killed all the prisoners who were rebelling against him in Guangxi. Both sides exterminated whole population when they occupied a new specific territory.

I agree that some wars are only fought in the "name of religion".

I took my time to understand Peter's arguments (we discussed some of them in PMs)

Since I am an atheist and peter is a christian, we would like to limit this debate with Christianity only. We will not talk about Islam.
The main argument of peter was - 'Christianity grows through only conversion'. It is all about current events and is no longer related to past.
I give you my counter-argument - 'Christianity actually does not grow throu conversion',
Also, we both are agree on a point "Statistically it is true that Christianity grows its followers through conversion"

If your argument is that Christianity grows through wars, then it is accepted. However I think the question how Christianity grows is worth its own discussion.

Actually, both were my arguments. I accept that second argument was a bit off-topic.

Is there any word limit ?

good idea yeah... lets say around 500 words.

Alright :)

My counter-argument has four parts- I will write only first part in this post. Until this part ain't countered properly, I will not reveal other three parts.

Part no. 1- Christian extremists- Once upon a time American president Mr. Barack Obama was giving a speech against terrorism. He tried to cite 'Dark side of Christianity'. The problem with media is, they do not enough attention to christian terrorists. There are some christian extremist groups which are still active-
(i). The army of God, USA- It is known for endorsing violence against gays. This bombardier group especially Rudolph bombed a lesbian bar (Atlanta) in 1997. Also, this group kills those doctors who provide abortions. This is how this group contributes the growth of Christianity by increasing their birth rates. Rudolph is the leader of this group. The whole group reiterates proverbs 24:10-12 in many interviews. In one London clinic alone, 6000 women were affected by this group (2017).
(ii). Eastern lighting, China (based on Gospel of Matthew 24:27)- This group believes that this world is going to end soon. Therefore, the demons should be killed as soon as possible. This group considers women are inferior to men. However, it has a notion that Jesus will come on the earth in a form of Chinese women. In 2014, a woman was killed by this group because she rejected to give her mobile number. In 2002, the members of this cult kidnapped China Gospel Fellowship's 34 members because they were not joining this cult.
(iii). The Lord's resistance army, Uganda - It has spread its terrorism from Uganda to Congo, CAR and South Sudan. According to human rights watch, it has committed thousands of killings and kidnappings. The main leader of this group kony hopes that sub-sahara will implement a Christianize law like sharia law in the region. The LRA has abducted more than 67000 youth, including 30,000 children, for use as child soldiers, sex slaves and porters since 1987.
(iv). The National Liberation Front of Tripura, India- It has no tolerance for other religious people i.e. Hindus. It kills, kidnaps and tortures those Hindus who refuse to become Christians. It has established Christian fundamentalist Government in Tripura. Also, this movement hopes to secede from India. In 2000, it killed several Hindus who were participating in 'Durga Puja'. And in May 2003, at least 30 Hindus were murdered during one of its killing sprees. The Baptist church of tripura supplies army items to it. 5,000 tribal villagers were forcefully converted during 1999-2001. In 2001, 826 terrorist attacks were done by this group.

(v). The Phineas Priesthood- It believes that non-WASPs should be killed and it is an order of the God. Whoever are whites, can join this group and white Anglo Saxon Protestants are God's chosen people- a nice notion. Lerry one of the member of this group, fired over 100 rounds at targets. To be succinct, this group bombs abortion clinics and robs banks' money. It is based on Bible's old testament in which God rewarded someone for killing an interfaith couple.
(vi). The Concerned Christians- A group which is active in Israel!!! This group tried to blow up holy sites of Muslims and wants to throw Muslims out of the nation.

Christianity grows its adherents by killing homosexuals, by illegally increasing Christians' birth rates, by forcefully conversion and by throwing out other religious people. In a christian country, homosexuals do not and cannot produce christian babies.

I do agree, that doctrines do motivate a lot of evil. Also "christian" doctrines like the ones you mentioned. But all of the things mentioned do not fulfill the defintion of "war". This is terrorism. Even if the president of the US calls what the US do a "war against terrorism", these certainly do not fullfill the criteria of an all out war (like the korean war). At least as far as I can judge from what you wrote about those incidents/terroristic groups.

According to the general definition of a war is- an armed fighting between two or more countries or groups:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/war. If police of USA fights against those religious extremist groups, it will be said a limited war. Or if USA fights against a terrorist country such as Iraq after getting permission of Christians, it will be said a limited war too.
But I agree with you that war against terrorism or war between two or more terrorist groups are limited than an all out war is. You have no mercy for your opponent and you do not follow any type of battles’ rules in an all out war. However, you did not choose this thesis ‘no all out war is caused by any doctrine’. Now I think it is your thesis, correct me if I am wrong.
I would talk about an all out war i.e. Vietnam war. The two dangerous ideologies, communism and capitalism fought in the Vietnam war. The main reason between this war was communism threatened to expand to almost all south-east Asia. The Capitalist country USA had a phobia for communism. North Vietnam was leaded by USSR, China and N.Korea. On the other hand, South Vietnam was leaded by USA, S.Korea, Cambodia and by some other nations. 13 to 42 LC people were killed. This war became an all out war when USA released nuclear radar bombs through F-105 and B-52.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Vex-Man said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

Sorry for taking my time to answer, I'm a busy man, just like you. So please forgive...

Plays*
But I say some or a/the few (but not 0) wars are actually caused by the religions or doctrines. I stand for this thesis. Also, I say religious or doctrinal elements are enough for a whole war in my examples.

Duly noted :grin:

Taiping rebellion- Hong got divinity of Jesus and according to him, he was a brother of jesus .He was inspired by 10 commandments of Jesus and somewhat communism too. He went to thistle mountain to conspire against religious traditions of that place. On that moment, he wanted to arrest a lot of leaders of that religious group and wanted to join God worshiping society. He did not only accepted thistle mountain charcoal burner who claimed to channel God but also a farmer who claimed to channel Jesus. Also, he claimed that worshipers will go to heaven during prayers. Then he divided his society into four parts and liked to fight against demons. In 1850, he declared that he will be fought for the heaven and Jesus had urged him to do so. Demons were supposed as Qing dynasty. In 1851, unexpectedly he won but he continued this battle. When he won Yongan, he strictly told his soldiers to follow almost all commandments. Then he occupied Nanjing and he declared to cease warfare. He had Nanjing for 11 years and he left secular matters of governance thereafter. Europeans helped Qing dynasty to seize back and it was not expected by Hong. In 1864, Hong was found to be dead and during Nanzing seizing 30 to 70 million Taipingings were killed. It was an all out war because both sides destroyed farmland, butchered cities & villages, and killed animals. This war was not against only soldiers but also showed merciless to civilians. The Qing killed all the prisoners who were rebelling against him in Guangxi. Both sides exterminated whole population when they occupied a new specific territory.

I think the taping rebellion is a great example for a war that happened because of social injustice. The population that followed Hong Xiuquan were the Hakka. They did follow him, because the Qing dynasty did not allow for any social advancement for the Hakka. They were at the bottom, and society kept them at the bottom.

But I concede, that religious elements played a big role in keeping his followers in line.

According to the general definition of a war is- an armed fighting between two or more countries or groups:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/war. If police of USA fights against those religious extremist groups, it will be said a limited war. Or if USA fights against a terrorist country such as Iraq after getting permission of Christians, it will be said a limited war too.

I agree with your definition.

But I agree with you that war against terrorism or war between two or more terrorist groups are limited than an all out war is. You have no mercy for your opponent and you do not follow any type of battles’ rules in an all out war. However, you did not choose this thesis ‘no all out war is caused by any doctrine’. Now I think it is your thesis, correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, this is what I meant indeed!

I would talk about an all out war i.e. Vietnam war. The two dangerous ideologies, communism and capitalism fought in the Vietnam war. The main reason between this war was communism threatened to expand to almost all south-east Asia. The Capitalist country USA had a phobia for communism. North Vietnam was leaded by USSR, China and N.Korea. On the other hand, South Vietnam was leaded by USA, S.Korea, Cambodia and by some other nations. 13 to 42 LC people were killed. This war became an all out war when USA released nuclear radar bombs through F-105 and B-52.

The Vietnam war is a Proxy war fought between the US and the USSR. So yes, certainly 2 groups fought each other. In thase case I wouldn't even say that the US is united by its ideology as much as the USSR. I don't think capitalism is an ideology or doctrine, and I don't think capitalism unites people. But communism certainly is. It is a fight for dominion, it is a fight for power...

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r
@pe7erpark3r said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

@Vex-Man said in Pet and Vex Man debate WAR:

Sorry for taking my time to answer, I'm a busy man, just like you. So please forgive...

Plays*
But I say some or a/the few (but not 0) wars are actually caused by the religions or doctrines. I stand for this thesis. Also, I say religious or doctrinal elements are enough for a whole war in my examples.

Duly noted :grin:

Taiping rebellion- Hong got divinity of Jesus and according to him, he was a brother of jesus .He was inspired by 10 commandments of Jesus and somewhat communism too. He went to thistle mountain to conspire against religious traditions of that place. On that moment, he wanted to arrest a lot of leaders of that religious group and wanted to join God worshiping society. He did not only accepted thistle mountain charcoal burner who claimed to channel God but also a farmer who claimed to channel Jesus. Also, he claimed that worshipers will go to heaven during prayers. Then he divided his society into four parts and liked to fight against demons. In 1850, he declared that he will be fought for the heaven and Jesus had urged him to do so. Demons were supposed as Qing dynasty. In 1851, unexpectedly he won but he continued this battle. When he won Yongan, he strictly told his soldiers to follow almost all commandments. Then he occupied Nanjing and he declared to cease warfare. He had Nanjing for 11 years and he left secular matters of governance thereafter. Europeans helped Qing dynasty to seize back and it was not expected by Hong. In 1864, Hong was found to be dead and during Nanzing seizing 30 to 70 million Taipingings were killed. It was an all out war because both sides destroyed farmland, butchered cities & villages, and killed animals. This war was not against only soldiers but also showed merciless to civilians. The Qing killed all the prisoners who were rebelling against him in Guangxi. Both sides exterminated whole population when they occupied a new specific territory.

I think the taping rebellion is a great example for a war that happened because of social injustice. The population that followed Hong Xiuquan were the Hakka. They did follow him, because the Qing dynasty did not allow for any social advancement for the Hakka. They were at the bottom, and society kept them at the bottom.

“I think the taping rebellion is a great example for a war that happened because of social injustice” which was caused by a political ideology ‘Confucianism’. The code of Confucianism stated three social categories in which scholars were put at top, peasant farmers were put in the middle, artisans and merchants were at the end. All Hakkas were belonged to second and third categories.

But I concede, that religious elements played a big role in keeping his followers in line.

True and the real war initialized when Hong protested against ‘Confucianism's beliefs’ on thistle mountain.

According to the general definition of a war is- an armed fighting between two or more countries or groups:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/war. If police of USA fights against those religious extremist groups, it will be said a limited war. Or if USA fights against a terrorist country such as Iraq after getting permission of Christians, it will be said a limited war too.

I agree with your definition.

But I agree with you that war against terrorism or war between two or more terrorist groups are limited than an all out war is. You have no mercy for your opponent and you do not follow any type of battles’ rules in an all out war. However, you did not choose this thesis ‘no all out war is caused by any doctrine’. Now I think it is your thesis, correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, this is what I meant indeed!

I would talk about an all out war i.e. Vietnam war. The two dangerous ideologies, communism and capitalism fought in the Vietnam war. The main reason between this war was communism threatened to expand to almost all south-east Asia. The Capitalist country USA had a phobia for communism. North Vietnam was leaded by USSR, China and N.Korea. On the other hand, South Vietnam was leaded by USA, S.Korea, Cambodia and by some other nations. 13 to 42 LC people were killed. This war became an all out war when USA released nuclear radar bombs through F-105 and B-52.

The Vietnam war is a Proxy war fought between the US and the USSR.

Vietnam war was not a proxy war. Here is a list of proxy wars- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars. Here is the list of total wars (it is all about recent wars) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

So yes, certainly 2 groups fought each other. In thase case I wouldn't even say that the US is united by its ideology as much as the USSR. I don't think capitalism is an ideology or doctrine, and I don't think capitalism unites people.

I can cite a Wikipedia article for ‘capitalism is an ideology and doctrine’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ideologies_of_capitalism.

But communism certainly is. It is a fight for dominion, it is a fight for power...

Doctrine of communism contains conflict for dominion and power between two social major classes. According to communism, social resolution resolution is compulsory for ending this conflict. And communism was an ideology made against capitalism. Capitalism states every person is the owner of his life and each has a right to live according to his own way until it does not violate the right of others. If he violates the right of others thru power, the state can interfere. Since rights can only be violated by initiating force, the government would only use force in retaliation of those who initiated it. Therefore, capitalism definitely unites people too.