« ODE TO IRANGE
Bikoul jouraa 2007-10-23 »

Is Killing ever justified ??

Posted by N10452

I was having today a very long and intereting debate, which started of with the assassination of Dany Chamoun and led to other political assassinations throughout our history and the ‘arguments’ that some refer to to justify killing their opponents and whether there are certain circumstances that could justify killing a person ..

It is true that most parties had a bloody history in Lebanon, and all leaders wanted to take control of their people, either by force or by bribbing their opponents .. and by force i mean eliminating ur ennemy physically ..

In the 70s, there was a struggle within the Christian militias, and Bashir Gemayel came out victorious after eliminating all opponents, and many were eliminated physically, starting with Marada and Frangieh followers and then Safra ..

Could this bloodshed be avoided in anyway ? Was Bashir capable of fixing things politically but he decided to take the easier way ??

Frangieh was already harrassing and killing Kataeb supporters in the North, Noumour el a7rar in Safra were causing too much trouble … can one unite armed militias in the middle of Palestinian presence without referring to force ??

I argue that Bashir had a greater goal, but to get there, one had to adapt with the current circumstances, since we were in war … but is that enough to justify the killing ?? I say yes & no ..

Yes because one cannot fight with his pen or his articles in times of war, when Palestinians were there along with Syrians and co, but was it impossible to reach an agreement with Dany the same way it was reached with Amine Gemayel in North Matn ??

No because i strongly believe one can find other ways to marginalize the other without eliminating him physically, and i strongly believe there is always another way to solve things ..

Keep in mind that this thread is in no way attacking Bashir, but is rather tackling the use of force in general ..

The Church defends the use of weapons or any tool to defend your property or when threatened .. but many cases do not apply here ..

If you look all over the worlds, Ataturk managed to create Turkey by force, while Indians did it peacefully, Americans had freedom & democracy ideas imported from the West, so they adapted and formed their country ..

As for us Middle Easterns, we are still on this killing mentality wishing that our political opponent to die and get sick :P


Filed under: Editorials, Lebanon, Personal Opinions, Political
Posted by N10452 on 10.23.07 @ 10:58 pm |

Related Entries



8 Comments. Add your own...

  • 1. marco K Montreal, Quebec | October 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    Y please can you put Bikol Jor2a so I can feel better! :P we want may!!

  • 2. Ra'fat | October 24th, 2007 at 1:08 am

    Well it is pretty simple, if life was ideal people can discuss everything with respect and all will be resolved for the better good.But life does not work like that, some are smarter than others. or more selfish etc.. which creates conflict of opinions. When in a position of leadership and you cant force people to agree with you or do what you want, you prevent them from destroying your plans by eliminating them. Why? because we as Lebanese don’t respect life or each other, we have not learned to value the human life yet. We basically still live like cave men driven by instinct, myth, and the I know it all attitude. Our actions are but a reflection of us…

  • 3. Tareq | October 24th, 2007 at 1:27 am

    N this a ethical question any civilized person will say NO killing is NEVER justified…but you put that civilized person in the jungle (where there is no civilization there) and he will be forced to kill to survive…100%

    Lebanon is in a jungle (the Middle East that is full of beasts like the Syria Baath, Iran Mullas, Zionists, Hamas, Hezbollah etc.) so what can you do to survive?…If the Leb Army did their job in 1975 Bachir and Dany did not need to have a militia…if they didn’t have a militia we will be living now under Palestinian rule in Lebanon…But miltias by definition mean the weapons are in the hand of the people so everyone has a weapon, you cant control them like the Army and you will have many bad elements so you have to get rid of them…

    Before the Safra operation Bachir warned everyone if the internal problems didn’t stop then a “majnoun” will come and stop them…the others didn’t listened so few weeks later he had to do the Safra operation…Before Ehden operation Marada killed Joud Bayeh the Kataeb responsable in the North and many other Kataeb because of the Marada alliance with Syria…Bachir retaliated to the attacks he didn’t started them but when militias fight there is no guarantee to respect for human rights and you have many civilians killed.

    So I see the cause more important than the problem, the cause is the army split in 1975 and the enemy was savage, they started massacres and forced us to reply and the reply was sometimes savage because we have no army we have militias, the other cause is the war lasted for a long time so there was more killing, more mistakes, more bad people over time.

  • 4. arze | October 24th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    As you mentioned in your article…every country has a situation ans every sitiation as its reasons…. and Again you cant apply the laws of the outside world to your country ! Yes what bachir Gemayel did was 100 % right ! and if he hadnt done this , the LF wouldnt have stand against all the armies and the militias . Sometimes if unitiy was is not done by communication…It has to be done by force . Christians by then , even united they were weak…and alone , how would it have been if they were split ? so yes what he did was right …Even kamil Chamoun , agreed on the Safra offensive

  • 5. fad14 | October 24th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    Reading this article I was expecting deaper and more moderate responses from the people cause we can ask many other questions.

    Is killing Hariri justified for a bigger goal ?? Greater Syria perhaps ??
    Is massacres against the christians in early 80s justified ???? to Create a safer land for the Druze perhaps ???
    Are the weapons of Hizbulla justified ??? for a greater Shiite nation perhaps ???
    Is harb el Ilgha justified ??? for creating a Michael Aoun only zone ???
    Was Sabra and Shatila justified ??? to tell the PLO never to come here again ???
    Was Oct 13 justified ???? Perhaps not to put another general in Baabda ???

    Only those who died and those who miss them should tell us if it was justified or if they still think its justified.

  • 6. Tareq | October 24th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    fad14: In most of the civilized countries killing in self-defense is justified…Your examples are not self-defense they are invasion or using force instead of politics…That is not justified in the law normally this is why USA invasion of Iraq is wrong for example.

    We can’t say only the people affected can say if it is justified unfortunately things doesn’t work this way…Everyone can be effected one day.

  • 7. Tarek | October 28th, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    Well for me it is easy, who ever is using “killing” against you, you have the full right to use “killing” against him. Other than that I can’t find any justification for killing, because unless they are killing you, you can always find a way without killing them.

  • 8. kjshf | November 27th, 2007 at 12:48 am

    killing not good, but in certain case it is considerable…..I am not in favor of killing though.



Leave a Reply


Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Search



Who posts here

Sections

Other LF Sites

Site Tools






Recent Comments