Do you agree with the statement?

Show all answers

â™¥ â˜¼ â™« Ibrahim â™« â˜¼ â™¥

It depends on what we mean by "everything", and we cannot really compare these two topics (even though we logically tend to be "extreme" in both fields ).

In war, we cannot kill the civilians, we cannot torture anyone, we cannot kill the enemy when he surrenders, we cannot rape anyone,etc. But unfortunately, we can kill the enemy in one-to-one physical fighting, foir instance by strangulation or by kicking him with any object in any part of his body, and even by targetting his eyes,guts or throat with lethal kicks. Because it's a question of survival, and in military "art" if you don't kill then you get killed.

In love, we cannot force anyone to love us, we cannot oblige her/him to have sexual relation. And unfortunately, we cannot do anything when our lover decides to finish the relation. Some people decide to take revenge, because they feel offended and hurt in his/her honour, and then they kill the rival , the lover, or the loved person who refused to have a love affair. But that's a crime, even if it's provocked by passion. Something that shouldn't be allowed either is adultery and cheating, but unfortunately that's "permissible" because the Quran,the Torah and the Bible are not ruling our social life...

Dellarovere

This statement dates back centuries ago, when war was conducted with no mass disctructive weapons, and love had a preliminary stage of flirting.
Both war and love were submitted to rules, and the exception of permitting deviations was restricted enough, but giving both a touch of fascination....

Ipek K

Not completely..

First of all, everything is not permissible in war. War has rules and if the rules are not obeyed, it is not a war but a street fight.

War has to be noble so is love where everything is permissible between two lovers but if damage is going to be done to the third parties, then everything is not acceptable.

I think cheats and lies have nothing to do with love. In war they are alright. :p

The Babe is Armed!

No. I do not agree.

I can't begin to present a proper treatment of military ethics here. Sorry. :)

Totally Blunt

It depends. Imagine somebody fell in love with your girlfriend and did anything in his power to make her his, including slandering you. Would you still say everything is permissible in love? Maybe HE would think that way, but not the victim.

And you have to treat POWs well in war. Rape and plunder are forbidden, too.

istanbul bogazi in the Queendom

Leprechaun:-)))))))) you know why i laugh right?

Trotsky vs Kerensky- ÐÐµÐºIÐ¾!

No to both. You can't go about killing civilians just because you are in war. (Although they actually 'can' and the do. Look how USA bombed Japan. Well that can hardly be called a 'war' anyway.) Nuclear bombs in general should not be used in wars, especially when both sides posses it. Bertrand Russell argues that it is more moral to use an atomic bomb against a country who does not posses a nuclear weapon than it is to attack a country which has got one. Because in latter case, the destruction would be worse. Well can't say I agree with him completely. I think both are equally immoral since human suffering in a bombed country cannot be measured whether the country can wage a counterattack or not. That is hardly a consolation for someone who lost his/her family.

As for love, I still believe there should be some sort of morality. You should not be hanging around with a married man or married woman just because you are in 'love'. You can't go and kill someone on the pretext that you loved him so much that you couldn't stand seeing him with someone else. But the concept of love is certainly more flexible in this sense compared to war. After all who ever died of love? :)

Edit: Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified with Pearl Harbor. How many "civilians" died in Pearl Harbor (a military base) and how many died in Japan? Leave alone that, the effects of radiation still, the this day, cause sufferings in Japan. In addition when Japan was bombed, Germany was virtually defeated. The war ended only a few months earlier than it would have without the atomic bomb. Thus, the question how many people would die if the war was prolonged for a few more months is irrelevant to the bombings of Hiroshima an Nagazaki.

Edit 2: Yes ending war by killing almost 250000 innocent civilians, very remarkable isn't it? That makes apparent who the real moron is. Do you adore the bad guys in movies who claim to do everything for the "good of the world"? Not only you are a moron but you are also an ignorant fool who thinks writing in verse makes her look less stupid than she already is. You can't challenge what I said that is why you are responding with ad hominem attacks with some unoriginal general statements. Maybe you should spare some time to read books instead of writing all day in front of the computer trying to "put people back to their place" and being a pretentious little hero on your own no one gives a **** about.

Selena

Definitely not!!!!
We are still humans after all!! Inhuman use of arms, torture, other inhuman treatment and violence against certain groups of people such as civilians or prisoners of war are not permissible!
With love we have to respect the right to life, liberty and happiness of the other person.

ozxx

That's a copout people use when their rational mind is confused, and they can't see any intelligent ways forward.

Watch anybody who says that line with great suspicion.

Alwin E

Well, nuclear bombs should not be permissible in war, and rape should not be permissible in love, but, well: The one is not war, but mass destruction, and the other is not love, but killing a person's soul.

But I think, some things that go beyond the usual rules must be permissible both in war and in love. Whereby I mean the more intelligent ones, like espionage, finding out and using your "enemy's" weeknesses, psychological "warfare"...

But there are limits that must be kept.