emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Syriusly Thanks for a very good answer!
I'd say yes and no to who is being threatened.
Yes, legally you can argue that these threats are criminal militant acts of terrorism war or genocide against others and not a formal declaration or attack by an organized nation against us or US as a nation yet since
that "isn't fully proven." Bush's justification for Iraq was contested because it was not proven to
all people's standards of law.
But since Islamic and other countries under attack don't have the
same Christian and Constitutional authority that the US has (or used to have
before this was undermined by division and attack from left secularists vying for political power)
then people and countries do flock or turn to either the US
or now the Soviets where Putin as a man of God is willing to stand up and take action to intervene,
even defending national interests at the expense of others as the US had been criticized for doing.
Obama seems more bent on addressing this religiously and politically
from an inclusive peacemaking approach not to burn bridges but to involve not alienate the Muslims.
But the Muslims largely rely on alliance with stronger leadership from American or Soviet troops
with the authority to help intervene with unified military force to stop the terrorism and genocide.
I understand if Obama and others want other countries to step up with policing and not rely on
US to do everything. But given the threats of selfish national interests that Putin will impose, in addition to crimes against humanity committed by ISIS forces,
it is still a risk not to do more to ensure US and human interests are equally defended and protected on the world stage. Regardless if this is seen as spiritual warfare against all humanity, or as political only affecting direct neighbors as their responsibility first.
A genocide anywhere is a concern for all nations everywhere.
It may not officially be affecting us "as directly" but the threat is to all nations and humanity
so on a spiritual level, the responsibility is shared, and the political reality and responsibility
shifts to the people with the most ability and access to do more, where the US is still looked to for this.
Technically, no we don't have to help anymore than a person in a crowd is required
to jump in and do CPR if someone collapses across the street. but if there are trained nurses or emergency responders
around, and nobody else is reviving a person effectively who is suffering a massive attack, it is morally natural for the
more competent people to step in and help, even if it is not our legal requirement, we have not
formally agreed to this, and it poses risks if we do. We can choose to respond or assume
someone on the other side of the street can handle this without us jumping in to make sure it is done right.
In the case of terrorism, the risk of spreading and causing attacks in the US has already been established
as a threat and pattern of attacks, even if the assailants are mentally or criminally ill recruits and not officially recognized as military combatants of an attacking country. So at what point do we intervene to stop the spread of threats and attacks.
Do we count Orlando as a Pearl Harbor or is it not officially an attack by ISIS operations direct but a random attack mimicking the attacks overseas directly affecting neighbor countries.
