Thursday, April 2, 2026

Contra White and Graham

From Twitter/X, on the comments made at the White House yesterday by Paula White and Franklin Graham:

Posted by at

65 comments:

  1. bmillerApril 2, 2026 at 1:38 PM

    I don't mean this as an attempt to justify US or Israeli action but I have a Just War question as it applies to Iran.

    It appears that Iran has no hope of winning and by continuing to resist they are allowing death and destruction they could avoid by agreeing to peace. Even though they were not the aggressor is it true that they are in the wrong according to Just War theory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyApril 2, 2026 at 3:33 PM

      Unfortunately, I suspect that the answer is quite complicated, primarily by the question of "what constitutes 'a win'?" They have no prospect of overcoming the US forces within the US. They have no plausible hope of a successful battlefield where they meet the US forces in battle in Iran and win. They cannot plausibly project a clear situation in the near future where the US caves in and ceases to make demands at a negotiation table.

      On the other hand, like in Iraq, they may have plausible hope of ongoing insurrection and resistance in asymmetrical warfare, guerilla warfare, and outright terrorism. They may hope for a protracted period of occupation where they push the cost of occupation ever higher, and eventually get a weak president with a weak Congress willing to depart under any terms at all, even dishonorably and at great (unnecessary) cost to the US - like Biden fleeing Afghanistan with his empty scrotum between his legs.

      If they were to undertake this level of difficulty and long-range planning on the basis of a true religious spirit and in service of the true religion (like the Maccabees did) this would appear to be just. Of course, doing it on the basis of their own power mongering and a false religion compounds the difficulty of the analysis. But generally, since under just war theory it is only ever possible that ONE side is justly entering into the war, but it is possible that BOTH are unjustly going to war, we can infer that they are unjustly extending the war even if also the US is unjust. In particular, since they could end the war by giving up unjust objectives of using violence to make other nations kneel to (their version of) Islam, a false religion, yes, their refusal to yield is unjust.

      Delete
    2. bmillerApril 2, 2026 at 6:38 PM

      The US is not asking them to give up their religion, just their ability to make nuclear weapons. OK, that and to stop funding groups that stage violent attacks against the US and an ally of the US.

      Those may have been desirable goals for the regime, but it's not like the demands were for enslavement of their people, all or most of their wealth. It would have been pretty much business as usual with the bonus of removal of the sanctions if they agreed.

      So it would seem that right intention, last resort and a reasonable chance of success would be in question wrt Iran at the beginning and not attacking non-combatants after it began.

      Maybe they hope the US will try to occupy so they can win by attrition over time but I doubt that will happen. I suppose if their criteria of success is just to avoid getting their nuclear material taken from them they succeed in that at least for now.

      Delete
    3. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 2:23 AM

      Tony, what universe are you living in?

      Of course Iran can win. Iran's win condition is to choke-hold the Strait of Hormuz until the global economy suffocates and America is forced to back off. They have no need to blow up stuff in the United States itself. And if you seriously believe that they have no chance of defeating American forces that deploy to Iran, then you're drunk on propaganda. They have a million-strong army and more paramilitary forces, not to mention an extensive array of missiles and Shahed Drones. The country is twice as populous as Iraq and is filled with mountains rather than floodplains. The simple fact is that if American forces deploy to Iran, they are going to die en masse. Your understanding of the combat situation is utterly laughable. Maybe stop getting your news from Truth Social.

      Delete
    4. TonyApril 3, 2026 at 12:13 PM

      You have some interesting points. But my pessimistic outlooks for Iran battle-wise were actually quite limited. In spite of what you point out about the mountains and their large army, I don't think that they can win any specific set-piece battle - even in the mountains - because I doubt the US generals will be stupid enough to commit to a specific battlefield engagement they won't win pretty handily. Mere troop numbers is not sufficient: modern battlefield warfare is a complex integration of air, artillery, and ground forces, and Iran will be lacking at least the first of those, probably the first and second.

      What the US could indeed lose is a protracted campaign that amounts to really a stalemate that results in a negative cost/benefit ratio: any time the US can bring a lot of Iranian soldiers to one spot, the US can kill them, but the rest of the time the US loses a few here and a few there in attrition to...asymmetric warfare and guerilla warfare, where the Iranians intelligently avoid a set-piece battlefield.

      The simple fact is that if American forces deploy to Iran, they are going to die en masse.

      Are you OK with them dying in bits and pieces, instead? That's far more plausible. Which is one of the many reasons I think we shouldn't go in with massive troops, and indeed shouldn't have begun this war.

      not to mention an extensive array of missiles and Shahed Drones.

      I doubt that Iran is going to continue to be able to manufacture its missiles, and maybe not its Shahed drones. If you think that's a given, that unquestionably they will be able to continue, I don't see why you would be justified in that confidence.

      Iran's win condition is to choke-hold the Strait of Hormuz until the global economy suffocates and America is forced to back off.

      That is a critical point. I don't pretend to know what US strategy is for this. I also don't pretend to know "the US cannot possibly have a strategy for this problem". There are many more possible pathways than "Iran's threat forces US to back down and leave the region". I think it very likely that it is Iran that will have to cave to the economic pressure first. 20% of the world's oil passes through the Strait, but (a) other sources can ramp up their supply, (b) 20% of the oil usually going through Hormuz could go through Suez, (c) a lot of the rest goes to China (including over 80% of Iran's oil), and (d) 50% of Iran gov't's revenue comes from its oil exports, (and 25% of its economy uses Hormuz), so other than China, arguably Iran's going to suffer more than anyone else, by a large margin. Maybe they can weather it, but it's not obvious they can.

      But because the US is not the economy primarily going to be affected by this, (only 2% of its oil goes through Hormuz), this problem is not of a sort to make the US simply throw in the towel, leave the region, and "and ceases to make demands at a negotiation table", which is the limited claim I indicated.

      Maybe stop getting your news from Truth Social.

      Since I have neither a Truth Social nor a Twitter account, and get 0% of my news that way, your notion is empty. Maybe I am not completely informed on Iran's military details. Maybe you aren't either.

      Delete
    5. bmillerApril 3, 2026 at 7:36 PM

      The customers for oil shipped via the Strait of Hormutz are not the only ones affected by Iran attempting to close it. The oil producing countries in the region are being squeezed as well and they don't appear to be on the side of Iran. I read that Saudia Arabia was preparing to enter the war to make sure they can ship their product. Of course I assume that very little news that is being spewed is 100% true.

      Delete
    6. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 7:25 AM

      "modern battlefield warfare is a complex integration of air, artillery, and ground forces, and Iran will be lacking at least the first of those, probably the first and second."

      This is correct. So where are you going to launch such an enormous force from? An army large enough and well-supplied enough to do what you're describing would require enormous amounts of logistical support and a vast staging grounds from which to launch. The Gulf Arab states are unlikely to accept the enormous influx of American soldiers that would be necessary for this, especially given that such sites would be sitting ducks for further Iranian missile strikes (they've already hit American bases in the region). Even if you could get them to agree, though, there are a lot of other problems:

      For one, getting enough supplies to those building-up troops would be difficult and dangerous, as the Houthis can threaten shipping going through the Bab-el-Mandeb and Iran can strike anyone coming through Hormuz. Iran's southern coast is rough and mountainous, so trying to launch a straight-up naval invasion would be a meatgrinder. It'd make the beaches of Normandy look like a picnic. The land routes into Iran are from the North (Russian sphere of influence, that's never gonna happen), the East (Pakistan and Afghanistan, that's never gonna happen), and the West (that would require re-invading Iraq and dealing with yet another Iraqi insurgency before you even get to trying to take on Iran). There simply are no good invasion routes. This isn't even getting into the fact that American naval support/naval reinforcements have to pass through the Strait, which is so narrow that land-launched rockets can easily reach any ship traversing it. Any navy group that tries to support an invasion would be at serious risk of getting a fierce beating and losing ships outright.

      Even if you were able to secure a beach-head in Iran, you'd then face the logistical nightmare that is keeping supply lines alive all the way to Tehran (or wherever you had to advance to win). You'd effectively be marching from deathtrap to deathtrap, at immense cost in American blood and treasure each time. Maybe if it was still 2003, and rah-rah patriotism was in full bloom, you could convince America to stomach that cost, but that ship has sailed. This war is already the most unpopular one in American history, there isn't a hope in hell that you can force Iran to surrender before domestic political pressure becomes overwhelming.

      Delete
    7. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 7:47 AM

      I split this comment off from the other one I made, because I think it deserves to be treated individually rather than being lost amidst logistical discussions. That is, the idea that America might have a strategy to re-open the Strait, and that their failure to do so doesn't mean they can't. This is quite frankly silly. If America could plausibly re-open the strait, they would have already done it by now. There is no reason to wait. Quite frankly, the lack of a good way to keep the Strait open is a big part of the reason why no previous President attempted anything like this. Saudi pipelines can at most recoup a fifth of the loss, not even close to enough. Plus, pipelines take a long time to build and are infamously soft targets. They can't move, are very big, are filled with flammable liquid, and destroying any part of them makes the whole thing useless. Iran could easily sabotage what mitigation efforts do exist and make things EVEN WORSE.

      Also, there is absolutely no way that Iran taps out first. For them, this is a war of survival, an existential struggle against a hated and treacherous adversary. Thanks to Trump's little trick of pretending to negotiate and then sneak attacking them after making a deal, they are never, ever going to trust any promise America makes. Therefore they have no reason to believe you will honor your word, and will not accept a peace deal that does not involve significant material concessions which are not reliant on America keeping its word.

      Speaking of their economy - what economic pressure? Trump's bungling led him to unsanction a bunch of Iranian oil to keep the price down:

      https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d415g55nno

      On top of that, Iran is now establishing a system of tolls where countries need to pay in order to secure safe transit through Hormuz, something that was not in place before the war. Making things even worse, they are requiring those paying such tolls to do so in Chinese Yuan rather than dollars, posing a serious threat to the petrodollar. If that collapses? Goodbye American Empire.

      https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2026/04/02/china-ships-iran-hormuz/

      Delete
    8. TonyApril 4, 2026 at 12:12 PM

      Also, there is absolutely no way that Iran taps out first. For them, this is a war of survival, an existential struggle against a hated and treacherous adversary.

      I respect that this may be an accurate depiction of the thinking of the former (and parts of) the current leadership. But that doesn't mean it reflects the thinking of the whole Iranian population. From the immense protests of the last months, and the widespread joy with which (some) people received the news of the former Ayatollah Khamenei's demise, it is apparent that many in Iran don't feel the same way. Trump has made it pretty clear that the threat is "existential" to leadership that wants to promote terrorism abroad and hold a nuclear threat over others, and NOT an existential threat to the Iranian people nor their Islamic faith or traditions.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 3:02 PM

    Thanks, Ed. Your stuff, as well as the Pope's and some others' comments, has really helped me see this conflict through a more Catholic perspective. I really appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 5:34 PM

    I would say that attacks of civilian populations oftentimes is simply a necessity of war. It can be effective, because it demoralizes the enemy, who has nothing left fighting for. Sometimes, and certainly in Gaza, the enemy hides under schools, kindergartens, hospitals, &c, and intends its own children to get slaughtered in the fight for the sake of thus making a big spectacle in the press.

    For Israel the present wars are a matter of win or die and in that situation anything goes. No nation is ever obligated to commit suicide, and certainly not Israel.

    As to the US-Iran war, Iran has been at warfare with the US since the Ayatollahs seized power. They have built a network of terror all over the planet and deserve to be destroyed, especially since their development of long range missiles (ICBMs) capable for nuclear warheads. This is vital US interest and cannot be neglected.

    There are other elements I agree with. I don't think that the US necessarily has the backing of divine providence with this war against Iran, but I don't think in this terminology. To me it is all a matter of power and interests, that's the way of the world and nobody can do anything about it. Who are your friends in world politics? Those who help you, or whose interests are aligned. Who are your enemies? Those who work against you. That's all and what to do is just help your friends and harm your enemies in order to continue your own existence. Why all the moral fuss? It doesn't apply to international relations. If you apply morality international politics, you are dead before the next day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 3:19 AM

      "I would say that attacks of civilian populations oftentimes is simply a necessity of war. It can be effective, because it demoralizes the enemy"

      Conservatives justifying 9/11 will never not amuse me.

      Delete
    2. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 6:04 AM

      Israel is a settler-colonial apartheid regime that established itself through violent expulsion and killing of natives. It continues to kill natives to this day, and clearly has plans to expand its operations into Lebanon and (eventually) Syria. As far as I'm concerned, they have no right to be there, and I will shed no tears for it. "Nations" in the sense of nation-states (as apart from actual physical people) do not have lives or the right to life, so talk about "national suicide" is meaningless bluster. As for Iran, the one and only reason WHY they are a threat to you is specifically BECAUSE you support Israel. Saying "we need to fight Iran because they're a threat to our allies" is circular logic - that only works if you presume that America must be allied with Israel, despite the fact that they are objectively a parasite rather than an ally. They suck billions of dollars in aid from you, shape your foreign policy, and make you complicit in genocide. And for what? God's favor?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 8:24 AM

      Killing civilians definitely isn't a necessity to "demoralize" the enemy. That's doing something incredibly evil for the sake of a potentially minor, almost inconsequentially good outcome of "demoralizing" the enemy. If the enemy intentionally uses civilian settings like hospitals, schools, etc in order to use a human shield, then obviously, that's more complicated and on them if, in attempting to take out a general or something, a civilian or even several die as a result. Something like the principle of double effect would be at work there, I'd think

      Delete
    4. AnymouseApril 3, 2026 at 2:22 PM

      Conservatives justifying 9/11 will never not amuse me.

      There was nothing in the Anonymous of April 2, 2026 at 5:34 PM that spoke of conservati ve views. He expressed simple realpolitik, which is neither conservative nor liberal as such, though there are some on either side of the aisle who use it. It's not even distinctly neocon, (which, historically, was merely a set of liberals who moved somewhat conservative in either economics or foreign affairs, but not in their principles).

      Delete
    5. El poni albinegroApril 3, 2026 at 11:20 PM

      Anon 2:22, you are quite wrong. The 9/11 comment said multiple propaganda points which are used by conservatives (and I use that therm quite loosely) and thus is not irrational to believe this man is a conservative.

      Delete
  4. ficino4mlApril 2, 2026 at 5:40 PM

    A well-aimed diatribe, Professor Feser.
    Who is White?
    @Tony: at this point in public discourse, I don't think cracks about Biden's scrotum are helpful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyApril 3, 2026 at 10:09 AM

      I will admit it was a harsh comment, perhaps just a bit over the top. I don't believe, however, that the timing matters in the least. Biden may well be in his (now admitted) dotage at this point (though, apparently, some in the media STILL reject this), his actions regarding Afghanistan and the withdrawal were taken before that, in the first year of his presidency, and at that time they were grievously cowardly along with imprudent and damaging to US interests.

      Should we respectfully not critique his cowardice for the rest of his life, and THEN attack him for that failing, only once he is dead? (Well, waiting for a seemly period after his burial?) Biden won't last that long, but Jimmy Carter lived 43 years after he left office, were we supposed to not critique his failings for all that time? Or supposed to STOP doing it when he became too old and feeble to reply? Public officials don't get that kind of kid-glove treatment.

      Still, in honor of your finer sense of decency, I hereby amend my comment to say "tail between his legs", an accepted metaphor regularly used for similar contexts.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 5:58 PM

    Dr. Feser is a fine philosopher, but his political commentary is largely abysmal. He should leave just war theory to the experts: James Turner Johnson, George Weigel, Nigel Biggar…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserApril 2, 2026 at 6:39 PM

      In my experience, people who make this sort of comment almost never offer any specifics or reasoned responses to my claims or arguments. It amounts to mere pouting and foot-stomping that I don't agree with their particular political views.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 7:54 PM

      Ah, we’ve got the classic Feser comeback! A tongue as sharp as his mind…

      No, Dr. F, the objections are manifold and complex. You seem not to be closely familiar with the distinction between preventive and preemptive, for one thing, but then again, neither are our Vatican overlords. You scarcely consider the long history of Iranian state aggression against American life and property, let alone against its own people. Your constitutional law is dubious, but that’s beside the point. If you confined your objections to right intention, you might have a decent case. But sadly you don’t, and thus we get such howlers as how the Iranian regime doesn’t/can’t pose an “imminent threat“ to the United States. Close to a thousand dead Americans over the past fifty years weren’t around for comment.

      I could go on. But I believe I have more than refuted your claim that my original comment suggested no more than “foot-stomping”.

      Delete
    3. Edward FeserApril 3, 2026 at 12:30 AM

      You seem not to be closely familiar with the distinction between preventive and preemptive, for one thing,

      In reality I've addressed it in several posts -- do a search. So, if you mean that I'm not familiar with it at all, that's a claim that easily falsified. If instead the "closely" bit is meant to imply that, while I'm familiar with it, I've somehow misunderstood it, then once again what we've got from you is merely yet another bit of unsupported drive-by foot stomping (if you'll allow the mixed metaphor).

      You scarcely consider the long history of Iranian state aggression against American life and property,

      In fact I have addressed that on Twitter, though perhaps not here. In any event, unless you tell us exactly how this is relevant to specific points I've made here, then once again we've got mere vague assertions that refute nothing I've said.

      we get such howlers as how the Iranian regime doesn’t/can’t pose an “imminent threat“ to the United States. Close to a thousand dead Americans over the past fifty years weren’t around for comment.

      That's all very cute, but what I have actually said is that Iran poses no NUCLEAR threat, specifically, to the U.S. (as in, to the actual homeland). So your lame "gotcha" is (as I find is typical of the move when flung at me) nothing more than a revelation that you haven't read what I said very carefully.

      Don't wear your shoes out with the foot stomping.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 5:31 AM

      Ed, you’re a peach. Sadly, your wit has outrun your intellect on this one, and it’s readily apparent from your response. I’ve read enough of your work to know that when you’ve really got someone nailed down, you twist the screws (now that’s a mixed metaphor). The fact is, this response here rests more on pretty language than on facts. You’re out of your depth, man!

      1) You’re a philosopher, so you know as well as I do that “So, if you mean that I'm not familiar with [the preventive/preemptive distinction] at all, that's a claim that easily falsified” is a red herring, since that’s not the claim I made. The claim I made was specifically that you do not seem to be very familiar with the distinction, and it is easily defensible. And yet you don’t actually respond to it - we just get some felicitously-termed “drive-by foot-stomping” about how I haven’t actually made a serious claim. Yet I have and do. I have seen no grappling with you, for example, with the claims of Alberico Gentili on the nature of a credible threat. It is patently obvious to many, if not most people, that credible threat has been fulfilled. If you wish to have an actual discussion on this point, I’m more than willing, on condition that you nix the pretty language and play the man, which you have many times before.

      2) The fact that you’re on Twitter and I’m not explains a whole lot. That said, you originally claimed that the history of Iranian aggression was a pretext. Are you claiming that was a pretext for just cause or right intention? Trump just gave a major speech on this.

      3) Actually, this reveals that you haven’t “very carefully” reviewed your own work. In “The US War on Iran is Manifestly Unjust” [sic!], “nuclear” does not show up in the second paragraph, which discusses imminence, and “nuclear threat” only shows up in the third. The actual context for this is “The president presents a laundry list of past Iranian offenses, but he never took these to be a cause for war during his first administration, or for a wider war last year. They are obviously a pretext rather than the true casus belli,” which is separated from talk of the nuclear threat by both a paragraph break and a “nor”.

      We all love the Feser wit. I’ll return to some of your takedowns of DBH or Coyne with pleasure. But the vituperation with which you treat those who have even political disagreements with you is ample evidence of your, not my, “foot-stomping.”

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 9:34 AM

      Well said, Dr Feser. The comment about Iran and nuclear ballistic missiles and the danger to the U.S. is laughable. Israel is much closer to Iran. If it thought Iran was a nuclear threat to their country, they would remove that threat by any means necessary.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 12:04 PM

      They are. Duh.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 8:01 PM

      Anonymous
      Ed Feser is not "vituperative." I say this as someone who has been on this blog almost since its inception. You said Feser is "out of his depth." No. You are out of your league.
      And although Israel is fighting with the U.S. against Iran, if it believed Iran was an imminent threat to its existence with nuclear missiles, they would utterly destroy the country. Duh.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 4:32 AM

      I too have been on this blog a very long time, and I have read enough of Feser to know that he is, contrary to your protestations, “vituperative.” The man cannot engage in friendly dispute when his blood is up.

      “You are out of your league” - don’t make me laugh. Ed ducked as soon as I brought receipts. The man’s a solid philosopher, but his politics are unimpressive.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 11:59 AM

      That's all very cute, but what I have actually said is that Iran poses no NUCLEAR threat, specifically, to the U.S. (as in, to the actual homeland).

      First, it's not sufficient that Iran "poses no NUCLEAR threat to the US homeland." If they pose an imminent nuclear threat to our bases, say in Diego Garcia, or closer, in Saudi, that's a threat to the US and her soldiers that should be considered for "just cause" purposes, even if in a reduced way.

      Second, Iran's inability to send a missile to the US homeland is not sufficient to say it poses no nuclear threat to the homeland: did you ever hear of suitcase nuclear bombs? Or, they could beg an ICBM off of Russia or China.

      Third it is not enough to say that "they can't (yet) build a nuclear bomb" to establish that "they pose no nuclear threat to the homeland". Did you ever hear of dirty bombs? Manifestly, there is a real possibility of Iran using its (existing) nuclear material to seed a standard chemical bomb. If exploded in a city, it could kill thousands and make the city center unlivable.

      Your comment is too simplistic, lacking in details, lacking in thoroughness, and possibly your conclusion is more wrong than right about the "nuclear threat".

      Delete
    10. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 6:04 PM

      Anon, you need to remember this is Ed's blog. He doesn't publish every comment. He didn't have to publish yours. He could have let himself have the last word, but he let you have it. Vituperative is defined as "cruel, angry or abusive". The only person who angry is you. You said you brought "receipts" and Ed "ducked." No, your receipts were invalid and Ed had more things to do with his life.

      Delete
  6. Vini TadeoApril 2, 2026 at 9:23 PM

    Thank you for your courage, Ed.

    I love the US, and it's heartbreaking what's happening to it. It is quite bad already, as it is not even fighting a fight of its own, but a war fomented, in part, by Israel's interests. What is even worse is that those in positions of power or influential decision-making are twisting the Lord's teachings to justify an unjust war.

    Thank you for always being a sober ground in this crazy world of ours.

    God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 5:32 AM

      Nothing unjust about this. And implying “the Jews” got us into this is disgraceful.

      Delete
    2. Vini TadeoApril 3, 2026 at 2:24 PM

      "Nothing unjust about this. And implying “the Jews” got us into this is disgraceful."

      I think your cognitive capacity for interpretation is deterred by the media-consuming material you're into. Let me tell you something: Israelis have the full capacity to defend themselves on their own -- they don't need the US to help them. It's also in their interest to keep the war, too. I don't know if your memory is short or simply selective, but Israel violated the ceasefire a lot of times back in 2025.

      And "the Jews" is simply laughable. Try coming up with a better cloaked ad hominem next time.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 3:28 PM

      He said "Israel," not "the Jews". You made it "the Jews". He's also only saying what Marco Rubio himself said.

      Delete
    4. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 4:14 PM

      I saw "Israel", not "the Jews". Seems to me you're putting words into his mouth.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 7:23 PM

      Nothing here worth a response. Anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

      Delete
    6. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 6:51 AM

      "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism"

      *LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER*

      Delete
    7. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 6:48 PM

      @EXE: Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Read it and weep, Judophobe.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 10:12 PM

    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 10:51 PM

    Excellently stated, Mr. Feser. Though screaming into the void. Check Tony’s response - there are loudmouth fools certainly for this nonsense and then you have erudite speakers like him- for the same corruption. No way to just state plainly what you did - has to insult Biden, has to denigrate Islam, has to ensure that people know the ‘enemy’ should not be mourned and, you know, it might just be fine they’re wantonly bombed and their country destroyed. War crimes, an admin full of sadists, practicing- some would say- a ‘fake’ Christianity doesn’t get any ire. Moral rot, folks. I pray to God that judgement truly is a thing as I would love to know how many justify this before their maker. Awful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyApril 3, 2026 at 9:50 AM

      I need to thank this person "Anonymous" who bravely authored this epic analysis of my commentary shortcomings. Particularly, where I "denigrate Islam". His accuracy knows no boundaries.

      Delete
  9. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 3:05 AM

    With due respect, re-reading the Bible would not help. The Bible is not univocal, so there is no one position it takes on anything, including the meaning of Israelite history. If they did so, they would simply read it through their own chosen lens, which minimizes or interprets away the parts they don't like and magnifies the parts they take to justify their own position.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 3:53 AM

    Thank you, Professor.

    ReplyDelete
  11. OAPoliceApril 3, 2026 at 4:28 AM

    I am going to say it:

    Cultural we are unable to apply any discernment against to sort good Jewish theology, philosophy, policy and social engagement from bad. To make criticism of Israeli policies or the actions of Jewish interest groups is socially taboo is wicked and has only served to empower the worst. The same narrative responsible for much of what is wrong with the Left excuses this, that is that victimhood somehow entails power and justification.

    This is an “at home” not “abroad” issue since without near endless funding from the United States multiple Israeli governments would not have flown in the face of international law and moral conduct making their nation into an international pariah, America’s North Korea if you will.

    My own qualms about sacred theology not withstanding, hearing greasy ghouls like Ben Gvir boast about killing the lesser races and parading instruments of execution makes me disgusted with Man, especially as I think it no coincidence this happened during Holy Week.

    ReplyDelete
  12. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 6:05 AM

    Prof,

    Why do you hope no harm comes to Israel? Given the enormity of their own sins, I'd say they are long overdue for even a fraction of the harm they inflict to bounce back upon them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 12:04 PM

      Antisemite

      Delete
    2. El poni albinegroApril 3, 2026 at 11:26 PM

      Yes, they got it on themselves. Except the Israeli children.

      The children should be spared, but that will not happen because, like the cons like saying, "wAr iS hEll".

      Delete
  13. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 6:35 AM

    And lest anyone accuse me of anything, the "harm" that I'm talking about is that they be brought to justice for their crimes, the dismantling of the discriminatory system (giving non-Jews equal status with Jews), the payment of reparations to the Palestinians (at least), and the abandonment of any ideals of Jewish supremacy, superior status, or conquest. Somehow, I doubt that they will do that voluntarily.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 11:09 AM

      Is there a country in the Middle East that treats non-muslims better than Israel treats non-jews? I'm engaging in whataboutism, but wondering why Israel gets all the ire when they are - in relative terms - the most religiously tolerant place in that sphere of the world.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 12:05 PM

      You are an antisemite.

      Delete
    3. El poni albinegroApril 3, 2026 at 11:41 PM

      "Is there a country in the Middle East that treats non-muslims better than Israel treats non-jews?"

      It's not like if Israel respected non-jews either. Like, have you not heard of GAZA and the WEST BANK? The comparison doesn't stand.

      The only reason they treat the other Muslims and christians with respect is that they subconsciously know going to live in a place full of Muslims was a stupid idea and they must accommodate to them as much as possible. Else they are gone.

      "I'm engaging in whataboutism, but wondering why Israel gets all the ire"

      Because they make the USA pay for their crimes. The Arabs don't steal money from any country, as much as the Zionist nation does.

      To be fair many people seem to imagine Islam is a religion of pure peace, despite the fact that the religion is not and will never be. The difference resides on whether Muslims will follow the rulings of Yihad or not. Just as Christians don't always follow the command of their religion, the Muslims also often disobey their religion.

      Furthermore, since the US and it's ally have been involved in giving money to the fundamentalists, portraying the wars of Israel as wars against Islam is quite dishonest.

      Delete
    4. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 6:49 AM

      Hey, moron, nobody is falling for your "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" hasbara anymore. Get a new script.

      "Is there a country in the Middle East that treats non-muslims better than Israel treats non-jews? I'm engaging in whataboutism, but wondering why Israel gets all the ire when they are - in relative terms - the most religiously tolerant place in that sphere of the world. "

      I wouldn't bother responding to this if it weren't for the fact that I might be able to show some observers the nature of this kind of propaganda. Notice how he's attempting to reframe Israel's violent conquest/occupation of Palestine and genocide of its native people in religious terms, as "Jews and Muslims". "Israeli" does not mean "Jew", and "Palestinian" does not mean "Muslim", but Anon here is trying to collapse this distinction in order to confuse the issue. The average Bedouin Arab (say) probably will not face too much overt discrimination in Israel, at least not in comparatively more progressive places like Tel Aviv. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they are oppressing and killing Palestinians (they objectively are, and any attempt to deny it is covering for a genocide). Nothing remotely comparable is going on in the Arab world - there are no Arab countries massacring their Jewish populations by the thousands.

      Delete
    5. bmillerApril 4, 2026 at 7:15 AM

      It is interesting to see someone who regularly accuses others of being racists/bigots/colonialists etc for disagreeing with him being called an antisemite. I wonder if being called names will shame him into changing what he posts.

      Delete
    6. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 1:30 PM

      I don't generally accuse individuals of being racist, bigoted, or colonialists unless they are openly supporting people or policies that are racist, bigoted, or colonial. Usually, what I say is "this policy/country's actions/etc" is colonial, or racist, etc, claims that I can back up with evidence. If you take that as a personal attack, well, maybe that calls for some self-reflection. To put it in other words, why do you flinch and feel attacked when I say "We should punch Nazis"? Are you a Nazi?

      Delete
    7. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 1:40 PM

      El poni albinegro:

      "To be fair many people seem to imagine Islam is a religion of pure peace, despite the fact that the religion is not and will never be. The difference resides on whether Muslims will follow the rulings of Yihad or not. Just as Christians don't always follow the command of their religion, the Muslims also often disobey their religion."

      I'll grant you that the purely rosy, hippy-dippy image of Islam is historically anachronistic, and doesn't apply to Islam in most of the Islamic world. However, I would still quibble with your characterization. Like with every religion, there is no "True" version of Islam that any good Muslim must follow, and from which any who deviate are lax or apostates. These categories are all human constructions, the results of interpretative decisions taken by certain communities. Muslims in the West are typically much more progressive and peaceful, for instance, and the idea that they are "bad" Muslims while the Jihadists are "good" Muslims is not an objective fact, it is a value judgment made by conservative or reactionary Islamic communities. Islam has historically made holy war, I agree, but it can be *changed* to be peaceful, and there is no reason to think that Muslims living in the West "have" to become Jihadists, or are even pushed towards that. That only happens if we allow the Jihadists to win the battle for young Muslim minds.

      Delete
    8. bmillerApril 4, 2026 at 6:15 PM

      Sounds like someone is flinching at being called an antisemitism. I guess that makes him one.

      Delete
  14. MartinApril 3, 2026 at 9:03 AM

    So maybe when it comes to a hard choice in an election, for example voting for the alleged anti-abortion candidate despite numerous flaws (“flaws” LOL…LMAO, even), there is also the consideration that the “flawed” anti-abortion candidate is a malignant narcissist and con artist who has destroyed every business he’s ever touched, lives in a world of delusions propped up by sycophants, lies about absolutely everything, and quite possibly will leave the country or even the world in smoking ruins. So the political calculus leads to us all standing on a pile of ashes but abortion is outlawed, at least…? #worthit…?

    What boggles my mind is none of this has been surprising. It’s maddening watching the equivalent of someone stumbling around and slurring their words and concluding “they are obviously drunk” while a significant portion of the electorate thinks “they should be the driver!”

    I’ve been bashing my skull against a wall for a decade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 1:42 PM

      I concur. While I'm broadly anti-abortion, the insistence of some that it is an issue of overpowering importance, to the point where it alone dictates how one must vote irrespective of other concerns, has been tremendously damaging. This position basically chains you to the Republican Party and deprives you of the ability to hold them accountable, since you have made yourself unable to not vote for them.

      Delete
  15. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 10:27 AM

    Even though I mostly agree with Feser on the basic premise - Trump did not meet "just war" requirements in going to war with Iran - I think parts of this twitter comment are exaggerated and bombastic. The "we" of "are absolutely drunk on the deadly sins", "we do not grieve or repent", "we wage war not reluctantly", "we shrug and move on" are excessive in grouping everyone in the failings indicated. Every nation has some who justify these accusations, and others who do not. Nobody in the world is wholly, absolutely innocent of them, but not every nation ought to be chastised by God through war because of the guilty. Not every soldier of the US wages war with libido dominandi and callous disregard for civilians, most don't. The comments over-reach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MPApril 3, 2026 at 4:40 PM

      Funnily enough, in this our host is rather like Trump.

      Let's hope that's a hint that Trump will also convert to Catholicism!

      Delete
  16. NLRApril 3, 2026 at 1:22 PM

    There is a world of difference between, "we have the best country and the correct religion, so we need to live up to it" versus, "we have the best country and the correct religion, so whatever we do is right".

    By the way, I don't just mean Christianity or the United States, that is pretty much the story of history since the end of the hunter-gather era. Are you going to live up to what you believe yourselves to be or are you going to say, "it's right when we do it"?

    ReplyDelete
  17. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 5:24 PM

    OK, all animus aside, it's good to see that there are still some conservatives with a conscience out there. Props for opposing this horrific administration, Ed, for what it's worth. Trump II is pretty much certain to go down as the worst in history, unless we all die in World War 3 before the history books have a chance to be written.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Miguel CervantesApril 3, 2026 at 9:11 PM

    Dr. Feser is right to criticise this. I watched the complete recording of the so-called prayer session. Sickening. Bishop Barron really demeaned himself and the Church by taking part in this circus of utter phonies. What pathetic justifications for their war crimes. If they were really worried about fanatically Islamist regimes that persecute Christians and pursue nuclear weapons, they would be bombing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, not Iran, where Christians can worship publicly and have seats in Parliament guaranteed to them.


    The Pope was right to say that God doesn't listen to the prayers of warmongers, right after Hegseth's glorification of murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnymouseApril 4, 2026 at 12:02 PM

      So, because Hegseth is a moral midget who ought to be criticized, the pope is right to reject the Bible and 1600 years of unchanged Catholic teaching on just war? Good to know.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 9:22 PM

      By definition, a warmonger is a promoter of unjust war. Hegseth is, without doubt, one of these. Just because the Pope isn't quite right on everything doesn't mean he's not right on anything, as in this case. Elementary my dear Watson.

      Delete
  19. TalmidApril 3, 2026 at 10:04 PM

    I read "Graham" and for one second i was thinking that you were engaging Dr. Oppy work again, Professor.
    I admit that it was a very joyful second XD.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)