Talk:Just war theory/Archive 1

message: I think it would be interesting to have a paragraph in here that discusses "just war theory" as a form of moral relativism, or situational ethics... "just war theory" is often described as an ethos that leans in the direction of pacifism and nonviolence (or at least having a preference for a pacifist ethos), so it is important to distinguish it from, say, the more "hardliner" pacifism of MLK jr (the kind that even discourages violence in self-defense situations).
After all, the "moral relativism" page does reference (and contain a corresponding link to) this page on "just war theory" (see the page's mention of "unjust wars").
I don't see how Just War Theory (JWT) could possibly be construed as being a form of moral relativism.  JWT has set rules that, although open to interpretation, are not relative in the way that morals are in moral relativism.  JWT clearly says certain things are wrong and certain things are right regardless of who, individually or collectively, is making the judgment.  --The Way 03:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, application of rules may be a subjective matter but that does not, in and of itself, make the theory part of moral relativism.  Several ethical theories can be subjectively applied, but this is more a result of the fact that it is humans that are doing the application which makes it almost inherently subjective; people are going to disagree on the precise way in which the rules apply to any given situation.  Hume's ethical theory has subjective applications and its not a theory of moral relativism, even Kantian ethics can be applied subjectively.  Relativism tends to view morality as either entirely culturally or situationally relative.  While that does mean it is based on context, it is based entirely on context, JWT is not.  JWT has pretty clear-cut rules that apply in all situations, there may be some disagreement on this but it seems to me that JWT may be somewhat dependent on context, but not entirely which keeps it from being a true relativistic theory.  --The Way 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Just War Theory" as moral relativism? 

message: Should this article also mention the Geneva Conventions?  It seems that
just war theory shares some aspects with the Geneva Convention (more of the "how", not the "why" aspects).  Daniel Quinlan 01:47, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)
Agree.  I am going to put the link in "See Also section"
--Hurricane111 19:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  other debates 

message: Proportionality has long been part of The Just War Doctrine.  The Powell doctrine is not in conflict with that (tho an individual aplication of that doctrine might be). 
Dejvid 19:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proportionality

message: I don't see any authority for including "retaliation" in the list of Augustine's motivations for just war.  On the contrary, he says,  "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."  (Contra Faust. xxii, 74):  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/304001.htm  So I removed "retaliation". -- NuclearWinner 02:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Retaliation

message: Calling this page "Just War" invites the confusion that it is about just wars in general rather than the specific doctrine/tradition that goes under the name of "The Just War".  Might adding the "the" help?Dejvid 16:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been any confusion with the current name? Just War Doctrine or Theory might be more to the point.  "The Just War" might be thought to be about the invasion of Iraq.--Silverback 21:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
It's difficult to be sure whether there has been confusion but quite a few of the edits seem to not to quite understand that - like the above question about links.  "The Just War Theory" might be better than just "The Just War" but I think the "the" is important as it makes it clear that we are talking about one specific theory.  Dejvid 21:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Are there any other theories or doctrines of just war that are known as such? I don't think there's much risk of confusion with the current title, Just War Theory (. . .doctrine would be fine too), and naming conventions are explicit on the matter of articles at the beginning of the title. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Are they going to do that even when the title of the page is "Just War Theory", which makes the proper scope about as explicit as it can be? Perhaps "theory" should be moved to the front, so Theory of just war? If people are going to start editing in information about specific just wars even when the title explicitly states that the article is about the theory, then I don't think a definite article is going to make any difference. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "The Just War"

message: Isnt proportionality traditionally jus in bello? How can one anticipate proportianlity? Batmanand 14:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Propotionality jus as bellum?

message: "Just War Theory" or "Just War theory" or even "just war theory"?  Shouldn't all occurrences of the same be consistent throughout, including the title. -- Krash 01:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think it's a matter of preference.  Rather, it's what is correct.  My educated guess would be all lowercase.  I offer fix the article to reflect this and move the article to Just war theory, but I want to get a feel for what others think of the situation.  Especially since there seems to be a discussion on the appropriate title of the article as well.  --  Krash 17:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not a proper noun so surely should be "just war theory" and follow the normal rules of capitalisation ie, Just war theory as article title and at the beginning of sentences etc. Nurg 00:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect the only reason people want to capitalize "Just War" is the desire to treat it as a proper noun, but it isn't. "New Year" is a holiday, so is a proper noun, but the "new year" isn't. If there was a single "Just War", it would warrant capitalization. "Just War Theory" will no doubt be capitalized in political science course work, but that's again a desire to set off Subjects from Regular Text, which isn't the way Wikipedia handles things. (Consider Lone gunman theory among many, many other examples.) Let's follow WP guidelines, please. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i was the person who went through and capitalized all instances to "Just War". it was visually clearer, as instances where it was written "just war" are imprecise - "just" has more than one meaning, obviously. I just did a quick google, and while most sites do indeed present it as "Just War", i noticed one site that referred to it as "Just-war theory", which seems in some respects a fairly elegant means of properly entangling the meaning for clarity. i could be wrong though. :^) Anastrophe 03:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation of "Just War Theory"

message: I made a few minor grammatical changes and slightly rewrote the sentences in the beginning referring to Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello.  Also added Absolutism to the alternative theories section.  The Way 20:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Changes/Addition of Alternative Theory 

message: "Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression, self defense, massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations"
This suggests that self-defense is a grave public evil. What gives?
(response)
It is  my understanding that this is where the Principle of Utility comes in, that according to Christian Doctrine (at least in the beginnings of Just War Theory) it was still a sin to kill someone even if that someone was attacking you.  With the Principle of Utility this would mean that the benefit of good would have to be higher than the effects of evil.--24.21.23.29 15:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Language 

message: Okay, what is up with the assumption that the theologians and philosophers of the Christian church merely came up with a just war theory merely out of self-interest, rather than needing to consider if and when there are cases in which the use of force is legitimate?  
Even if we allow that influential philosophers and theologians represented the Church Hiearchy, this is an extremely childish and ad hominem attack.  It would be a much more respectible article if it examined what the philophers and theologians arguments for and against the proper use of force rather than just assuming they did it to rubber-stamp approval for violence in order to keep the pews full.
*It should be noted - it is not a coincidence that the emergence of a theory of just war in the christian church came about with the rise of Constantine and, with him, the christian church's first taste of power.  Indeed, up until this point christianity was very much marked by pacifism.  Once they were in power, pacifism was no longer a viable theory.
It should be noted that the above garbage was written by a Know Nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.1.175 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoo boy, someone is biased 

message: Does being a supporter of the theory makes me a pacifist? Эйрон Кинни 03:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, quite the opposite, it is an attempt to excuse some wars as justified.--Silverback 12:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always the opposite.  I knew one pacifist who believed in the Just War Theory but tho he accepted that in theory a war could be just, in practice he saw every war that had ever been fought as violating one or more of the just war principles.Dejvid 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Just War Mean I'm [[Pacifist]] 

message: I think that such a line doesn't really belong after the first sentence of an article (especially if that first sentence says nothing controversial). The fact that blablabla.com also inspires visitors to go and buy t-shirts makes it even more unsuited, imho. So I removed the line. -- Mystman666  (Talk) 09:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  source: blablablabla.com 

message: Currently you would get the impression that the just war tradition was something dreamt up by the new-cons to justify the Iraq war.  For starters it does not claim "claims the implicit "Legitimate Use of Force" doctrine associated with national sovereignty and self defence (from internal and external threats), can, for superpowers or "coalitions" with sufficient military influence, be "justly" applied to reflect, promote, or impose its state interests non-locally" indeed any who claims any such thing is arguing quite at odds with the tradition.  It may be some advocates of US power might use the frameworks of the just war (if so please give refs) but it is not what the tradition is about.  Can I ask what you think this page is about? - it is not about just wars in general but a particular way of trying to determine whether wars can be justified.Dejvid 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been removed now. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq War in the intro

message: Hi, I have made some changes to sections that were unnecessarily POV. I'm aware that my changes are not perfect, so further improvements (but not just reverts) would be welcome. 80.189.241.208 17:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why killing civilians is completely necessary... 

message: I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but there are two "Just War" articles: one at Just War and one at Just war. These should probably be merged or one of them deleted. --Chrismith 04:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other article should be deleted. Any disambiguation needed can be added to this one. Armon 00:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles 

message: Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review request

message: *Agree to move Just War content to Just war. See    -the phrase is not usually capitalized. Armon 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I don't know who made these edits (I quit searching the history after 200 edits), but in the several books on Just War theory I've read, these have never been mentioned as jus in bello criteria:
* Torture, of combatants or non-combatants, is forbidden.
* Prisoners of war must be treated respectfully.
Unless someone can find a reliable source, I will remove these from the criteria. Nathanm mn 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jus in bello criteria 

message: That article section may not be perfect but is as factually accurate as most stuff here at Wikipedia -- especially for controversial topics.  Why the tag? --Calan 06:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove factual accuracy tag? 

message: A fine start, which could be further elaborated upon. I have two issues, though, with the approach. (1) Regardless of what formal "just war doctrine" states, as defined by particular writers, the vast majority of wars undertaken throughout history were considered just by the parties involved. Many of the "alternative" doctrines you propose, including "militarism" and the "Bush doctrine" do in fact fall within varying definitions or conceptions of just war. Very few leaders or states enter war without thinking that they are justified in doing so, and thus, representing these various doctrines as being opposed to "just war doctrine" is quite POV.
(2) I don't think the mention of the current Iraq war is any more necessary than that of UK/US conceptions of justified war in Europe (1930s-1945), justifications for the war on terror or the Cold War, or justifications of any other war undertaken by any other power throughout history. The inclusion of this here is also a POV issue.
Thanks. LordAmeth 19:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: Which other religions/philosophies have doctrines on when war is just and what to they call them?  Are they relevant here?  Are they already present in other articles we can just link to from the lead or see also? MrZaiustalk 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the globalize tag.  Let me try to explain my reasoning in doing so.  Although Just War Theory has its roots in Christian theology, particularly Augustine, it's worth remembering that Augustine's roots are as much Platonic as biblical.  And though Just War Theory largely developed as a Western and European philosophy, the underlying ethical arguments are not scripturally based.  Certainly different cultures have varying beliefs about (note my capitalization) when war is just or about the ethics of war, but this article is about Just War Theory which is a specific philosophical doctrine.  In other words, this is not just a misnamed article on the ethics of war and the contents of this article should not be interpreted as a definitive statement of what is just, but rather a definitive statement of what Just War Theory postulates.  I hope this distinction is clear, as I would like to work on sourcing this article, but am afraid people will misunderstand the points above. --JayHenry 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize tag - Is this terminology used outside of Christian countries?

message: The article needs a cleanup so perhaps this is not a pressing issue, but Ron Paul mentioned the Just War theory in the last Republican US presidential debate... that's a pretty notable occurrence of someone mentioning it and he has since talked about it. Should that be specifically mentioned in the Iraq War section?--Gloriamarie 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the candidate in question make reference to the topic both directly and indirectly in various forums.  It may be worth noting.  68.116.99.140 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ron Paul?

message: I would not dispute that the doctrine and concept has it's origins in Catholic theology, but I don't believe is soley the provence of the RCC any longer.  Protestant and Anabaptist theologians  have studied and expounded upon the topic for centuries.  Perhaps this should be mentioned.
Also, I seem to recall Eastern Orthodox theology dismisses much of St. Augustine's contributions, and therefore may not have this particular doctrine.  I'm not versed enough in Orthodox theology to comment, but if someone is, perhaps it would be of some note.  68.116.99.140 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JWT has definitely exited a specifically religious context: it was used as theoretical underpinnings for the modern regime of international human rights and humanitarian laws, and when it was essentially institutionally written into the UN - e.g. article 14, i think, of the UN charter, which governs when war is seen as justified, etc.  Just War Theory is a live tradition of philosophical thought comprised of many different theories that compete with one another in whole or part. In plain usage, (in the context, say, of the philosophy department of a large university) Just War Theory is understood to refer to the entirety of this field, not just to a singular tradition Christian in origin.Ossicle (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion it is unfounded for the article to call Just War Theory a Catholic doctrine, even in origin. The article simultaneously lists Cicero, who died decades before the birth of the historical Jesus or that of Paul, as a Just War theorist. Philosophical and political debate about the justification for war preceded Catholicism by at least four centuries. The Romans always sought justifications for their wars (jus ad bellum) and behaviour within wars certainly was under discussion too (jus in bello). A striking example from ancient Greece is of course the Melian debate in Thucydides, where the city-state of Melos is about to be destroyed by Athens. Catholic philosophers certainly worked on the problem, and terms like "jus ad bellum" and "jus in bello" date to the Medieval period and not the Classical Age. On the other hand, philosophers have long before Christianity concerned themselves with the justification and ethics surrounding wars. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Doctrine? 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I'm just curious as to why this section is present when there are a plethora of other better studied historical wars available to reference.  Was there a political point to be made in including the Iraq War and no other wars, or is this non-cited portion of free-thought simply one person's contribution expecting other wars to be added over time?
216.143.221.194 (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree that, in isolation, the sub-section is suspect. I think it should either be referenced and expanded to include how other recent wars (maybe Afghanistan, Bosnia and Vietnam?) were justified under the Just War doctrine, or removed entirely. TechBear (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree the opposite: There should not be a section here, expect for a great war that has historical importance. I do not think the Iraq War has that importance over other wars. Iraq war is here only because it is near-current.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War? 

message: This article lists absolutism as an alternative to just war theory. The first sentence of moral absolutism is "Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act." The use of the word context seems to be the basis of the idea that they are opposed. But, since absolutism is meta-ethical, it has no inherent definition as to which moral absolutes are endorsed and what facts are 'context' rather than defining conditions of the absolutes, while JWT is a normative ethical position, and contains moral absolutes as claims. Certain advocates of absolutism might oppose JWT, especially those who claim to have the only coherent absolutist theory, but these specific thinkers/schools of thought don't define absolutism as a whole, and it should be them specifically mentioned as alternatives to JWT, not absolutism generally.
--Aeemnrsu (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutism 

message: While just war theory is not purely religious, being embraced in some secular philosophies, it is an important Christian theological concept. Given the debate between Christian pacifism and JWT, there should be a section about its theological significance and justification.
--Aeemnrsu (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology 

message: I have seen a critic against non-uniformed soldiers (actually against First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, because it is the protocol that put civilian in danger) and said it is putting civilians in danger, and thus should be outlawed. This is quite long time ago. Should the uniform and other civilian threatening activities be inserted under the section of "Jus in bello"? Those non-uniformed soldiers should bear almost all responsibility once civilians are harmed near them.　--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform and willingness to obey discrimination law 

message: # Summa Theologica 2-2 Q40 is important reference. It has important elements of Jus ad bellum
#* http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html
#* http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q40.html
# I have go thru' "The city of God" and found very hard how Augustine had supported Just War. The quotation made by Aquinas (e.g. Contra Faust., or "Answer to Faustus, a Manichean", xxii, 75), on the other hand, did proved that Augustine had supported Just War.
# When going thru' the references of Aquinas, can anyone explain to me that which reading is meant by "Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1"?
--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Apud just means "quoted in" and Caus. xxiii refers to Causa XXIII of the Decretum Gratiani.  Not sure what Can. would be and I can't find an English translation of Causa XXIII (since all priests read Latin this stuff doesn't get translated?), although I can muddle through enough Latin to see that it's a section about ethics of war. --JayHenry (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquinas and Summa Theologica 

message: Rich Farmbrough, 03:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In Our Time

message: This is a poor article. The obvious counter-argument: that "just war" is merely the excuse everyone gives for waging war and the facts will always be bent to fit it - is nowhere mentioned William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish 

message: Under the Examples headline, the article states "As an example of the position US Catholic bishops took to the war against Germany, here is a quote from William Manning," and then gives a quote.  This is deceptive, as William Manning was an Episcopal bishop, not a Catholic bishop.  Furthermore, this entire section seems unnecessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.224.88 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples Section 

message: Suggested additions to Formally described Just War section of Just War Theory [proposed subheading, "Supreme Emergency"]
Supreme Emergency
In his first radio address as Prime Minister of Great Britain, Winston Churchill proclaimed that "our task is not only to win the battle - but to win the war. After this battle in France abates its force, there will come the battle for our Island -- for all that Britain is, and all that Britain means. That will be the struggle. In that supreme emergency we shall not hesitate to take every step, even the most drastic, to call forth from our people the last ounce and the last inch of effort of which they are capable. The interests of property, the hours of labor, are nothing compared with the struggle of life and honor, for right and freedom, to which we have vowed ourselves." ."  http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/91-be-ye-men-of-valour   At the time of Churchill's address on May 19, 1940, the German Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were swiftly occupying territory in Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, and Denmark. The seriousness of Britain's predicament as stressed by Churchill was rooted in "the historical experience of Nazi rule . . . a threat to human values so radical that its imminence would surely constitute a supreme emergency . . . ."  Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Michael Walzer, Basic Books, 1977, pg. 253 Nazism had fully emerged as "an ultimate threat to everything decent . . . an ideology and a practice of domination so murderous, so degrading even to those who might survive . . . ."  Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Michael Walzer, Basic Books, 1977, pg. 253 
After the surrender of France to Germany in June 1940, the Battle of Britain began. Hitler failed in his efforts to subdue Great Britain by air and sea engagements and called off a proposed full-scale invasion (Operation Sea Lion). Instead he launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR. Following that, Churchill's friend Frederick Lindemann presented Churchill's Cabinet with a paper advocating the area bombing of German cities with the intent of serious civilian demoralization. Specifically, "working-class residential areas were [to be] the prime targets," with a hope to rendering "a third of the German population homeless by 1943." Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Michael Walzer, Basic Books, 1977, pg. 256 
The only viable force available in the summer of 1942 capable of carrying out the area bombing directive was the RAF Bomber Command, led by Commander-in-Chief Arthur Harris. Harris was a proponent of offensive, strategic bombing, eventually arguing "that only the destruction of [German] cities could bring the fighting to a quick conclusion."Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Michael Walzer, Basic Books, 1977, pg. 259 Britain had suffered the effects of the Blitz since 1940, but by 1942 Bomber Command was being readied to deliver a "severe, ruthless bombing of Germany [to] cripple her war-effort [and] create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population." Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Michael Walzer, Basic Books, 1977, pg. 261 
Churchill had declared the existence of a "supreme emergency" in May 1940; the summer of 1942 saw the 1,000 aircraft RAF bomber raid against Cologne. After the bombing of Hamburg in June/July 1943, Harris would claim that such raids "would end the war sooner that it would otherwise end and, despite that large number of civilian casualties they inflicted, at a lower cost in human life."Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Michael Walzer, Basic Books, 1977, pg. 261 The opinion of Harris reflects a basic paradox in the thinking of Churchill, his cabinet and advisers; "when a fundamental human value, like the rights of noncombatancy, is threatened, then action may be taken to preserve that value, even if in the short run protecting it may require disregarding it. This is the principle that justifies acts out of supreme emergency, and it is an extremely dangerous one. When invoked, it must be circumscribed by extreme restraint, or else its actions lead directly to what they were meant to correct."  Can Modern War Be Just? Johnson, James Turner, Yale University Press, 1984, pg. 57
14:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Emergency 

message: This statement "The importance of the theory of just war faded with the revival of classical republicanism beginning with works of Thomas Hobbes" is unreferenced.  The article on classical republicanism does not address the issue.  I suggest this sentence be removed or, if it is significant, someone who knows, give the relevant information with a suitable reference.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref to Hobbes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Just war theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061128152303/http://olympia.anglican.org:80/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_2.htm to http://olympia.anglican.org/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060710024929/http://olympia.anglican.org:80/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_3.htm to http://olympia.anglican.org/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified