Can You Be A Christian and Support State Torture?

[Nbadan]

A look at water-boarding...


http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/Waterboard1-small.jpg
Actual waterboards used by the Khymer Rouge.
http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/Waterboard3-small.jpg


September 28, 2006
This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like


As Congress has debated legislation that would set up military tribunals and govern the questioning of suspected terrorists (whom the Bush administration would like to be able to detain indefinitely), at issue has been what interrogation techniques can be employed and whether information obtained during torture can be used against those deemed unlawful enemy combatants. One interrogation practice central to this debate is waterboarding. It's usually described in the media in a matter-of-fact manner. The Washington Post simply referred to waterboarding a few days ago as an interrogation measure that "simulates drowning." But what does waterboarding look like?

Below are photographs taken by Jonah Blank last month at Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The prison is now a museum that documents Khymer Rouge atrocities. Blank, an anthropologist and former Senior Editor of US News & World Report, is author of the books Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God and Mullahs on the Mainframe. He is a professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has taught at Harvard and Georgetown. He currently is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff in the Senate, but the views expressed here are his own observations.

David Corn (http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php)

[Nbadan]

Water-boarding in action


http://blogs.abcnews.com/photos/uncategorized/waterboarding_nr.jpg
CIA sources say the harshest technique was called "water boarding," in which a prisoner's face was covered with cellophane, and water is poured over it (pictured above) -- meant to trigger an unbearable gag reflex.

[Yonivore]

No permanent damage? Yep, I can support it.

[NeoConIV]

According to Brian Ross, waterboarding has also generated intel.

As a Christian, this technique, yes.

[NeoConIV]

Actually, if Adnan or Azzam were captured, I'd very much like to do the waterboarding myself.

[turambar85]

WWJW?
Who Would Jesus Waterboard?

Well, read the Bible, there are dozens of new testament verses demonstrating Christs desire to spread the gospel of torture.

He was really into that shit, why do you think Peter freaked so bad when he realized he had denied Jesus 3 times...he was in for it.

[turambar85]

No permanent damage? Yep, I can support it.

Damn, Yoni, you nailed it. It was precisely Jesus's teaching that all manners of inflicting pain and suffering are ok as long as there is no permanent damage. It says so in John 3:17.

And, since Christian means like-Christ, we sure as hell better follow his teaching!!!!!

[johnsmith]

Yes

[turambar85]

Yes

WHOOOO-HOOOO!!! Another great follower of the Lord Jesus Christ!!

If this keeps up he will feel a lot better, his purpose for coming to Earth will be completed.

You know, if you don't torture a Muslim, the baby Jesus sheds a single tear.

[Yonivore]

WHOOOO-HOOOO!!! Another great follower of the Lord Jesus Christ!!

If this keeps up he will feel a lot better, his purpose for coming to Earth will be completed.

You know, if you don't torture a Muslim, the baby Jesus sheds a single tear.
Are you trying to make a point, other than the one on top of your head?

[Phenomanul]

No...

[turambar85]

Are you trying to make a point, other than the one on top of your head?

My point is that Christians absolutely have to accept torture as an acceptable practice.

If the goal of the Christian is to be like-Christ, and he was such an avid supporter or torture, at least in the scripture, you would be acting sinfull not to torture.

It is common sense Yonivore, and I am glad to people like you have embraced this special doctrine of love.

[Yonivore]

No...
Not even knowing that all 14 of the terrorists, upon whom such techniques were used, divulged intelligence that saved lives?

Possibly even someone in your family?

And, further knowing that none of the 14 terrorists suffered any permanent physical harm?

[Spurminator]

Can you believe in the separation of church and state while arguing for a Christian policy of war?

[Nbadan]

Wasn't one of the reasons we invaded Saddam because he was torturing his own people? Meet the new man, same as the old man.

[Yonivore]

My point is that Christians absolutely have to accept torture as an acceptable practice.

If the goal of the Christian is to be like-Christ, and he was such an avid supporter or torture, at least in the scripture, you would be acting sinfull not to torture.

It is common sense Yonivore, and I am glad to people like you have embraced this special doctrine of love.
I see.

[Yonivore]

Wasn't one of the reasons we invaded Saddam because he was torturing his own people? Meet the new man, same as the old man.
We're not pushing people off buildings, hacking off limbs, or feeding them into plastics shredders. Nor are we raping their children and wives in front of them before we kill them and deliver their body parts home in plastic bags.

And, I doubt many of Saddam Hussein's victims were tortured for intelligence gains but, instead, just to satisfy his sick mind.

Your moral equivalency is as sickening as Saddam Hussein's torture techniques. Nice new low there Dan.

[ChumpDumper]

It's pretty telling that no one disputed the waterboarding's being described as torture.

You guys are slipping.

[turambar85]

Not even knowing that all 14 of the terrorists, upon whom such techniques were used, divulged intelligence that saved lives?

Possibly even someone in your family?

And, further knowing that none of the 14 terrorists suffered any permanent physical harm?

Ok, while I may agree with you that the Lord Jesus Christ was an avid supporter of state torture, your facts seems sketchy at best...

Where is your proof that all 14 water-boarders tortured saved lives?

And why is physical harm all important? What about the fact that some that have been Christianly tortured have suffered serious future side effects, like inability to shower or be in the rain for fear or dying.

But, at least we are better than them! We torture in the name of the true God!

Those sick, Godless bastards who torture in the name of a false diety...

[Nbadan]

Can you believe in the separation of church and state while arguing for a Christian policy of war?

I'm sure even theologians have trouble with that question when deciding if a soldier should be made to kill by the State if he does not agree with the cause of the war. However, my question is, could you torture on Monday-Friday and go to church on Sunday with a clear conscience?

[johnsmith]

You can be a Christian and pretty much do anything actually. For instance, if I were to go and beat turambar85 relentlessly while shouting the lords name in vain and banging his mother, I could still be a Christian. Maybe not a good one, but I'd still be a Christian. Really it's the question that is stupid........and hippies, they are stupid too.

[johnsmith]

I'm sure even theologians have trouble with that question when deciding if a soldier should be made to kill by the State if he does not agree with the cause of the war. However, my question is, could you torture on Monday-Friday and go to church on Sunday with a clear conscience?


HA, just make sure you are Catholic, confess your sins, and everything is alright. In your face satan.

[turambar85]

I'm sure even theologians have trouble with that question when deciding if a soldier should be made to kill by the State if he does not agree with the cause of the war. However, my question is, could you torture on Monday-Friday and go to church on Sunday with a clear conscience?

Just because you are a liberal athiest does not mean that you can disrespect these honorable Christians for the supposed hypocrisy of torturing on Friday then preaching the word on Sunday!!! You just can not understand how noble and holy it is to torture for the true God....

You disgust me
:lol

[Spurminator]

I'm against torture, but my Christianity really doesn't have anything to do with it.

[johnsmith]

Hey turambar85, anyone ever tell you that you look like the neighbor from "The Burbs"?

[Yonivore]

I'd risk my immortal soul if it meant saving the life of my family.

[turambar85]

The neighbor from "The Burbs" is a daucshund? Or a glowing Jesus-impersonator?

[turambar85]

I'd risk my immortal soul if it meant saving the life of my family.

So, you would upset your Heavenly father, damn your soul, and ruin your familys eternal bliss to have a 1/1,000,000 chance of keeping your family alive?

That is committment!

[Phenomanul]

Not even knowing that all 14 of the terrorists, upon whom such techniques were used, divulged intelligence that saved lives?

Possibly even someone in your family?

And, further knowing that none of the 14 terrorists suffered any permanent physical harm?


Put them in prison, but treat them in a Christ-like way..... maybe then, they would see they had it all wrong.... Don't give them a reason to believe they were right.

But again, this problem is way more complicated than what meets the eye...

[johnsmith]

The neighbor from "The Burbs" is a daucshund? Or a glowing Jesus-impersonator?


No, I was talking about the picture on your user profile.

[Yonivore]

So, you would upset your Heavenly father, damn your soul, and ruin your familys eternal bliss to have a 1/1,000,000 chance of keeping your family alive?

That is committment!
Wow! How'd you calculate those odds.

Seems to me it was reported that all 14 upon whom these techniques were used (and waterboard wasn't necessarily the technique that worked) divulged intelligence that led to live being saved.

So, yeah, however you calculate those odds, I'd waterboard a terrorist if it stood the most remote possibility of saving my family's life. Even if it meant eternal damnation (which, by the way, I don't believe it does).

What does my family's eternal bliss have to do with anything? Why drag them into it?

[turambar85]

No, I was talking about the picture on your user profile.

Ah, the glowing Jesus impersonator...

That beautiful SOB.

Well, I don't quite recall the blurbs, but I looked up pics. Is it the guy with the facial hair, or Gary Busey?

[Yonivore]

Put them in prison, but treat them in a Christ-like way..... maybe then, they would see they had it all wrong.... Don't give them a reason to believe they were right.
What? Putting them in prison won't stop those whom they know are planning the next attack.

And, I wouldn't count on them ever seeing that had it all wrong. They're more tenacious in there blind beliefs than ChumpDumper.

Reason to believe they're right? Right about what and why do I care if they think they're right?


But again, this problem is way more complicated than what meets the eye...
You don't know the half of it.

[turambar85]

Wow! How'd you calculate those odds.

Seems to me it was reported that all 14 upon whom these techniques were used (and waterboard wasn't necessarily the technique that worked) divulged intelligence that led to live being saved.

So, yeah, however you calculate those odds, I'd waterboard a terrorist if it stood the most remote possibility of saving my family's life. Even if it meant eternal damnation (which, by the way, I don't believe it does).

What does my family's eternal bliss have to do with anything? Why drag them into it?

I still want proof of this improbable claim that you are making about all 14 tortures saving lives.

A.) How do you personally know what all 14 divulged? If you don't, youre taking either the word of the torturing gov't that will cover its own ass, or the talking heads who are taking the word of the tortuous government.
You should have a transcript before making such a crazy claim.

B.) Even if all 14 helped end terror plots...were they all different plots? Would all have definetely happened? Would all have actually succeeded?

C.) Were they even telling the whole truth?

[Phenomanul]

What? Putting them in prison won't stop those whom they know are planning the next attack.

And, I wouldn't count on them ever seeing that had it all wrong. They're more tenacious in there blind beliefs than ChumpDumper.

Reason to believe they're right? Right about what and why do I care if they think they're right?


You don't know the half of it.


OK.... would you personally do it?

When would you know you weren't becoming sadistically addicted to their pain?

Turambar's point, though highly facetious is dead on.... JESUS would never have tortured anyone.... His message never indicated such.

Having said that, do I support the war? YES.

Do I support torture? NO.

[NeoConIV]

Waterboarding results (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/)

And for the record, waterboarding is not torture.

[Guru of Nothing]

Waterboarding results (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/)

And for the record, waterboarding is not torture.

Definitely falls under "cruel and unusual."

... Not that the Constitution is relevant in how we comport ourselves.

Rules are for pussies!

[NeoConIV]

Definitely falls under "cruel and unusual."

... Not that the Constitution is relevant in how we comport ourselves.

Rules are for pussies!
Milk and toast all the way around for our detainees with critical intel that could save lives! Here here!

[smeagol]

You can be a Christian and pretty much do anything actually. For instance, if I were to go and beat turambar85 relentlessly while shouting the lords name in vain and banging his mother, I could still be a Christian. Maybe not a good one, but I'd still be a Christian. Really it's the question that is stupid........and hippies, they are stupid too.
Does anybody else think that johnsmith=buddyholly?

[smeagol]

HA, just make sure you are Catholic, confess your sins, and everything is alright. In your face satan.
No. That's not the way it works.

[Guru of Nothing]

Milk and toast all the way around for our detainees with critical intel that could save lives! Here here!

While we are at it, maybe we can get them to accept Jesus as their savior. Surely you don't oppose saving souls.

[jochhejaam]

I don't imagine that the the tenets of Christianity are taken into consideration by those that torture.

Likewise, I can't imagine a Christian, who by definition adheres to those tenets, should give any thought to torturing.

[Melmart1]

You don't know the half of it.
And you do? Then enlighten us, please.

[johnsmith]

Does anybody else think that johnsmith=buddyholly?


Whooooaaaaa, I can stand by and make fun of others with random pot shots, and I can even take some abuse. However, I will not, repeat, will not stand accused of posting as more then one person on this website. I've done that once and it was out of my unbelievable hatred towards Boutons. So no, I'm not BuddyHolly and I'll thank you for never accusing me of doing that again. I'm emberassed enough that I find so much entertainment in posting on a chat board, don't lump me in with the fucking nerds that take a bunch of time to make different personalities.

Thank you.

[turambar85]

Waterboarding results (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/)

And for the record, waterboarding is not torture.

Just for the record, it is.

[RandomGuy]

Going back on the principles that have made us a great nation smacks of fear. People who support such actions would quiver and cower in the corner rather than face the world with the strength of conviction.

Those who advocate torture make the terrorists right when they talk of us being the devil and using the methods of the devil.

Doing such things defeats our nation even before we have begun to fight, because we have already lost that which we say we fight for, and gives those who would harm us most the tools they need to defeat us militarily.

These propaganda tools create more terrorists faster then we can possibly kill them and allow those very same terrorists more room to operate in a climate in which such behavior is tacitly approved of by sympathizers who, although they would never actively work with murderious pyschopaths, might simply turn a blind eye at the right time in the right place.

It does not save lives, it costs them. Do not delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

[turambar85]

Going back on the principles that have made us a great nation smacks of fear. People who support such actions would quiver and cower in the corner rather than face the world with the strength of conviction.

Those who advocate torture make the terrorists right when they talk of us being the devil and using the methods of the devil.

Doing such things defeats our nation even before we have begun to fight, because we have already lost that which we say we fight for, and gives those who would harm us most the tools they need to defeat us militarily.

These propaganda tools create more terrorists faster then we can possibly kill them and allow those very same terrorists more room to operate in a climate in which such behavior is tacitly approved of by sympathizers who, although they would never actively work with murderious pyschopaths, might simply turn a blind eye at the right time in the right place.

It does not save lives, it costs them. Do not delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

I'm going to cry. Someone actually talking out against torture without smelling of partisan shit.
:clap

[gtownspur]

Going back on the principles that have made us a great nation smacks of fear. People who support such actions would quiver and cower in the corner rather than face the world with the strength of conviction.

Those who advocate torture make the terrorists right when they talk of us being the devil and using the methods of the devil.

Doing such things defeats our nation even before we have begun to fight, because we have already lost that which we say we fight for, and gives those who would harm us most the tools they need to defeat us militarily.

These propaganda tools create more terrorists faster then we can possibly kill them and allow those very same terrorists more room to operate in a climate in which such behavior is tacitly approved of by sympathizers who, although they would never actively work with murderious pyschopaths, might simply turn a blind eye at the right time in the right place.

It does not save lives, it costs them. Do not delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Let me express my reservations on the whole religous angle of this argument first then i'll move on to the more mechanical and ethical aspects of my view on torture.

First of all the United States is a governmental entity which has a purpose rather different than you and I do as a christian.

The role of Government is to protect it's citizenry from endangerment, therefore as to where as a christian, Christ compels us through paul's epistle to "Make you're body a living sacrifice unto God", as well as "turn the other cheek", this is christ's instruction for daily living to be executed by individuals and not nations.

Christ is silent on the role of government, you got to remember, he came to set up a spiritual kingdom and not an earthly one. The book of Romans in one of it's passages states that God, the Father, gives the government the right to execute and protect.

If we are to make "Christ the sunday school hallmark card persona" an example of shunning torture, and not the writ in it's entirety, there are countless other practices and proffesions christians should abstain from:

1.Doctors at abortion clinics

2.Military Service

3. Law enforcement

4.Espionage

etc....

Torture done in the interest of the state to protect it's citizenry, and not of personal gratification is just.

For you; being the agent of the govt, trying to extract information, are not acting on your behalf, but on the will of the state.

Repeat this with me.... "The state is not relegated to private restrictions as so put forth in the Gospels."

Now, before you ever type another token "turn the other cheek" verse, be responsible and determine yourself wether christ was referring to nation states.


Now unto the ethical and mechanical aspect.

Random Guy, do us all a favor and remind yourself that our political and practical actions in the war on terror, used in a positive way as to show goodwill, to change the hearts of potential recruits for terrorism, is useless.


To a bunch of people who are already indoctrinated in believing that allah wills everything to the advantage of the spread of Islam. You're humanistic practices will only make you look weak.

Torturing, or not torturing, Strong or weak, liberal administration or Republican, wether you grant constitutional priveleges or not, none of this will decrease the recruitment of terrorism.

Let me ask you, if Bush would have used softer language, and goodwill efforts to get an extreme conservative to sit on the high court, would all his goodwill, good times fun and rock and roll antics make you support his nomination?

Therefore Islamofanatical extremist who are on the sidelines do not care that about you're delivery, but the substance.

And on substance, you are not on their side nor do you have any inclinations to advance islam for them, therefore you are standing in the way and are a threat.

It's as if we were to serve them shit on a silver platter and expect them to eat it. That's what it's like to go into the mideast and use humanistic approaches to wage as they see it "a war on their God, allah and his servants". Whether it be for a just cause, like afghanistan, or to you unjust(iraq), we are on sacred grounds.

The war as Islamofascist play is always to their advantage. Their rules are, "stay out of our land while we wage war from it, and stay confined to living in fear and putting up with thousands of individual terrorist to halt from killing your people. Even if you get approval from kings to come here and extract terrorist, we will tell their people that you infidels are filthy and should die for just setting foot in our territory. There is no right and wrong, but only what Allah wills. You are to stick to fighting this war always on the defensive."

My argument is not about how cruel and dedicated and fanatical they are to obtain their goal.(killing innocents, beheading school girls etc) But how they are so fanatical that anyway you deal with them, you will always be wrong because you are not under submission of allah.


Don't play this cheap card of "But our methods will recruit more terrorist" again. It's dishonest and pointless.

[RandomGuy]

Gawd, what a logical abomination, so I'm not sure where to start. Here goes:

Random Guy, do us all a favor and remind yourself that our political and practical actions in the war on terror, used in a positive way as to show goodwill, to change the hearts of potential recruits for terrorism, is useless.

That directly contradicts the US military's doctrine. Take a read of the newest counterinsurgency field manual.

It directly states that such things work.

How do you explain that?

[RandomGuy]

Don't play this cheap card of "But our methods will recruit more terrorist" again. It's dishonest and pointless.

But it happens to agree with the national intelligence estimate, as well as common sense.

Can we agree that the Al Qaeda types say that we are the devil, totally evil and out to rule the world, using any means at our disposal. Yes or no?

[MannyIsGod]

I don't imagine that the the tenets of Christianity are taken into consideration by those that torture.

Likewise, I can't imagine a Christian, who by definition adheres to those tenets, should give any thought to torturing.Thank You, Joch.

[MannyIsGod]

Yonivore, I believe if you speak with your clergy about this topic he will tell you that you will never have to risk your immortal soul in order to save your family, you will merely have to have faith in Jesus Christ. Doing otherwise is not living in a proper Christian way.

You either have faith, or you don't, but you can't have faith and be willing to risk your immortal soul at the same time.

[Ocotillo]

http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/145/1296/400/jesus-with-rifle-thumb.jpg
That "blessed are the peacemakers" stuff is so pre-9/11

[RandomGuy]

That "blessed are the peacemakers" stuff is so pre-9/11

Yeah, right and wrong changed that day. [/sarcasm] :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

Okay, to lose to opponent.
Must not lose to fear!
Sincerely,
Mr. Miyagi

[Yonivore]

Yonivore, I believe if you speak with your clergy about this topic he will tell you that you will never have to risk your immortal soul in order to save your family, you will merely have to have faith in Jesus Christ. Doing otherwise is not living in a proper Christian way.

You either have faith, or you don't, but you can't have faith and be willing to risk your immortal soul at the same time.
Given the option of not waterboarding a terrorist I believed had information that would save hundreds, thousands, or even millions of INNOCENT lives and not waterboarding a terrorist because it's something Jesus wouldn't do, I'd confess my weakness, abandon my faith, and pray for forgiveness.

Deal with it.

Spend some time in Romans Manny. Paul talks about the thorn in his side and how God does not expect us to be perfect and recognizes we will fall, doing things we do not want to do and not doing the things we know are right. He goes on to talk about God's unconditional love, forgiveness and grace.

I agree, if I were to do as Jesus did, I wouldn't waterboard. But, I only aspire to be perfect in his sight with the knowledge it is unattainable.

Just being real. I know that if I thought I could gain information that would save my children in exchange for causing a terrorist a few minutes of discomfort, I'd cause the discomfort.

[Medvedenko]

I heard this analogy....
Sacrificing the coalition troops in Iraq to save lives....isn't this the same as stem cell research and saving lives... I don't see the difference, innocent life for future life....We torture people to possibly save lives as well.

[MannyIsGod]

Christianity doens't say you can use the knowledge that you're not perfect to knowingly do something that goes against what Christ wants. :lol

Thats rich man. You don't get cart blanche. Your faith in Christ isn't as deep as your faith in torture? That speaks volumes my friend.

Deal with it? It's your faith - or lack there of rather - I'm not the one who has to deal with it.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni thinks 24 is a documentary.

I don't know if Maher Arar has been brought up here, but his story makes pretty clear what level of detainee treatment our government approves.

http://www.maherarar.ca/

[Yonivore]

Christianity doens't say you can use the knowledge that you're not perfect to knowingly do something that goes against what Christ wants. :lol
That's not what I said. Knowing that I'm not perfect, I believe that I would be -- if faced with the dilemma -- unable to forgoe these harsh techniques if it meant saving my family's life. That's not ignoring biblical principal, that's recognizing a weakness and a reality.


Thats rich man. You don't get cart blanche. Your faith in Christ isn't as deep as your faith in torture? That speaks volumes my friend.
Well, first, I've never agreed any of these techniques were torture. So, why don't you first explain in what way the worst of the techniques, waterboarding, is torture.

Then, I never said I had carte blanche. I recognize that what I might be willing to do could go against scripture. But, I'm not convinced it is. Plus, are you suggesting you don't violate Christian principles on a daily basis?


Deal with it? It's your faith - or lack there of rather - I'm not the one who has to deal with it.
I'm comfortable with my faith and my failures and my place in God's kingdom. I will deal with it.

So, considering I don't think any of the techniques mentioned constitute torture (maybe frat hazing techniques) and considering the application of those techniques -- particularly waterboarding -- have produced valuable intelligence that ended up saving lives, I'm okay with it and I refuse to let you attack my faith because I condone the use of these harmless techniques.

So, yeah, deal with it.

Ask yourself this Manny, why did Jay Rockefeller vote in favor of the Military Commissions Act? A leading critic of the Bush administration, probable leaker of sensitive intelligence information (sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee) and yet, when it comes to the nut-cutting, he votes in favor of the MCA.

I'm guessing it's because he actually knows the stakes involved and, further, he knows the techniques have works and have saved lives.

What about the other 12 Democrats? Why did they vote in favor of the MCA?

I hope you and your ilk are feeling more and more marginalized with the passing of every bill that supports the administration's efforts in the war on terror.

You're on the fringe.

[MannyIsGod]

K, then I'm on the fringe. If that makes you feel like a better Christian, then more power to you. You can try to deflect attention from how your views dno't add up by trying to paint me as a fringe thinker.

Actually, in this country I'm not too sure I'd be ashamed to not be part of the mainstream. I actually think for myself, I don't pick a side and blindly follow. So yes, I am on the fringe.

[Yonivore]

K, then I'm on the fringe. If that makes you feel like a better Christian, then more power to you.
It doesn't make me feel anything but relief that you and your type aren't in control of my government.

[MannyIsGod]

It doesn't make me feel anything but relief that you and your type aren't in control of my government.Indeed, freedom would be a horrible thing. Your type is obviously doing a bang up job. Bravo.

[Yonivore]

Yoni thinks 24 is a documentary.

I don't know if Maher Arar has been brought up here, but his story makes pretty clear what level of detainee treatment our government approves.

http://www.maherarar.ca/
Arar was deported to Syria, this wasn't a rendition. And, if anything, it was the Canadians that screwed up, all action was taken based on information provided by them.

[Yonivore]

Indeed, freedom would be a horrible thing. Your type is obviously doing a bang up job. Bravo.
So you don't have freedom?

Yes, the President is doing a bang up job. Bravo recognized. Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, the President is doing a bang up job. Bravo recognized. Thanks.
And 30% of the people in the country agree with you!

[Yonivore]

Indeed, freedom would be a horrible thing. Your type is obviously doing a bang up job. Bravo.
Here's a question for you Manny.

If you believe the First Amendment implies a separation of church and state, why would you want to force Christian values on our government's interrogation techniques? Isn't that a violation of the establishment clause?

Why not Islamic values? Wow! That'd be a trip. There'd be a lot of one-armed, tongueless detainees.

[MannyIsGod]

I never said I wanted to apply Christian values to anything. I pointed out that supporting torture is inconsitent with Christian values that you say you hold.

[Yonivore]

And 30% of the people in the country agree with you!
The 30 most-informed percent, no doubt.

[MannyIsGod]

The 30 most-informed percent, no doubt.Obviously.

[Yonivore]

I never said I wanted to apply Christian values to anything.
So why handicap our government from using the most effective, least damaging methods for extracting intelligence information from those we know possess it and through the gain of which lives are saved?

[Yonivore]

Obviously.
Yep.

[MannyIsGod]

So why handicap our government from using the most effective, least damaging methods for extracting intelligence information from those we know possess it and through the gain of which lives are saved?They aren't the most effective methods and they are far from least damaging.

[Yonivore]

They aren't the most effective methods and they are far from least damaging.
Really, name a method that garners information from 14 out of 14 terrorists. Something that works every time it's tried.

What would be the least damaging method of extracting information?

[MannyIsGod]

Really, name a method that garners information from 14 out of 14 terrorists. Something that works every time it's tried.

What would be the least damaging method of extracting information?Because the information is always accurate right?

[Yonivore]

Because the information is always accurate right?
The administration's claim is that in these 14 cases there was actionable intelligence gained that saved lives. So, it's right enough for me.

[MannyIsGod]

The administration's claim is that pink bunny rabbits flew out of George Bush's magical anus and saved lives. So, it's right enough for me.Fixed it for you.

[Guru of Nothing]

Can I extract more intelligence from alleged terrorists with porn and hookers, or torture?

How do I get a cash grant to carry out research which may enhance our national security?

[Yonivore]

They aren't the most effective methods and they are far from least damaging.
For argument's sake, let's call this the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UnkZuJ0Qrk) you must see to be informed on whether “harsh interrogation” works. Why? Because...well...you'll see in a minute. Suffice it to say the administration's not in a position to demonstrate to the general public how well the harsh techniques work so, I'm willing to hand that duty over to a journalist who, only a year ago, engaged in a hit piece with another journalist on the administration's use of these techniques.

Now that you’ve seen the video . . . Oh, not yet? Ok, I’ll wait a bit longer.

Finished now?

All right. Back to the regularly scheduled broadcast. Brian Ross confirms that not only did those methods work on the 14 high-level detainees just transfered to Guantanamo and sound intelligence was gained from each one of them, Ramzi Binalshibh even cried, but that he was told the methods worked by CIA operatives who didn’t necessarily agree with the methods.

Those same CIA agents told Ross that they just wanted to know whether they are legal or illegal, and not work in the grey area of not knowing whether they should attain legal counsel or not. Enter the Mititary Commissions Act of 2006.

That seems fair, very fair actually, but what Ross told O’Reilly is in direct contrast to an article he wrote with Richard Esposito published on November 18, 2005. In the November article, Ross and Esposito reported:


The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques “appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention,” the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer.
Also citing Larry Johnson, former CIA agent turned schill against the Bush Administration who called those tactics similar to the Nazis and the Soviets (oh pahleeeeze!), we were told those methods will get any type of information out of suspects and it won’t be reliable. Ross and Esposito also reported that in at least one instance, “ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.”

Here's the article (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866). Sense of fairness and all...

Maybe Ross was just confused in the interview when he said the complete opposite of what was in an article on the same subject nearly one year ago? Or maybe the editors got ahold of what he planned to submit and made a few changes? At present I’m just trying to grapple what exactly the report Ross filed said, because from his showing last night, he does indeed say the methods used and advocated to be allowed in special circumstances have worked in the past to not just break detainees, but also get valuable information that have prevented attacks.

Ross informed us what an ABC investigation uncovered, and it’s very different from what most media outlets have repeatedly told us and even what ABC News reported just one year ago.

Is Ross lying then or now? And, why?

Go figure.

[Yonivore]

Can I extract more intelligence from alleged terrorists with porn and hookers, or torture?

How do I get a cash grant to carry out research which may enhance our national security?
One man's pleasure is another man's torture.

[Yonivore]

Fixed it for you.
Thanks. You're a witty one, aren't you?

[ChumpDumper]

Arar was deported to Syria, this wasn't a rendition.You mean the deportation of a Canadian citizen done without the knowledge of the Canadian government? Why did that happen?

[Yonivore]

You mean the deportation of a Canadian citizen done without the knowledge of the Canadian government? Why did that happen?
Actually, I believe the Canadian government is the one that ratted him out as a terrorist...and, they didn't want him. Talk to them about their laws.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, you didn't answer the question.

And of course it was a rendition. One of the "extraordinary" renditions.

[Yonivore]

Actually, you didn't answer the question.

And of course it was a rendition. One of the "extraordinary" renditions.
Not according to him.


My family and I are very happy that the Canadian government has undertaken a public inquiry which will examine events surrounding my arrest and deportation to Syria and the torture and deprivation that ensued.

[Yonivore]

I'm going to repost this because I'm interested in responses before this thread rolls over due to Chumpy's semantics antics.


They aren't the most effective methods and they are far from least damaging.
For argument's sake, let's call this the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UnkZuJ0Qrk) you must see to be informed on whether “harsh interrogation” works. Why? Because...well...you'll see in a minute. Suffice it to say the administration's not in a position to demonstrate to the general public how well the harsh techniques work so, I'm willing to hand that duty over to a journalist who, only a year ago, engaged in a hit piece with another journalist on the administration's use of these techniques.

Now that you’ve seen the video . . . Oh, not yet? Ok, I’ll wait a bit longer.

Finished now?

All right. Back to the regularly scheduled broadcast. Brian Ross confirms that not only did those methods work on the 14 high-level detainees just transfered to Guantanamo and sound intelligence was gained from each one of them, Ramzi Binalshibh even cried, but that he was told the methods worked by CIA operatives who didn’t necessarily agree with the methods.

Those same CIA agents told Ross that they just wanted to know whether they are legal or illegal, and not work in the grey area of not knowing whether they should attain legal counsel or not. Enter the Mititary Commissions Act of 2006.

That seems fair, very fair actually, but what Ross told O’Reilly is in direct contrast to an article he wrote with Richard Esposito published on November 18, 2005. In the November article, Ross and Esposito reported:


The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques “appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention,” the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer.
Also citing Larry Johnson, former CIA agent turned schill against the Bush Administration who called those tactics similar to the Nazis and the Soviets (oh pahleeeeze!), we were told those methods will get any type of information out of suspects and it won’t be reliable. Ross and Esposito also reported that in at least one instance, “ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.”

Here's the article (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866). Sense of fairness and all...

Maybe Ross was just confused in the interview when he said the complete opposite of what was in an article on the same subject nearly one year ago? Or maybe the editors got ahold of what he planned to submit and made a few changes? At present I’m just trying to grapple what exactly the report Ross filed said, because from his showing last night, he does indeed say the methods used and advocated to be allowed in special circumstances have worked in the past to not just break detainees, but also get valuable information that have prevented attacks.

Ross informed us what an ABC investigation uncovered, and it’s very different from what most media outlets have repeatedly told us and even what ABC News reported just one year ago.

Is Ross lying then or now? And, why?

Go figure.

[ChumpDumper]

Former CIA agent Bob Baer told The New Statesman, "If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

Deportation is a component of extraordinary rendition.

[Yonivore]

Former CIA agent Bob Baer told The New Statesman, "If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

Deportation is a component of extraordinary rendition.
He was deported to Jordan.

And, Bob Baer plays a role in the Brian Ross post I posted below. What makes him credible?

[Yonivore]

Former CIA agent Bob Baer told The New Statesman, "If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

Deportation is a component of extraordinary rendition.
I would say that if our government is as vicious as you seem to believe, Arar would never have been seen again. Nor would have the 14 terrorists we interrogated using "harsh" techniques.

[ChumpDumper]

He was deported to Jordan.How can he be deported to a country he wasn't born in and of which is not a citizen?

He can certainly be rendered to Jordan though.

Thanks for proving my argument for me.
I would say that if our government is as vicious as you seem to believe, Arar would never have been seen again.I would say you are in serious denial about what your government has already done and that you like killing and torture and death as much or more as the real terrorists do, no matter who is on the waterboard.

[Yonivore]

How can he be deported to a country he wasn't born in and of which is not a citizen.

He can certainly be rendered to Jordan though.

Thanks for proving my argument for me.
You're welcome. It really seems, however, you have an issue with the Canadians, not the U.S.


I would say you are in serious denial about what your government has already done and like killing and torture as much or more as the real terrorists do, no matter who is on the waterboard.
Really, then why are any of the Guantanamo detainees even breathing?

I think you're a Nbadan conspiracist. Talk about me thinking 24 was a documentary.

[ChumpDumper]

You're welcome. It really seems, however, you have an issue with the Canadians, not the U.S.No, but I don't expect you to be smart enough to realize what was going on.
Really, then why are any of the Guantanamo detainees even breathing?Because you aren't there, dipshit.

[Yonivore]

No, but I don't expect you to be smart enough to realize what was going on.
Okay, then why are you arguing with me?


Because you aren't there, dipshit.
But our government is. Our government brought them there. Our government, the one you claims kills and tortures with impugnity has moved the 14 most egregious terrorist cases there where they are fed three squares, pointed to Mecca and provided with urine-free Korans.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, then why are you arguing with me?Boredom.
But our government is.I didn't say our government is as bloodthirsty or as stupid as you, dipshit.

[Yonivore]

And 30% of the people in the country agree with you!Yeah, about that thirty percent.

Leaders of the Democratic Party apparently think that attacking the Iraq war is the ticket to electoral success; over recent weeks, they have coordinated a series of attacks on the war, including the selective leak of misleading portions of the National Intelligence Estimate and Bob Woodward's just-released rehash of anti-war arguments. But how unpopular, in fact, is the war?

Michael Barone (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/060929/poll_numbers_on.htm) takes a look at recent poll numbers from belwether Ohio, and concludes: not as unpopular as the Democrats seem to think. On the questions whether we were right to invade Iraq and how well the war is going, respondents broke essentially 50/50. On the question whether we will ultimately succeed in establishing a secure democracy in Iraq, a clear majority say we will. And on the question whether we should stay in Iraq until the country is stabilized or cut and run, 61% say the former, and only 38% want to cut and run. In view of he present positions of the parties, those numbers break for the Republicans, not the Democrats.

As only Barone can, he shifts effortlessly from an analysis of this week's poll numbers to a delightful contemplation of the ways in which Bill Clinton and George W. Bush resemble Charles II and William III, respectively. Do yourself a favor and read it!

This--the Ohio poll, that is, not the 17th century history--ties in, I think, with the votes in the House and Senate on the Military Commissions Act. Today's New York Times, optimistic as usual, headlines Democrats See Strength in Bucking Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/us/politics/29assess.html?ex=1317182400&en=bb0927809cc602cd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss), in connection with yesterday's Senate vote:


The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush’s power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.
Well, maybe. But the Times' own acknowledgement of which Democrats parted company with their party to support the President belies the article's headline and lead:


Yet the minority of Democrats who joined with Republicans in passing the bill again illustrated that the party is unable to speak with one voice on security issues. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat up for re-election who often breaks with his party, said he was willing to follow the lead of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who lent the final legislation his strong endorsement. Mr. McCain is a potential Republican presidential candidate.

“I think people respect Senator McCain on these issues,” Mr. Nelson said, “and I think he probably represents the views of a lot of people in Nebraska.”

Four other Democrats facing voters this year — Bill Nelson of Florida, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Robert Menendez of New Jersey — voted for the bill.
To be sure, other Democrats who are up for re-election, like Hillary Clinton, voted against the bill. But those are the Democrats who, with the possible exception of Maria Cantwell, aren't facing tough races. And the Times didn't mention the fact, which was pointed out last night, that the two Democratic House members who are seeking Senate seats in November both voted with the administration. So Democratic politicians themselves are perhaps not as confident as their leadership and the New York Times that challenging President Bush on security issues is the way to get elected.

[gtownspur]

I hate Yoni,...but seriously, he pwned you all.

[Phenomanul]

I hate Yoni,...but seriously, he pwned you all.


Again, as a Christian do I support the war.... YES.

Do I support torture.... WWJD?.... NO.
(Of course, Jesus wouldn't have needed to extract any information at all... He knows all). :spin

[gtownspur]

Again, as a Christian do I support the war.... YES.

Do I support torture.... WWJD?.... NO.
(Of course, Jesus wouldn't have needed to extract any information at all... He knows all). :spin


Jesus wouldn't also become a cop, lawyer, prosecute the guilty, etc according to your hallmark description of the Son of GOd.

[PixelPusher]

For argument's sake, let's call this the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UnkZuJ0Qrk) you must see to be informed on whether “harsh interrogation” works. Why? Because...well...you'll see in a minute. Suffice it to say the administration's not in a position to demonstrate to the general public how well the harsh techniques work so, I'm willing to hand that duty over to a journalist who, only a year ago, engaged in a hit piece with another journalist on the administration's use of these techniques.

Now that you’ve seen the video . . . Oh, not yet? Ok, I’ll wait a bit longer.

Finished now?

All right. Back to the regularly scheduled broadcast. Brian Ross confirms that not only did those methods work on the 14 high-level detainees just transfered to Guantanamo and sound intelligence was gained from each one of them, Ramzi Binalshibh even cried, but that he was told the methods worked by CIA operatives who didn’t necessarily agree with the methods.

Those same CIA agents told Ross that they just wanted to know whether they are legal or illegal, and not work in the grey area of not knowing whether they should attain legal counsel or not. Enter the Mititary Commissions Act of 2006.

That seems fair, very fair actually, but what Ross told O’Reilly is in direct contrast to an article he wrote with Richard Esposito published on November 18, 2005. In the November article, Ross and Esposito reported:


Also citing Larry Johnson, former CIA agent turned schill against the Bush Administration who called those tactics similar to the Nazis and the Soviets (oh pahleeeeze!), we were told those methods will get any type of information out of suspects and it won’t be reliable. Ross and Esposito also reported that in at least one instance, “ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.”

Here's the article (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866). Sense of fairness and all...

Maybe Ross was just confused in the interview when he said the complete opposite of what was in an article on the same subject nearly one year ago? Or maybe the editors got ahold of what he planned to submit and made a few changes? At present I’m just trying to grapple what exactly the report Ross filed said, because from his showing last night, he does indeed say the methods used and advocated to be allowed in special circumstances have worked in the past to not just break detainees, but also get valuable information that have prevented attacks.

Ross informed us what an ABC investigation uncovered, and it’s very different from what most media outlets have repeatedly told us and even what ABC News reported just one year ago.

Is Ross lying then or now? And, why?

Go figure.

You must really love this, since you've posted 3 times in 2 different threads. Oh well, here's my response repeated:
---
Maybe you should take a minute to rewatch that video.

(paraphrasing) O'Reilly: "...the ACLU, Human Rights Watch say 'It's garbage. They told them what they wanted to hear; it wasn't truthful' and such"

Ross: "That has happened, in some cases, where the material given has not been acurate; has been essentially to stop the torture..."

(later on in the interview, O'Reilly brings up the "human rights people" again)

Ross: "I think it's an open debate, because there's sometimes the information doesn't hold up..."

(at the end of the interview, O'Reilly asks if "O'Reilly's arguement" (yes, he refers to himself in the 3rd person) is fallacious)


Ross: "The arguement is, at least to one or two people I know as a fact, is not fallacious."
----

Listen to learn. Learn to listen. That "one or two people I know" part should be a clue. But in Yoni's world those 2 sources trump everyone else simply because they agree with him.

[Yonivore]

You must really love this, since you've posted 3 times in 2 different threads. Oh well, here's my response repeated:
---
Maybe you should take a minute to rewatch that video.

(paraphrasing) O'Reilly: "...the ACLU, Human Rights Watch say 'It's garbage. They told them what they wanted to hear; it wasn't truthful' and such"

Ross: "That has happened, in some cases, where the material given has not been acurate; has been essentially to stop the torture..."

(later on in the interview, O'Reilly brings up the "human rights people" again)

Ross: "I think it's an open debate, because there's sometimes the information doesn't hold up..."

(at the end of the interview, O'Reilly asks if "O'Reilly's arguement" (yes, he refers to himself in the 3rd person) is fallacious)


Ross: "The arguement is, at least to one or two people I know as a fact, is not fallacious."
----

Listen to learn. Learn to listen. That "one or two people I know" part should be a clue. But in Yoni's world those 2 sources trump everyone else simply because they agree with him.
None of that changes the interview's contradiction of he earlier article. Taken in it totality, Ross says the harsh interrogation techniques have worked and have garnered valuable actionable information.

Given that I don't believe any of the techniques constitute torture, I'm good with it.

[gtownspur]

HERE, this time i didn't give Random an excuse to ignore my valid points because i used large font and bolded the whole post one time.



THis is my argument on Torture as it pertains to Christianity!



Let me express my reservations on the whole religous angle of this argument first then i'll move on to the more mechanical and ethical aspects of my view on torture.

First of all the United States is a governmental entity which has a purpose rather different than you and I do as a christian.

The role of Government is to protect it's citizenry from endangerment, therefore as to where as a christian, Christ compels us through paul's epistle to "Make you're body a living sacrifice unto God", as well as "turn the other cheek", this is christ's instruction for daily living to be executed by individuals and not nations.

Christ is silent on the role of government, you got to remember, he came to set up a spiritual kingdom and not an earthly one. The book of Romans in one of it's passages states that God, the Father, gives the government the right to execute and protect.

If we are to make "Christ the sunday school hallmark card persona" an example of shunning torture, and not the writ in it's entirety, there are countless other practices and proffesions christians should abstain from:

1.Doctors at abortion clinics

2.Military Service

3. Law enforcement

4.Espionage

etc....

Torture done in the interest of the state to protect it's citizenry, and not of personal gratification is just.

For you; being the agent of the govt, trying to extract information, are not acting on your behalf, but on the will of the state.

Repeat this with me.... "The state is not relegated to private restrictions as so put forth in the Gospels."

Now, before you ever type another token "turn the other cheek" verse, be responsible and determine yourself wether christ was referring to nation states.

[gtownspur]

Now here is the second half of my argument.


This pertains to the justification of torture in our prosecution of the War On Terror.




Now unto the ethical and mechanical aspect.

Random Guy, do us all a favor and remind yourself that our political and practical actions in the war on terror, used in a positive way as to show goodwill, to change the hearts of potential recruits for terrorism, is useless.


To a bunch of people who are already indoctrinated in believing that allah wills everything to the advantage of the spread of Islam. You're humanistic practices will only make you look weak.

Torturing, or not torturing, Strong or weak, liberal administration or Republican, wether you grant constitutional priveleges or not, none of this will decrease the recruitment of terrorism.

Let me ask you, if Bush would have used softer language, and goodwill efforts to get an extreme conservative to sit on the high court, would all his goodwill, good times fun and rock and roll antics make you support his nomination?

Therefore Islamofanatical extremist who are on the sidelines do not care that about you're delivery, but the substance.

And on substance, you are not on their side nor do you have any inclinations to advance islam for them, therefore you are standing in the way and are a threat.

It's as if we were to serve them shit on a silver platter and expect them to eat it. That's what it's like to go into the mideast and use humanistic approaches to wage as they see it "a war on their God, allah and his servants". Whether it be for a just cause, like afghanistan, or to you unjust(iraq), we are on sacred grounds.

The war as Islamofascist play is always to their advantage. Their rules are, "stay out of our land while we wage war from it, and stay confined to living in fear and putting up with thousands of individual terrorist to halt from killing your people. Even if you get approval from kings to come here and extract terrorist, we will tell their people that you infidels are filthy and should die for just setting foot in our territory. There is no right and wrong, but only what Allah wills. You are to stick to fighting this war always on the defensive."

My argument is not about how cruel and dedicated and fanatical they are to obtain their goal.(killing innocents, beheading school girls etc) But how they are so fanatical that anyway you deal with them, you will always be wrong because you are not under submission of allah.


Don't play this cheap card of "But our methods will recruit more terrorist" again. It's dishonest and pointless.


Now, noticed how i didn't call anyone names, so therefore please have the guevos to post a reply.

C'mon Random. I'm counting on you to change my perspective or atleast let me see where you're coming from.

[gtownspur]

I want some one to respond.

I've been waiting for hours............

[Yonivore]

You know what I found interesting about this topic is that a poster started a thread proposing that I be waterboarded for merely thinking waterboarding wasn't torture and that it was an acceptable method of extracting information.

The ironic part is that he proposed this from the position that we shouldn't be waterboarding people who have knowledge of the whereabouts and intentions of people who would, if they could, cut his head off and place it on his chest all the while they were videotaping the events for his family and nation to view.

[gtownspur]

You know what I found interesting about this topic is that a poster started a thread proposing that I be waterboarded for merely thinking waterboarding wasn't torture and that it was an acceptable method of extracting information.

The ironic part is that he proposed this from the position that we shouldn't be waterboarding people who have knowledge of the whereabouts and intentions of people who would, if they could, cut his head off and place it on his chest all the while they were videotaping the events for his family and nation to view.


Or kill his own family for him to view.

[Nbadan]

And on substance, you are not on their side nor do you have any inclinations to advance islam for them, therefore you are standing in the way and are a threat.


Someone needs to brush up on their history. The Crusades, the inquisitions, even today in Africa Christian armies kill 'infidals'. This war isn't about religion, no matter how hard you try and make it so, it's about a fraction of a number of radical islamists and whenever you capture and torture them, sooner or later, most will go home and they'll tell 10 friends and they tell 10 friends, and so on, and so on, pretty soon you have 100 new enemies. This is why we are losing the insurgent war in Iraq.

Jesus Christ was tortured by the State. You wanna rethink your logic?

[PixelPusher]

I'm not Random Guy, but I'll give it a go.



Random Guy, do us all a favor and remind yourself that our political and practical actions in the war on terror, used in a positive way as to show goodwill, to change the hearts of potential recruits for terrorism, is useless.To a bunch of people who are already indoctrinated in believing that allah wills everything to the advantage of the spread of Islam. You're humanistic practices will only make you look weak.


If their minds are, as you say, already set in stone, why should we care if they percieve us as "weak" for acting more civilized? Why should our conduct be beholding to their standards? Do they dictate our behavior now?



Torturing, or not torturing, Strong or weak, liberal administration or Republican, wether you grant constitutional priveleges or not, none of this will decrease the recruitment of terrorism.

Let me ask you, if Bush would have used softer language, and goodwill efforts to get an extreme conservative to sit on the high court, would all his goodwill, good times fun and rock and roll antics make you support his nomination?

Therefore Islamofanatical extremist who are on the sidelines do not care that about you're delivery, but the substance.

And on substance, you are not on their side nor do you have any inclinations to advance islam for them, therefore you are standing in the way and are a threat.

It's as if we were to serve them shit on a silver platter and expect them to eat it. That's what it's like to go into the mideast and use humanistic approaches to wage as they see it "a war on their God, allah and his servants". Whether it be for a just cause, like afghanistan, or to you unjust(iraq), we are on sacred grounds.

The war as Islamofascist play is always to their advantage. Their rules are, "stay out of our land while we wage war from it, and stay confined to living in fear and putting up with thousands of individual terrorist to halt from killing your people. Even if you get approval from kings to come here and extract terrorist, we will tell their people that you infidels are filthy and should die for just setting foot in our territory. There is no right and wrong, but only what Allah wills. You are to stick to fighting this war always on the defensive."

My argument is not about how cruel and dedicated and fanatical they are to obtain their goal.(killing innocents, beheading school girls etc) But how they are so fanatical that anyway you deal with them, you will always be wrong because you are not under submission of allah.

Don't play this cheap card of "But our methods will recruit more terrorist" again. It's dishonest and pointless.

The body of this arguement assumes the entire muslim world to be "Islamofanatical". Read the NIE report. Most muslims don't like the idea of living under Sha'ria law (sp?), but they hate foreign imperialism even more. Diplomacy is meant to win THEM, not the terrorist, to our cause. Unfortunately, our military occupation of Iraq, along with piss poor rhetoric on the part of this administration ("crusade!", "Your either with us, or you're with the terrorists!"), as well as Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, Gitmo have the effect of convincing everyday muslims that we really are at war with islam. Our "delivery" certainly matters to them. How we "deliver" democracy will make the difference in how they regard the "substance" of western democracy.

A bigger problem than the usual conflation of the Iraqi occupation with the rhetorically ruinous "War on Terror" is your conlfation of Islamofascist/Islamic Extremist/Jihadist/whatever-the-hell-you're-calling-them-this-week terrorists with muslims who oppose our military occupation. According to the Bush Administrations infintile binary thought process, "They're not with us, so they're with the terrorists", which forces muslims to choose sides, and many of them aren't going to side with a foreign occupier. To paraphrase a quote "It's better to be ruled by your own bad government than a good foreign government".

So obsess over fanatical terrorists all you want, my concern is the hearts and minds of muslim who are can be won over if our foreign policy is executed with more care than it has been so far. The sooner this administration realizes that THEY are the prize, not Iraqi real estate, the better.

[Nbadan]

You know what I found interesting about this topic is that a poster started a thread proposing that I be waterboarded for merely thinking waterboarding wasn't torture and that it was an acceptable method of extracting information.

The ironic part is that he proposed this from the position that we shouldn't be waterboarding people who have knowledge of the whereabouts and intentions of people who would, if they could, cut his head off and place it on his chest all the while they were videotaping the events for his family and nation to view.

I think he proposed as a way to research, through experimentation, if water-boarding really is torture and whether there are any lasting physical or phychological effects. If it's really not torture as you say, then it really shouldn't be that big of an issue now should it, so what's the stink about?

I wonder how many 'innocent people' in Baghdad have woken up with bound hands and a bullet in the back of their heads? We prefer to do our killing off camera.

[gtownspur]

I'm not Random Guy, but I'll give it a go.



If their minds are, as you say, already set in stone, why should we care if they percieve us as "weak" for acting more civilized? Why should our conduct be beholding to their standards? Do they dictate our behavior now?

First of all, thanks for being kind by responding in a civil manner.

Now with that said, i want you to realize something. The common man who administers torture and goes overboard, may do it to avenge the hatred he has for these people. But the govt, is not a personal one with a personal problem with these individual terrorist detainees, the govt is interested in obtaining all information through interrogation and at times borderline to full torture.

So to say that the terrorist dictate our dealings with information gathering because we do it out of spite, is flawed. We gather information our way because it is efficient, and if there was another way to get information through less harsh means, we'd do it.

The body of this arguement assumes the entire muslim world to be "Islamofanatical". Read the NIE report. Most muslims don't like the idea of living under Sha'ria law (sp?), but they hate foreign imperialism even more. Diplomacy is meant to win THEM, not the terrorist, to our cause. Unfortunately, our military occupation of Iraq, along with piss poor rhetoric on the part of this administration ("crusade!", "Your either with us, or you're with the terrorists!"), as well as Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, Gitmo have the effect of convincing everyday muslims that we really are at war with islam. Our "delivery" certainly matters to them. How we "deliver" democracy will make the difference in how they regard the "substance" of western democracy.


I agree with you partialy. Yet, you have failed to see that the everyday muslim is not accustomed to a free society governed by fair and equal laws. They really don't care how we detain terrorist detainees, their own govt does worse to terrorist detainees, and they fully appreciate that their govt is doing what it can to protect their assets and way of living. The everyday muslim want's the US under Islamic rule and the western world to submit to allah.

Much like Christians want to go out and accomplish the great commission, the Muslims want to go out and establish a global Islamic theocracy. It is in their Koran that they do so.

Muslims are a complicated people. Most of them believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, how do you think that any of your recommendations of how we prosecute the war on terror will convince them. The terrorist will twist your methods as a sign of weakness, and then the cycle starts again and those "prized people" will either remain cynical or will be emboldened to join the terrorist ranks or atleast aid and support.

There is not one little thing that we can change that will speed up the recovery of the Islamic world into the 20th century. It will take a longtime.


A bigger problem than the usual conflation of the Iraqi occupation with the rhetorically ruinous "War on Terror" is your conlfation of Islamofascist/Islamic Extremist/Jihadist/whatever-the-hell-you're-calling-them-this-week terrorists with muslims who oppose our military occupation. According to the Bush Administrations infintile binary thought process, "They're not with us, so they're with the terrorists", which forces muslims to choose sides, and many of them aren't going to side with a foreign occupier. To paraphrase a quote "It's better to be ruled by your own bad government than a good foreign government".

So obsess over fanatical terrorists all you want, my concern is the hearts and minds of muslim who are can be won over if our foreign policy is executed with more care than it has been so far. The sooner this administration realizes that THEY are the prize, not Iraqi real estate, the better.

[gtownspur]

Someone needs to brush up on their history. The Crusades, the inquisitions, even today in Africa Christian armies kill 'infidals'. This war isn't about religion, no matter how hard you try and make it so, it's about a fraction of a number of radical islamists and whenever you capture and torture them, sooner or later, most will go home and they'll tell 10 friends and they tell 10 friends, and so on, and so on, pretty soon you have 100 new enemies. This is why we are losing the insurgent war in Iraq.

Jesus Christ was tortured by the State. You wanna rethink your logic?


Why is this war not about religion?

It seems that you have painted the war on Terror as a "Crusade", and then as a "Power Grab".

You seem to remain inconsistent and will whip out any justification to suit your current agenda.

[ChumpDumper]

So to say that the terrorist dictate our dealings with information gathering because we do it out of spite, is flawed. We gather information our way because it is efficient, and if there was another way to get information through less harsh means, we'd do it. There are several alternate ways.
Yet, you have failed to see that the everyday muslim is not accustomed to a free society governed by fair and equal laws. They really don't care how we detain terrorist detaineesOf course they do. Saying that the average muslim didn't care at all about Abu Gharib and could never have his/her attitude towards the US affected by that is simply wrong.
their own govt does worse to terrorist detaineesDo we not profess to be better. Does our President say "We do not torture"? Does that not affect our credibility in our foreign affairs when we try to achieve any measure of trust with those muslims who might be inclined to share our goals in the region?
The everyday muslim want's the US under Islamic rule and the western world to submit to allah.Do you have poll results or something similar to back up this claim? Every average muslim in every nation? Including ours?
Much like Christians want to go out and accomplish the great commission, the Muslims want to go out and establish a global Islamic theocracy. It is in their Koran that they do so.Do you consider yourself an average Christian? Are you actively seeking to accomplish the great commission right now?
Muslims are a complicated people.Not complicated enough to keep you from making sweeping generalizations about the "average" muslim.
There is not one little thing that we can change that will speed up the recovery of the Islamic world into the 20th century. It will take a longtime.:lol So we should make it as bad as possible? You don't think avoiding the Abu Gharib situation may have helped one little bit?

[ChumpDumper]

Why is this war not about religion?Sure that's part of it, but in some place like Iraq its a gross, if convenient oversimplification that only leads to more problems if followed exclusively. Painting it soley as a Judeo-Christian/Islam conflict is faulty because, well, everyone over there except the Israelis are muslim. How can you justify our nationbuilding in Iraq if according to you everyone in the country has to be against us by default?

[gtownspur]

There are several alternate ways.

If that's the case, I guess probably are intimately acquainted with those intricate elaborate techniques and you have them at your disposal. Show us these alternate information gathering techniques will you. I beg you.

Of course they do. Saying that the average muslim didn't care at all about Abu Gharib and could never have his/her attitude towards the US affected by that is simply wrong.

I guess if you're going to accuse me of using sweeping generalizations, i'd like to see the poll that accurately backs up your statement of how independent non-partisan muslims in "swing" provinces actually honestly feel about abu Gharib. :lol

And how's one to know wether these same muslims who claim to be offended by abu gharib, already have their minds made up.

Do we not profess to be better. Does our President say "We do not torture"? Does that not affect our credibility in our foreign affairs when we try to achieve any measure of trust with those muslims who might be inclined to share our goals in the region?Do you have poll results or something similar to back up this claim? Every average muslim in every nation? Including ours?

Yes we do profess to be better. If the question is simply to "Waterboard or not To waterboard" as being the only distinction from us and them, then you need to have your mind checked. This is not an adversary who is just proverbialy holding some kind of 5th grade school girl grudge with us, this is one who wants american lives destroyed. Please, i beg you to be honest with what you are saying.

Do you consider yourself an average Christian?

Yeah, what do you want to do? Ask me out? :lol

Are you actively seeking to accomplish the great commission right now?

No, but i'd support it. Just like many muslims would support the establishment of an Islamic govt. They wouldn't be truly devout if they didn't.

Not complicated enough to keep you from making sweeping generalizations about the "average" muslim.:lol So we should make it as bad as possible? You don't think avoiding the Abu Gharib situation may have helped one little bit?

No, do you honestly think that eliminating torture would have made many muslims feel alot better about having an infidel army occupying their land?

[ChumpDumper]

f that's the case, I guess probably are intimately acquainted with those intricate elaborate techniques and you have them at your disposal. Show us these alternate information gathering techniques will you. I beg you.The information is out there. Neither I nor you have anything approaching a scientific comparison between methods, so neither of us should pretend we do.
I guess if you're going to accuse me of using sweeping generalizations, i'd like to see the poll that accurately backs up your statement of how independent non-partisan muslims in "swing" provinces actually honestly feel about abu Gharib.I have common sense on my side on that one.
And how's one to know wether these same muslims who claim to be offended by abu gharib, already have their minds made up.I agree basing foreign policy on guesses is a bad thing. Maybe we should've asked some of these questions about these and other things before acting.
Yes we do profess to be better. If the question is simply to "Waterboard or not To waterboard" as being the only distinction from us and them, then you need to have your mind checked. This is not an adversary who is just proverbialy holding some kind of 5th grade school girl grudge with us, this is one who wants american lives destroyed. Please, i beg you to be honest with what you are saying.Honestly, haven't we faced enemies who wanted American lives destroyed before?
Yeah, what do you want to do? Ask me out?Don't flatter yourself.
No, but i'd support it.But not actively. How average of you.
They wouldn't be truly devout if they didn't.And how many are "truly devout"?
No, do you honestly think that eliminating torture would have made many muslims feel alot better about having an infidel army occupying their land?I think that being caught in lies or half-truths like saying "we don't torture" in the face of Abu Gharib and extraordinary rendition has given the people we want to trust us less reason to do so. Do you think it has made things better?

[gtownspur]

Sure that's part of it, but in some place like Iraq its a gross, if convenient oversimplification that only leads to more problems if followed exclusively. Painting it soley as a Judeo-Christian/Islam conflict is faulty because, well, everyone over there except the Israelis are muslim. How can you justify our nationbuilding in Iraq if according to you everyone in the country has to be against us by default?


I like what you're saying, but religion does play a big part in how an Iraqi thinks. Humanistic approaches won't solve these problems immediately in the islamic world.

It will take decades of economic recovery and cultural revolutions, as well as ideals changed because of quality of life for the average muslim to care more about assimilating with the world then have the world assimalate to him.

[gtownspur]

The information is out there. Neither I nor you have anything approaching a scientific comparison between methods, so neither of us should pretend we do.I have common sense on my side on that one.I agree basing foreign policy on guesses is a bad thing. Maybe we should've asked some of these questions about these and other things before acting.Honestly, haven't we faced enemies who wanted American lives destroyed before?Don't flatter yourself.But not actively. How average of you.And how many are "truly devout"?I think that being caught in lies or half-truths like saying "we don't torture" in the face of Abu Gharib and extraordinary rendition has given the people we want to trust us less reason to do so. Do you think it has made things better?


SO now you're saying because of the simple fact that we lied about doing it, that our denial is what's causing the arabs to turn against us, and not the torturing techniques itself.

I guess muslims and liberal parents have alot in common.

"If you're having sex, atleast let us know."- feel good parent.

"If you're torturing terrorist, atleast be honest about it, we'll still love you."--average muslim.

[gtownspur]

And how many are "truly devout"?

Geez, aren't you the one that said common sense was on your side in this debate, and you are wondering wether a majority of muslim are devout in their "holy land".

Also if there were better techniques of gathering info, i'd be assured that we are already using them and if not, they've been used and are not succesful as we've were told.

So, whose to say that we waterboard all the detainees at guantonomo, or that we don't use other methods that are in the gray between torture and humane info gathering.

[ChumpDumper]

I like what you're saying, but religion does play a big part in how an Iraqi thinks. Humanistic approaches won't solve these problems immediately in the islamic world.

It will take decades of economic recovery and cultural revolutions, as well as ideals changed because of quality of life for the average muslim to care more about assimilating with the world then have the world assimalate to him.So what are we doing in Iraq if they won't assimilate?

[ChumpDumper]

SO now you're saying because of the simple fact that we lied about doing it, that our denial is what's causing the arabs to turn against us, and not the torturing techniques itself.I'm saying both are doing a fine job of turning muslims (not just arabs, another misunderstanding by you) against us.

[ChumpDumper]

Geez, aren't you the one that said common sense was on your side in this debate, and you are wondering wether a majority of muslim are devout in their "holy land".That would be Saudi Arabia.
Also if there were better techniques of gathering info, i'd be assured that we are already using them and if not, they've been used and are not succesful as we've were told.Why would you be assured? You were assured the secret prisons didn't exist, right?
So, whose to say that we waterboard all the detainees at guantonomo, or that we don't use other methods that are in the gray between torture and humane info gathering.Indeed, who is to say?

[gtownspur]

So what are we donig in Iraq if they won't assimilate?

It's not that we're there so that they assimilate with in weeks becuase of the way we prosecute terrorist.

If you're hoping that that's what is going to change their minds, then you are selling these Iraqi's a little short.

Better infrastructure, schools, media, economy, way of life through decades of devotion in that region will ultimatley change their minds.

Right now this whole issue is being jacked up by the terrorist in these countries trying to arouse Iraqi's to overthrow the govt.

It won't work.

Many of these iraqi's don't care about the terrorist problem right now as it pertains to the safety of the united states. Nor do they care about terrorist being detained. They have to worry about living a normal life despite what other foreign infiltrators are trying to do by coming in to that region.

Many of those same iraqi's would also torture their muslim counterparts if it were to help out their nation. These iraqi's don't have the same humanistic philosophy of "we have to be better than the terrorist". They know that you have to win by brute force.

If you were to get a ranking of what truly pisses the arabs about the US.

Abu Grahib and torture would be second to last.

Support for Israel, immorality, homosexual culture, perversion, etc and beliefs would out top torture.

WHile torture is the main turn off for the Europeans, it's not so for the Muslims, who live in a different world and are not honestly indignant about it.

[gtownspur]

That would be Saudi Arabia.

And Palestine, and Turkey, and other places. Islam has many holy and sacred lands that they claim. Even Jerusalem.Why would you be assured? You were assured the secret prisons didn't exist, right?
Indeed, who is to say?

[gtownspur]

So what are we doing in Iraq if they won't assimilate?


You didn't bother to read the second sentence to which you qouted from me. It awnsers your q.

[ChumpDumper]

Better infrastructure, schools, media, economy, way of life through decades of devotion in that region will ultimatley change their minds.We'll be there for decades?
Many of these iraqi's don't care about the terrorist problem right now as it pertains to the safety of the united states.I would say that's probably true for most of them.
Nor do they care about terrorist being detained.As much as any person can be affected by any media story. These things are cumulative.
They have to worry about living a normal life despite what other foreign infiltrators are trying to do by coming in to that region.Thinking only foreigners are responsible for the violence is another fallacy.
Many of those same iraqi's would also torture their muslim counterparts if it were to help out their nation.Or their sect, or their tribe, or their warlord.
If you were to get a ranking of what truly pisses the arabs about the US.

Abu Grahib and torture would be second to last.

Support for Israel, immorality, homosexual culture, perversion, etc and beliefs would out top torture.Which one has actually affected Iraqis in Iraq? An Abu Gharib sure had its share of homosexual culture and perversion, so thanks for bumping it up the list.

[ChumpDumper]

And Palestine, and Turkey, and other places. Islam has many holy and sacred lands that they claim. Even JerusalemYou didn't mention Iraq though. Strange.

Anyway it's like saying everyone in Italy is completely devout since they live near the Vatican.

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't bother to read the second sentence to which you qouted from me. It awnsers your q.I read it. It wasn't convincing at all. Your assimilation program by definition wants to get muslims to the point where they would be as indignant about torture as Europeans. Would they simply forget all that if they had a stable power grid and cable TV?

[BIG IRISH]

To answer the ?
I cannot be a christian and support Torture.

Maybe this is why GWB and his attorney General do

the Justice Department has established a strikingly narrow definition of torture.

In August, 2002, the department’s Office of Legal Counsel sent a memo on interrogations to the White House, which argued that a coercive technique was torture only when it induced pain equivalent to what a person experiencing death or organ failure might suffer.


By implication, all lesser forms of physical and psychological mistreatment—what critics have called “torture lite”—were legal.

The memo also said that torture was illegal only when it could be proved that the interrogator intended to cause the required level of pain. And it provided interrogators with another large exemption: torture might be acceptable if an interrogator was acting in accordance with military “necessity.”

In 2004, the “torture memo,” as it became known, was leaked, complicating the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be Attorney General; as White House counsel, Gonzales had approved the memo.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051114fa_fact

Sounds like somebody got a blank check!

[Drachen]

The real title to this thread should be "Can you be a Christian and still believe in the actual teachings of Christ?"

[jochhejaam]

Regarding State torture, it's notable that Christ clearly inferred that there is a separation between those Governments that are led by his creation and the Heavenly Government that He is the King of. When Christ was shown a coin with Caesars likeness on it and was asked about whether or not taxes should be paid, he responded, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God". Right or wrong, it's a function of the people's Government, not the Government which Christ is the head of.

I was reading this morning from Luke (a book in the New Testament :)) and in Chapter 6 it states that we are to "love our enemies" and pray for them. In light of that, I'm not sure how a Christian can reconcile condoning or participating in torture.

I've never prayed for the terrorists. I asked my wife, who spends more time in devotions than I do if she had, and she stated that she had not. Yet, it's a command from Christ rather than a suggestion. (Food for thought...)

[MannyIsGod]

Regarding State torture, it's notable that Christ clearly inferred that there is a separation between those Governments that are led by his creation and the Heavenly Government that He is the King of. When Christ was shown a coin with Caesars likeness on it and was asked about whether or not taxes should be paid, he responded, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God". Right or wrong, it's a function of the people's Government, not the Government which Christ is the head of.

I was reading this morning from Luke (a book in the New Testament :)) and in Chapter 6 it states that we are to "love our enemies" and pray for them. In light of that, I'm not sure how a Christian can reconcile condoning or participating in torture.

I've never prayed for the terrorists. I asked my wife, who spends more time in devotions than I do if she had, and she stated that she had not. Yet, it's a command from Christ rather than a suggestion. (Food for thought...)Joch, we rarely see eye to eye but I've found your posts in this thread extremely refreshing.

[Phenomanul]

Regarding State torture, it's notable that Christ clearly inferred that there is a separation between those Governments that are led by his creation and the Heavenly Government that He is the King of. When Christ was shown a coin with Caesars likeness on it and was asked about whether or not taxes should be paid, he responded, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God". Right or wrong, it's a function of the people's Government, not the Government which Christ is the head of.

I was reading this morning from Luke (a book in the New Testament :)) and in Chapter 6 it states that we are to "love our enemies" and pray for them. In light of that, I'm not sure how a Christian can reconcile condoning or participating in torture.

I've never prayed for the terrorists. I asked my wife, who spends more time in devotions than I do if she had, and she stated that she had not. Yet, it's a command from Christ rather than a suggestion. (Food for thought...)

:tu my sentiments exactly....

[Yonivore]

I think he proposed as a way to research, through experimentation, if water-boarding really is torture and whether there are any lasting physical or phychological effects. If it's really not torture as you say, then it really shouldn't be that big of an issue now should it, so what's the stink about?
I'd do it, if it were necessary to satisfy all the whiners that it doesn't kill anyone and that there is no permanent damage done. All the CIA officers authorized to administer waterboarding have done it. What's your point?


I wonder how many 'innocent people' in Baghdad have woken up with bound hands and a bullet in the back of their heads? We prefer to do our killing off camera.
So, now, the American troops are running around like Saddam Hussein's death squads. I hope Murtha takes up this charge...oh wait...he already has.

I think I can officially call you un-American, un-Patriotic, and an enemy agent.

What proof do you have that we have soldiers running around, binding people and shooting them in the back of the head?

[Yonivore]

Without understanding scripture in its total, you can find all sorts of stuff that supports your position. For instance, in Paul's letter to the Romans:


Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Several important assertions concerning the obligations of the follower of Jesus to the civil state are delineated in the first seven verses:

(1) Government is an agency ordained of God (v. 1).

(2) Government, along with its appointed officials, exists to curtail evil in the world (v. 3).

(3) The task of government includes the just punishment of evil men, including capital punishment (cf. v. 4, reference to “sword”).

(4) Christian obligation includes support of the government through tribute or taxation (vv. 6, 7).

(5) Subjection to government is required of believers not only to avoid wrath, but also for conscience’ sake (v. 5).

So, yeah, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's. Oh, and before you start in with the, "then why shouldn't we ascede to the Islamic Governments," remind yourself that Paul was talking to the Christian Church, not the Muslim one.

[boutons_]

A Christian (actually any sincerely spiritual person of any flavor) is obligated to follow his conscience, even if that puts him in opposition to government.

There's is an on-going requirement to refine and inform the conscience, which is in essence the expression of the universe's will.

The conscience belongs to God. When Caesar's govt is on conflict with God's conscience, the conscience must be followed, without exception.

In no way is the conscience EVER to be nullified in favor of Caesar's government.

You are one dishonest, duplicitious son of a bitch, Yoni.

[gtownspur]

An Abu Gharib sure had its share of homosexual culture and perversion, so thanks for bumping it up the list.

Don't thank me,

That's fine for your point's sake that abu gharib had homosexual practices, but what does that have to do with effective techniques that actually help gather info rather than fulfill homoerotic lusts(ex Guantanamo), which we are actually talking about.

Know one on this thread is advocating that we molests these prisoners.

SO i don't know what you're implying to here.

[gtownspur]

You didn't mention Iraq though. Strange.

Anyway it's like saying everyone in Italy is completely devout since they live near the Vatican.

I didn't need to, when the subject was Iraq and I already stated of how devout the iraqi people are to Islam.

[Yonivore]

I didn't need to, when the subject was Iraq and I already stated of how devout the iraqi people are to Islam.
It's become ChumpDumper's signature post; argue the minutae if you can't argue the concept.

[gtownspur]

I read it. It wasn't convincing at all. Your assimilation program by definition wants to get muslims to the point where they would be as indignant about torture as Europeans. Would they simply forget all that if they had a stable power grid and cable TV?

No you didn't get it at all.

You were doing fine earlier with actually bringing up good points. But now it seems that you're trying to play another ticky tack semantics battle.

First of all, my point is that the euro's are more indignant about our interrogation techniques than arabs.

Most arabs don't live in a Magna Carta type society, so to expect them to be indignant about our methods at Guantanamo is like expecting a fat kid to be indignant about the school menu introducing more fried foods.

Another thing.

My point about democratization and bringing about real economic stability and prosperity have nothing to do with how they will view torture. I didn't implly that they would change their viewpoint on our techniques because of that, but that they would change their minds on tolerance towards different cultures. And be transformed as to coming from a "I'm a global citizen as well as and Iraqi." mentality.

With higher literacy and education. Alqueda will have less power on this region, thus lessening the arabs fervor for Islam to be spread.

[gtownspur]

It's become ChumpDumper's signature post; argue the minutae if you can't argue the concept.


He does that alot.

But he was doing fine till that post.

[gtownspur]

Regarding State torture, it's notable that Christ clearly inferred that there is a separation between those Governments that are led by his creation and the Heavenly Government that He is the King of. When Christ was shown a coin with Caesars likeness on it and was asked about whether or not taxes should be paid, he responded, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God". Right or wrong, it's a function of the people's Government, not the Government which Christ is the head of.

I was reading this morning from Luke (a book in the New Testament :)) and in Chapter 6 it states that we are to "love our enemies" and pray for them. In light of that, I'm not sure how a Christian can reconcile condoning or participating in torture.

I've never prayed for the terrorists. I asked my wife, who spends more time in devotions than I do if she had, and she stated that she had not. Yet, it's a command from Christ rather than a suggestion. (Food for thought...)


Ok,....

Pray for the terrorist well being and all and that they change.

Just it would be silly to ask the govt to do the same.

Might as well call off the War on Terror if that's the case, and just accept ALqueda's demands.

If you want to bring Christian limitations to govt, don't go at it half way, go the whole nine yards.

[jochhejaam]

Without understanding scripture in its total, you can find all sorts of stuff that supports your position. For instance, in Paul's letter to the Romans:


Several important assertions concerning the obligations of the follower of Jesus to the civil state are delineated in the first seven verses:

(1) Government is an agency ordained of God (v. 1).

(2) Government, along with its appointed officials, exists to curtail evil in the world (v. 3).

(3) The task of government includes the just punishment of evil men, including capital punishment (cf. v. 4, reference to “sword”).

(4) Christian obligation includes support of the government through tribute or taxation (vv. 6, 7).

(5) Subjection to government is required of believers not only to avoid wrath, but also for conscience’ sake (v. 5).

So, yeah, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's. Oh, and before you start in with the, "then why shouldn't we ascede to the Islamic Governments," remind yourself that Paul was talking to the Christian Church, not the Muslim one.
Nice verses Yoni but when all is said and done, here's the bottom line; (Christ's words from the Book of John states that) 36 "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight"

There's a bigger picture that Christians should be aware of that should enlighten us regarding distancing ourselves from being active participants in torture. This picture as viewed in the spiritual realm is identified in the following verse;
(Ephesians) "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places".

And further alienating us from being pro-torture is the following; "Be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves".

I don't believe that promotes a pacifist lifestyle per se, but IMO it does provide us with solid perameters that should clearly guide us in forming steadfast conclusions regarding our position on torture.

[jochhejaam]

Ok,....

Pray for the terrorist well being and all and that they change.

Just it would be silly to ask the govt to do the same.
.

I agree. And praying for them hardly implies that we should embrace their philosophy or actions or even pray for thier well being (I wouldn't pray for their physical well being as God's concern is first and foremost for mankinds spiritual well being.

Right or wrong, I'm sure I've prayed that God would wipe the perpetrators of evil (those that God states have been turned over to a reprobate mind) off the face of the Earth (still waiting on this one).

[Yonivore]

I agree. And praying for them hardly implies that we should embrace their philosophy or actions or even pray for thier well being (I wouldn't pray for their physical well being as God's concern is first and foremost for mankinds spiritual well being.

Right or wrong, I'm sure I've prayed that God would wipe the perpetrators of evil (those that God states have been turned over to a reprobate mind) off the face of the Earth (still waiting on this one).
I'm reminded of the old joke about the elderly man, strong in his faith, who, during a 1,000 year flood -- and as the water rose -- prayed to God that He would deliver him from his certain watery fate. Convinced God had heard his prayer he waited.

There was a knock on the door and when he opened it, it was the Red Cross. "We've come to help you evacuate, please get as many of your belongings as you can and board the bus." "No, no," the man replied. "God will deliver me from this, go help someone who needs it." They left. The water rose. The man was forced to the second floor.

He heard a bang on the window. It was the National Guard, in a boat, begging him to crawl through the window and into the boat. Again, the man refused, convinced in his belief God would answer his prayer.

Finally, after being forced to the roof and as the water engulfed the remaining few square feet of shingles, a helicopter appeared over head. The Coast Guardsman pleaded with the man to get in the bucket and be lifted to safety. "God will deliver me, I am not afraid." He refused and they left.

A few minutes later, the floodwaters engulfed the man and swept him to a water death.

Upon arriving at the Pearly Gates a moment later, the man was livid. Why did God forsake me? I believed and I prayed and I was certain my prayers would be answered.

"Who do you think sent the Red Cross, the National Guard, and the Coast Guard, you idiot!?!" responded St. Peter.

God works His will through those of us here on earth. What makes you think he isn't doing so in the case of our being delivered from Islamo fascism by our courageous men and women in uniform, under the authority of our government?

[Yonivore]

Nice verses Yoni but when all is said and done, here's the bottom line; (Christ's words from the Book of John states that) 36 "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight"

There's a bigger picture that Christians should be aware of that should enlighten us regarding distancing ourselves from being active participants in torture. This picture as viewed in the spiritual realm is identified in the following verse;
(Ephesians) "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places".

And further alienating us from being pro-torture is the following; "Be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves".

I don't believe that promotes a pacifist lifestyle per se, but IMO it does provide us with solid perameters that should clearly guide us in forming steadfast conclusions regarding our position on torture.
Your position advocates an apocolyptic acquiesence where we all just love our enemies right up to the point they slice our throats and usher us to meet our maker.

I don't buy it. Evil should be resisted...forcefully, if need be. Your intepretation of scripture is eerily like that of the Muslim martyrs that hasten their own deaths (albeit through violent means) so they too can join Allah in paradise.

[jochhejaam]

God works His will through those of us here on earth. What makes you think he isn't doing so in the case of our being delivered from Islamo fascism by our courageous men and women in uniform, under the authority of our government?
I didn't imply that God doesn't work through our courageous men and women in uniform, I believe that through the years he has and does, I merely stated that I don't believe that Christians should be active participants in torture.
Do you believe that Christ's edict that we be "Wise as serpents and harmless as doves" lends support for torture or implies that we should personally abstain from it?





And if he indeed did enter the Pearly Gates he was in essence delivered from the flood. :lol

[SA210]

A Christian (actually any sincerely spiritual person of any flavor) is obligated to follow his conscience, even if that puts him in opposition to government.

There's is an on-going requirement to refine and inform the conscience, which is in essence the expression of the universe's will.

The conscience belongs to God. When Caesar's govt is on conflict with God's conscience, the conscience must be followed, without exception.

In no way is the conscience EVER to be nullified in favor of Caesar's government.


Great post boutons. :tu

Did you notice how your post was ignored?

Many are quick to use the "Render unto Caesar" card, but completely ignore the fact that we are told to obey laws, so long as they DO NOT conflict with God's laws.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't need to, when the subject was Iraq and I already stated of how devout the iraqi people are to Islam.But you didn't prove it.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't thank me,

That's fine for your point's sake that abu gharib had homosexual practices, but what does that have to do with effective techniques that actually help gather info rather than fulfill homoerotic lusts(ex Guantanamo), which we are actually talking about.

Know one on this thread is advocating that we molests these prisoners.

SO i don't know what you're implying to here.We are talking about the muslim preception of our actions in Iraq. You are advocating doing pretty much anything to the muslims because the muslims are already agasint us because they are muslims and their governments have tortured them in the past.

[Yonivore]

We are talking about the muslim preception of our actions in Iraq. You are advocating doing pretty much anything to the muslims because the muslims are already agasint us because they are muslims and their governments have tortured them in the past.
Anything?

I don't recall seing anyone advocating they be maimed, injured, killed, raped, permanently scarred, or dismembered.

[ChumpDumper]

No you didn't get it at all.

You were doing fine earlier with actually bringing up good points. But now it seems that you're trying to play another ticky tack semantics battle.Since you keep bringing up false and unpovable ponts, they have to be dealt with.
First of all, my point is that the euro's are more indignant about our interrogation techniques than arabs.

Most arabs don't live in a Magna Carta type society, so to expect them to be indignant about our methods at Guantanamo is like expecting a fat kid to be indignant about the school menu introducing more fried foods.Again, what is your basis for measuring the thoughts and attitudes of "most" arabs? The fact that you were a fat kid?
Another thing.

My point about democratization and bringing about real economic stability and prosperity have nothing to do with how they will view torture. I didn't implly that they would change their viewpoint on our techniques because of that, but that they would change their minds on tolerance towards different cultures. And be transformed as to coming from a "I'm a global citizen as well as and Iraqi." mentality.So torture will have no effect on the average muslim and make them think the new boss is same as the old boss. Does the knowlwdge of our torture help Iraqis transform into global citizens tolerant towards different cultures? I don't expect you to be honest about that.
With higher literacy and education. Alqueda will have less power on this region, thus lessening the arabs fervor for Islam to be spread.There you go again, ignoring the basic causes of the unrest there. I wouldn't have to argue these points if you didn't keep making ignorant statements.

[ChumpDumper]

Anything?

I don't recall seing anyone advocating they be maimed, injured, killed, raped, permanently scarred, or dismembered.Alot of that went on in the rendition program, so yes, you do advocate that.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Yonivore]Your position advocates an apocolyptic acquiesence where we all just love our enemies right up to the point they slice our throats and usher us to meet our maker.
If that's what you got out of my post then you're definition of love is too narrow. God's love includes being exhorted, rebuked, chastised, etc. Examine what he allowed his Son to go through for a broader interpretation of love.







Your intepretation of scripture is eerily like that of the Muslim martyrs that hasten their own deaths (albeit through violent means) so they too can join Allah in paradise.
All of that because I don't believe Christians should be in the torturing business? :lol

It's not like we're forced into the torturing business. Those involved in torture make up a very small percentage of those serving in our Military.
It's not as if anyone's actively pursuing Christians in the military who are interested in torturing.

[smeagol]

If you are a true/good/[insert synonim] Christian, you are against torture. No ifs, no buts.

It looks like most of the discussion is about the definition of "torture".

Just like the definition of "sexual relations" some years ago.

[Yonivore]

Alot of that went on in the rendition program, so yes, you do advocate that.
move that target chumpy.

[ChumpDumper]

Pretend things happen in a vacuum, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Pretend things happen in a vacuum, Yoni.
Supporting the MCA doesn't translate to supporting torture or rendition and it specifically excludes the types of torture you infer.

[ChumpDumper]

Supporting the MCA doesn't translate to supporting torture or rendition and it specifically excludes the types of torture you infer.So you oppose the extraordinary rendition program?

Why didn't you just say that?

[RandomGuy]

Great post boutons. :tu

Did you notice how your post was ignored?

Many are quick to use the "Render unto Caesar" card, but completely ignore the fact that we are told to obey laws, so long as they DO NOT conflict with God's laws.

Yup.

I would go a step further.

Those who advocate violence and torture are a bit like crack addicts. Those of us who know better can see the harm these things cause, but those who are addicted to it have blinded themselves in a state of denial to the damage. All they see is the crack-like rush of vengence and hatred, without the "down" effects of depravity and immorality, and all the other after affects.

Violence and torture have gone a few rounds in Israel with the Palestinians, and that turned out *so* well. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

I'm not Random Guy, but I'll give it a go.

If their minds are, as you say, already set in stone, why should we care if they percieve us as "weak" for acting more civilized? Why should our conduct be beholding to their standards? Do they dictate our behavior now?

The body of this arguement assumes the entire muslim world to be "Islamofanatical". Read the NIE report. Most muslims don't like the idea of living under Sha'ria law (sp?), but they hate foreign imperialism even more. Diplomacy is meant to win THEM, not the terrorist, to our cause. Unfortunately, our military occupation of Iraq, along with piss poor rhetoric on the part of this administration ("crusade!", "Your either with us, or you're with the terrorists!"), as well as Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, Gitmo have the effect of convincing everyday muslims that we really are at war with islam. Our "delivery" certainly matters to them. How we "deliver" democracy will make the difference in how they regard the "substance" of western democracy.

A bigger problem than the usual conflation of the Iraqi occupation with the rhetorically ruinous "War on Terror" is your conlfation of Islamofascist/Islamic Extremist/Jihadist/whatever-the-hell-you're-calling-them-this-week terrorists with muslims who oppose our military occupation. According to the Bush Administrations infintile binary thought process, "They're not with us, so they're with the terrorists", which forces muslims to choose sides, and many of them aren't going to side with a foreign occupier. To paraphrase a quote "It's better to be ruled by your own bad government than a good foreign government".

So obsess over fanatical terrorists all you want, my concern is the hearts and minds of muslim who are can be won over if our foreign policy is executed with more care than it has been so far. The sooner this administration realizes that THEY are the prize, not Iraqi real estate, the better.

Exactly.

Moral policies are not meant to win over those who have already changed their minds, although such policies would over time, creep a specter of doubt even there.

We are after everybody "sitting on the fence" and those who are slightly sympathetic to those we fight. The more people stop sitting on the fence, the more recruits they have, the more sypathizers, the more freedom of action the active ones have.

I think the conclusions in the current intel assessment make this course of action even more important than it was.

Behaving morally and ethically are weapons against which the terrorists can't possibly defend.

[gtownspur]

Since you keep bringing up false and unpovable ponts, they have to be dealt with.

That would be great if that's your motive, but so far all i see is the same speculation on your part.

Again, what is your basis for measuring the thoughts and attitudes of "most" arabs? The fact that you were a fat kid?

I guess you either, getting impatient and losing your cool, or just can't comprehend simple analogy usage in a sentence structure. I just don't see where i said I used to be a fat kid.

And as far as measuring the thoughts and attitudes of "most" arabs, the burden is on you since you side with those that say that our torture methods are turning people towards alqueda or just against us.

You and I haven't introduced any study proving either one of our speculations. Yet i have put forth reason as to why Iraqi's really don't care about our methods at Guantanamo. IF they're pissed off, they're mostly likely pissed off that we're occupying their country.

So torture will have no effect on the average muslim and make them think the new boss is same as the old boss. Does the knowlwdge of our torture help Iraqis transform into global citizens tolerant towards different cultures? I don't expect you to be honest about that.There you go again, ignoring the basic causes of the unrest there. I wouldn't have to argue these points if you didn't keep making ignorant statements.

I'm sorry Chump, again you seem to act as if our detainee program is the culprit in having a bunch of people with sour grapes in the mideast.

Torture like waterboarding, won't have any affect on those muslims who are hoping that we do establish a stable govt. Those who don't care, or are siding against, will always point to every single offense as an excuse for their faux indignation.

[gtownspur]

Nice verses Yoni but when all is said and done, here's the bottom line; (Christ's words from the Book of John states that) 36 "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight"

There's a bigger picture that Christians should be aware of that should enlighten us regarding distancing ourselves from being active participants in torture. This picture as viewed in the spiritual realm is identified in the following verse;
(Ephesians) "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places".

And further alienating us from being pro-torture is the following; "Be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves".

I don't believe that promotes a pacifist lifestyle per se, but IMO it does provide us with solid perameters that should clearly guide us in forming steadfast conclusions regarding our position on torture.


See, this is why you need to get outside of your standard Kenneth Copeland/Dispensationalist neo pentecostal exegis methods.

The verse in ephesians you cite;


"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places".

This verse by Paul is an instruction to the Church of how it should fight and win the world for Christ. This has no, i repeat, no instruction towards the govt.

In that case, since you want to apply the same standards to govt as individuals are given, then by that verse, we should'nt ever start wars.

The US is not the kingdom of GOd!

[gtownspur]

Exactly.

Moral policies are not meant to win over those who have already changed their minds, although such policies would over time, creep a specter of doubt even there.

We are after everybody "sitting on the fence" and those who are slightly sympathetic to those we fight. The more people stop sitting on the fence, the more recruits they have, the more sypathizers, the more freedom of action the active ones have.

I think the conclusions in the current intel assessment make this course of action even more important than it was.

Behaving morally and ethically are weapons against which the terrorists can't possibly defend.


I'm sorry. First of all, that report doesn't say specifically wether independent moderate muslims are becoming suicide bombers because of our actions. It doesn't even say specifically that our detainee program is the culprit.

The main culprit as stated in that report is, that the insurgent recruitment is caused by us being in Iraq, not that we have Guantanamo up and running.

Wether we tone down on interrogation, or beef up. The recruitment of terrorist will not spike because we are waterboarding terrorist.

[ChumpDumper]

That would be great if that's your motive, but so far all i see is the same speculation on your part. Splendid of you to acknowlege you base all your foreign policy on speculation. I'm certainly open to getting more information. Are you?
I guess you either, getting impatient and losing your cool, or just can't comprehend simple analogy usage in a sentence structure. I just don't see where i said I used to be a fat kid.I think you are speaking from experience. It would actually help your argument a bit.
And as far as measuring the thoughts and attitudes of "most" arabs, the burden is on you since you side with those that say that our torture methods are turning people towards alqueda or just against us.
No, it's on you since you made the generalization in the first place. I'm waiting.
You and I haven't introduced any study proving either one of our speculations. Yet i have put forth reason as to why Iraqi's really don't care about our methods at Guantanamo. IF they're pissed off, they're mostly likely pissed off that we're occupying their country. And your metric for that is?
I'm sorry Chump, again you seem to act as if our detainee program is the culprit in having a bunch of people with sour grapes in the mideast.Absolutely not, and you are stupid to make such an inference.
Torture like waterboarding, won't have any affect on those muslims who are hoping that we do establish a stable govt.Complete bullshit. You are saying there were never any Iraqis on the fence who couldn't be influenced one way or the other by our actions during the invasion and occupation. This is simply false.

[gtownspur]

Splendid of you to acknowlege you base all your foreign policy on speculation. I'm certainly open to getting more information.

Translation: I know you are but what am i!!

Are you?I think you are speaking from experience. It would actually help your argument a bit.

????, you're full of it.

.No, it's on you since you made the generalization in the first place. I'm waiting.And your metric for that is?Absolutely not, and you are stupid to make such an inference.Complete bullshit.


I made a generalization in the first place? I think the generalization of there being independent Iraqi's turning against the US in large droves, because of Guantanamo was the initial generalization. A generalization which you stand by and won't address yourself.

I call your bullshit.

Explain to me why someone coming from a society and part of the world where torture is a part of life, would actually be turned off by it as if it were gay porn being introduced in a mosque, and be shocked. Especially when those that are being detained are conspiring against these moderate iraqi people and the US was doing it to save their lives.

I know you have to have this perpetual bullshit be true even though you or anyone can provide substantial evidence that there is such outrage amongst iraqi's who were moderate on the issue.

You are saying there were never any Iraqis on the fence who couldn't be influenced one way or the other by our actions during the invasion and occupation. This is simply false.

No, absolutely not. To make me across as saying the were never any Iraqi's that were influenced by Guantanamo, is a cheap way to make you come off as if you won the argument. Ofcourse there was some Iraqi's that might of reached that decision in that matter. But some of them could of switched sides for various trivial reason's which are worthless to dispute over and may seem insignificant to us. But to say that the this issue has deserted most to all the support in Iraq amongst moderates for the war, is for you to prove and not me.

I was not speaking in absolutes. I think you have either a huge comprehension problem, or you're just a clown out here to get a rise out of people.

[ChumpDumper]

Translation: I know you are but what am i!! So you're answer is no.
I made a generalization in the first place?Sure.
I think the generalization of there being independent Iraqi's turning against the US in large droves, because of Guantanamo was the initial generalization.Nope.
I call your bullshit.I call yours more often since theres is more.
Explain to me why someone coming from a society and part of the world where torture is a part of life, would actually be turned off by it as if it were gay porn being introduced in a mosque, and be shocked.Explain to me how they would like it, especially when it's being performed by a country that claims to be better than what they have known.
I know you have to have this perpetual bullshit be true even though you or anyone can provide substantial evidence that there is such outrage amongst iraqi's who were moderate on the issue.And where is your evidence that it has no effect at all?
To make me across as saying the were never any Iraqi's that were influenced by Guantanamo, is a cheap way to make you come off as if you won the argument. Ofcourse there was some Iraqi's that might of reached that decision in that matter.Hey, thanks for agreeing with me. I wonder why you ever said they never would.
But to say that the this issue has deserted most to all the support in Iraq amongst moderates for the war, is for you to prove and not me. Show where I said that. You might have a point if you can. Otherwise, thanks for agreeing with what I actually did say.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry. First of all, that report doesn't say specifically wether independent moderate muslims are becoming suicide bombers because of our actions. It doesn't even say specifically that our detainee program is the culprit.

The main culprit as stated in that report is, that the insurgent recruitment is caused by us being in Iraq, not that we have Guantanamo up and running.

Wether we tone down on interrogation, or beef up. The recruitment of terrorist will not spike because we are waterboarding terrorist.

The US army disagrees with this assessment, as do almost every counterinsurgency guru in existance. Treating prisoners well is absolutely vital to counter insurgency efforts, and that is all that this whole thing boils down to.

Guantanamo is having the same effect as Iraq.

Before the assessment you swore up and down that Iraq wasn't helping the terrorists either.

[RandomGuy]

The final thing is that when we don't treat prisoners well, our soldiers pay for it on every future battlefield.

I will not offer up my sons for your lack of ethics.

[mookie2001]

I'd risk my immortal soul if it meant saving the life of my family.:wakeup

[LaMarcus Bryant]

how can you "risk" an "immortal" soul?
its like cash considerations
what are they considering?

[Squid]

A good Christian loves state supported torture. In fact, they get off to it.

[gtownspur]

The US army disagrees with this assessment, as do almost every counterinsurgency guru in existance. Treating prisoners well is absolutely vital to counter insurgency efforts, and that is all that this whole thing boils down to.

Guantanamo is having the same effect as Iraq.

Before the assessment you swore up and down that Iraq wasn't helping the terrorists either.


I'm sorry, which US army report assesed that our interrogation efforts are what is fueling the insurgency? That's not what the NIE report said.

[gtownspur]

The final thing is that when we don't treat prisoners well, our soldiers pay for it on every future battlefield.

I will not offer up my sons for your lack of ethics.


WOw, what a crock of bullshit.

which of our enemies treated our combatants with care.

Was it the Viets, Russians, IRanians?

This is bullshit.

That'd mean that our troops are being treated with care already.

[RandomGuy]

The US army disagrees with this assessment, as do almost every counterinsurgency guru in existance. Treating prisoners well is absolutely vital to counter insurgency efforts, and that is all that this whole thing boils down to.

Guantanamo is having the same effect as Iraq.

Before the assessment you swore up and down that Iraq wasn't helping the terrorists either.-_RG



I'm sorry, which US army report assesed that our interrogation efforts are what is fueling the insurgency? That's not what the NIE report said.

Treating prisoners well is absolutely vital to counterinsurgency efforts. Read the army's field manual on that.

The NIE very clearly affirmed what I have been saying since the start (since before the war actually) about what effect it would have. The Iraq conflict is spreading the jihadist movement and strengthening the terrorists.

[RandomGuy]

WOw, what a crock of bullshit.

which of our enemies treated our combatants with care.

Was it the Viets, Russians, IRanians?

This is bullshit.

That'd mean that our troops are being treated with care already.

If we mistreat our prisoners, we are simply revealed as hypocrites when we demand the same.

ANYTHING, ANY-FUCKING-THING that causes an IOTA more disregard towards the treatment of our soldiers I will god-damn fight tooth and nail.

If we mistreat people we have in custody, that makes it more likely that our soldiers will be treated more harshly when they are captured. It doesn't get any more common sense than that.

[gtownspur]

So you're answer is no.Sure.Nope.I call yours more often since theres is more.Explain to me how they would like it, especially when it's being performed by a country that claims to be better than what they have known.And where is your evidence that it has no effect at all?Hey, thanks for agreeing with me. I wonder why you ever said they never would.Show where I said that. You might have a point if you can. Otherwise, thanks for agreeing with what I actually did say.




??? what the hell??

Here Chump.

Let me see if i can get a straight awnser from you this time.


We'll take it one question at a time.

What evidence is there that would lead you to believe that our interrogation techniques are fueling a significant amount of moderate Iraqi's to oppose us?

All I ask is a straight awnser.

I want an empirical study or report that leads us to believe that our interrogation techniques are causing moderate muslims who were undecided to oppose us.

[gtownspur]

Yup.

I would go a step further.

Those who advocate violence and torture are a bit like crack addicts. Those of us who know better can see the harm these things cause, but those who are addicted to it have blinded themselves in a state of denial to the damage. All they see is the crack-like rush of vengence and hatred, without the "down" effects of depravity and immorality, and all the other after affects.

Violence and torture have gone a few rounds in Israel with the Palestinians, and that turned out *so* well. :rolleyes

I'm sorry,

I could care less about avenging.

I don't want to have my children face death just so that i can prove something to the international community that i'm above the frey.

I think you're the one whose crazy.

[gtownspur]

If we mistreat our prisoners, we are simply revealed as hypocrites when we demand the same.


Please Random,

stop with your moral equivalence rant. I hope that if one of my soldiers were to be detained by a hostile enemy, the worse he'd get is waterboarding.

ANYTHING, ANY-FUCKING-THING that causes an IOTA more disregard towards the treatment of our soldiers I will god-damn fight tooth and nail.

Are you out of your mind? Do you think that currently and before any of this, that our prisoners were being treated fairly?




If we mistreat people we have in custody, that makes it more likely that our soldiers will be treated more harshly when they are captured. It doesn't get any more common sense than that.


I again, would like for you to provide me a reason why a hostile enemy would decide to keep his word on torture, when we are way advanced when it comes to every war skill, that not using these techniques would only keep us at an advantage.

The reason these enemies will stoop to worse levels is becuase they are outmatched and simply playing by the rules will guarantee defeat.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry,

I could care less about avenging.

I don't want to have my children face death just so that i can prove something to the international community that i'm above the frey.

I think you're the one whose crazy.

The war on terror is the war of ideas.

Which is the better idea to damp extremist views on the US:

The US tries as much as possible to be ethical and moral.
The US will do evil things to defend itself.

Pick one or the other, you can't have both.

Acting morally and ethically PROTECTS your children and mine.

[RandomGuy]

If we mistreat people we have in custody, that makes it more likely that our soldiers will be treated more harshly when they are captured.

TRUE OR NOT?

[RandomGuy]

if everybody else is doing it, why should we care how we treat our prisoners

If your neighbers have a giant sex orgy, does that make it right for you to jump in?

Sorry, if it is wrong for others it is wrong for us.

You have neither a logical nor a moral leg to stand on here.

[mookie2001]

:wakeup

[RandomGuy]

The reason these enemies will stoop to worse levels is becuase they are outmatched and simply playing by the rules will guarantee defeat.


So moral strength is a weakness? Are you SURE you're really a Christian?

[mookie2001]

this thread makes oh shit 8 look like conservative haiku

[gtownspur]

If we mistreat people we have in custody, that makes it more likely that our soldiers will be treated more harshly when they are captured.

TRUE OR NOT?


If we were fighting canada, yes.

If we are fighting Iran, what's the point?

[gtownspur]

If your neighbers have a giant sex orgy, does that make it right for you to jump in?

Sorry, if it is wrong for others it is wrong for us.

You have neither a logical nor a moral leg to stand on here.

You mean if my neighbors were cutting heads and raping and pillaging, and the least i could do to stop that from happening to my household, is to psyhcologicaly interrogate using waterboarding?

C'mon. You wouldn't?

get real.

[gtownspur]

So moral strength is a weakness? Are you SURE you're really a Christian?


Why is that? Have i concluded that what we are doing is immoral?

[RandomGuy]

You mean if my neighbors were cutting heads and raping and pillaging, and the least i could do to stop that from happening to my household, is to psyhcologicaly interrogate using waterboarding?

C'mon. You wouldn't?

get real.

That wasn't the question. Stop dodging it.

If your neighbors do something evil, would that make it right for you to do evil?

[spurster]

My Bible says something about "visiting the prisoners". Maybe it should have been translated as "torturing the prisoners".

[gtownspur]

That wasn't the question. Stop dodging it.

If your neighbors do something evil, would that make it right for you to do evil?


You mean if terrorist are only waterboarding our own (i wish), would that make it right for us to?

[turambar85]

You mean if my neighbors were cutting heads and raping and pillaging, and the least i could do to stop that from happening to my household, is to psyhcologicaly interrogate using waterboarding?

C'mon. You wouldn't?

get real.


Piss-poor analogy.

Change that to:
If some people in some local subdivisions were cutting heads and raping and pillaging, and the least I could to in order to try to stop that from potentially happening was to waterboard everybody I suspected of knowing.

[gtownspur]

That wasn't the question. Stop dodging it.

If your neighbors do something evil, would that make it right for you to do evil?


I doubt the NSA commits these acts out of spite for what terrorist are doing.


NSA Honcho, circa 2004...
"hey sonny, why those bastard terrorist are beheading our agents, let's show them by waterboarding one of their own!"


Terrorist, Kandahar circa 2004....
"But Mohammed, don't you know that if we behead this infidel, the americans will waterboard our own? Such thought gives me the shills..........just kidding ha ha ha!, alright Mohammed, commence the execution."

[gtownspur]

Piss-poor analogy.

Change that to:
If some people in some local subdivisions were cutting heads and raping and pillaging, and the least I could to in order to try to stop that from potentially happening was to waterboard everybody I suspected of knowing.

I didn't know that everyone in Guantanamo was being waterboarded???

You must obviously have some valuable info we all don't have.

[turambar85]

I didn't know that everyone in Guantanamo was being waterboarded???

You must obviously have some valuable info we all don't have.

Every-1 suspected of knowing something regarding terror plots is getting some form of torture for the information, I am sure.

Try to keep up with the analogy, they seem to give you trouble.

And why do you and Yonivore seem to hell bent on not answering/refuting the problems that I have with you, instead you find some stupid point to argue.

[RandomGuy]

You mean if terrorist are only waterboarding our own (i wish), would that make it right for us to?

This is the 2nd dodge of the question.

YES OR NO, if your neighbors are doing evil, does that make it right for you to do evil?

[Yonivore]

Every-1 suspected of knowing something regarding terror plots is getting some form of torture for the information, I am sure.
Really? How can you be so sure?

Not even the gang of 14 that were recently transfered to Gitmo were all waterboarded. Some of them coughed up information when the interrogator got that stern, "you'd better tell us what you know," look.


Try to keep up with the analogy, they seem to give you trouble.

And why do you and Yonivore seem to hell bent on not answering/refuting the problems that I have with you, instead you find some stupid point to argue.
What do you want me to answer/refute? I thought I'd been pretty thorough in my responses.

Finding stupid points to argue is ChumpDumper's territory.

[RandomGuy]

Unsurprisingly, my question continues to be unanswered.
YES OR NO, if your neighbors are doing evil, does that make it right for you to do evil?

[jochhejaam]

Unsurprisingly, my question continues to be unanswered.
YES OR NO, if your neighbors are doing evil, does that make it right for you to do evil?
.

RG, just between you and me the question is too elementary to bother answering. Rephrase it as a statement of fact (I doubt you'll get an arguement) and proceed from there.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm glad that some are willing to support my government's use of barbarism in the name of protecting people.

I'm surprised the Administration's supporters aren't arguing for flying planes into buildings if there might be a terrorist located therein.

[Ya Vez]

I didn't know that govt. and people in the govt. were doing everything in the name of Christ... ?

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't know that govt. and people in the govt. were doing everything in the name of Christ... ?Obviously not everything, just whats convinent to them.

Anyhow, the point of the thread wasn't about government actions but about personal support based on personal beliefs.

[Ya Vez]

so personally as a christian I can't support torture, no one in their right mind can support that.... but it's still going to happen.. much like murder, rape, genocide, abuse and other crimes.. on people and humanity... rather I believe in it or not..

so when are the threads going to start asking the same question of the other great religious beliefs of the world?

[RandomGuy]

.

RG, just between you and me the question is too elementary to bother answering. Rephrase it as a statement of fact (I doubt you'll get an arguement) and proceed from there.

I don't think is it too elementary if it will not be answered. It goes to the very heart of what proponents of torture are saying.

The thread is about morals, and that is a very relevant moral question that deserves to be answered before any other discussion can take place.

On that note, in case anybody missed it, here it is again:

If your neighbors are doing evil, does that make it right for you to do evil?

[MannyIsGod]

so personally as a christian I can't support torture, no one in their right mind can support that.... but it's still going to happen.. much like murder, rape, genocide, abuse and other crimes.. on people and humanity... rather I believe in it or not..

so when are the threads going to start asking the same question of the other great religious beliefs of the world?I see a the same pattern here over and over and over again. You worry too much about what others do and not about what your own do.

[boutons_]

"what others do"

Extremely typical of right-wingers/Repugs: they cannot defend the disastrous record of the Repugs since Jan 2001, so they are continuously on the attack against the Dems/liberals/etc as being just as bad.

iow, "The Repugs are shit, but so are the others"

Primitive, transparent (if you open your eyes), useless, wonderfully self-condeming.

[Phenomanul]

I don't think is it too elementary if it will not be answered. It goes to the very heart of what proponents of torture are saying.

The thread is about morals, and that is a very relevant moral question that deserves to be answered before any other discussion can take place.

On that note, in case anybody missed it, here it is again:

If your neighbors are doing evil, does that make it right for you to do evil?



Ok RG..... The answer is no. You knew what the answer would be... why harp on it? If others don't embrace that concept as truth then that is their personal perogative but not one that is condoned by 'Christianity'. As joch mentioned earlier, Biblically speaking, we are called to love our enemies... as hard as that may be. And torture is a mechanism which strikes at the very core of that principle. Personally, if I was ordered by my government to torture someone else I would object and refrain. It isn't right, it isn't justified, it isn't how Jesus taught us to behave...


But let me address something else....
A common mistake around here is that people try to equate the Republican Party or GWB to 'Christianity'. They are not one and the same.

Frankly, I am tired of making that distinction clear and I wish people would stop doing it. Christianity is a not a political endeavor -- it is a spiritual one. Christianity is not a 'move' towards financial security -- it is based on the trust of GOD's provisions. Christianity is not a movement built on hate and intolerance - it encourages us to love everyone, to forgive everyone, to embrace everyone despite our flaws; GOD's Spirit afterall is what changes people -- not us... People should not take it in their own hands to try and change another - that is GOD's job. We are simply called to live with a Christ-like attitude, and to strive for personal accountability with our Creator.

Regardless of the 'flavor', as boutons so disdainfully describes, these should be the basic tenets that drive all Christiandom. But around here people are quick to pounce on extreme cases of 'Christian' misbehaviour -- and would quietly ignore every single positive newsline that would glorify GOD through the works of His Church. The blatant preponderance of this view is downright biased, flawed and hypocritical... but no, let's not let the fragile bubble around here be burst lest some of them actually 'see' the social good being provided by true followers of Christ.

[ChumpDumper]

Frankly, I am tired of making that distinction clear and I wish people would stop doing it.They'll stop when Republicans stop I suppose.

[Phenomanul]

They'll stop when Republicans stop I suppose.

You missed the point. When was the Republican Party renamed to George W. Bush and the Disciples of Christ??.... I don't recall that ever happening.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't miss your point at all. Republicans have made cloaking all their actions with a veneer of Christianity -- appropriately or not -- standard pracitce for the last 12 years and that practice only accelerated under Bush. I don't think most of his opponents here are bad mouthing Christianity itself, just the Republicans use of religion for political purposes and some examples of hypocrisy in doing so.

[MannyIsGod]

You missed the point. When was the Republican Party renamed to George W. Bush and the Disciples of Christ??.... I don't recall that ever happening.I understand where you're coming from my man, and I agree with you. Its a shame when people undertake less than stellar objectives under the guise of christianity because it just taints things.

I'd imagine you feel the same way a lot of moderate muslims feel.

[Phenomanul]

I didn't miss your point at all. Republicans have made cloaking all their actions with a veneer of Christianity -- appropriately or not -- standard pracitce for the last 12 years and that practice only accelerated under Bush. I don't think most of his opponents here are bad mouthing Christianity itself, just the Republicans use of religion for political purposes and some examples of hypocrisy in doing so.

Would that explain why I get branded as a Republican, bible thumping Bush supporter when I make a reference to Jesus? There is a disconnect.

Brushing the question aside, I know where you are coming from. Others however, like Nbadan, or boutons_, don't seem to draw the distinction.

[JoeChalupa]

No.

[ChumpDumper]

Would that explain why I get branded as a Republican, bible thumping Bush supporter when I make a reference to Jesus? There is a disconnect.

Brushing the question aside, I know where you are coming from. Others however, like Nbadan, or boutons_, don't seem to draw the distinction.You have proven that line of thinking wrong in this thread, but I doubt it will stop the overgeneralizations.

[RandomGuy]

Ok RG..... The answer [to your question on moral relativism] is no. You knew what the answer would be... why harp on it? If others don't embrace that concept as truth then that is their personal perogative but not one that is condoned by 'Christianity'. As joch mentioned earlier, Biblically speaking, we are called to love our enemies... as hard as that may be. And torture is a mechanism which strikes at the very core of that principle. Personally, if I was ordered by my government to torture someone else I would object and refrain. It isn't right, it isn't justified, it isn't how Jesus taught us to behave...


I apologize for asking it repeatedly. I have yet to have an advocate of torture answer it though.

Fact is, we all know torture is evil, but for some reason otherwise rational people seem to think it is acceptable "because it saves lives", and because the people we are fighting are also evil.

We give up our most basic principles when we do such a thing.

Here is a thought experiment that leads to a new question.


If you were to hold a gun to the head of most Americans and give them an ultimatum:

"Your life will be spared if you agree to give up the Constitution, and allow your country and everything it stands for to be torn down and cast aside as a failed experiment."

What would most Americans answer, knowing that to live they would have to become slaves or worse and that their sacrifice would save the ideals for which we say we stand?

Further, here is yet another logical inconsistancy brought on by current administration policies:

We will torture to save lives, because lives are important and we aren't willing to allow people to die, but we invaded Iraq to fight for freedom because we are willing to throw lives away. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

[JoeChalupa]

I apologize for asking it repeatedly. I have yet to have an advocate of torture answer it though.

Fact is, we all know torture is evil, but for some reason otherwise rational people seem to think it is acceptable "because it saves lives", and because the people we are fighting are also evil.

We give up our most basic principles when we do such a thing.

Here is a thought experiment that leads to a new question.


If you were to hold a gun to the head of most Americans and give them an ultimatum:

"Your life will be spared if you agree to give up the Constitution, and allow your country and everything it stands for to be torn down and cast aside as a failed experiment."

What would most Americans answer, knowing that to live they would have to become slaves or worse and that their sacrifice would save the ideals for which we say we stand?

Further, here is yet another logical inconsistancy brought on by current administration policies:

We will torture to save lives, because lives are important and we aren't willing to allow people to die, but we invaded Iraq to fight for freedom because we are willing to throw lives away. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

Yes, I do and great post.

[boutons_]

Because the Repugs have failed to attack the terrorism problem with other than military means (which is not fucking working as both Iraq and Afghanistan are lost, or will very soon be lost), the Repugs have placed torture at the center of their anti-terror policies, as if it were the best and only tool, without which the Repugs cannot, will not?, defend America. That's the WH Repugs extortion of Congress: legalize torture or the Exec will not defend America (this was very much the tone of dubya's "speech" before the vote to gut the Geneva Conventions.

The ultimate Repug hypocrisies revolve around their so-called pro-life stacne. The hypocrisies reveal that the Repugs co-opt the social conservatives strictly for the conservative votes, not to implement their policies.

Repugs are anti-abortion, but have no problem with civilians murdered as collateral damage in the phony Iraq war.

Repugs are anti-abortion and "value the black vote" (not black people), but they stand by idly as (oil-less) Darfur sees genocie of 100s of 1000s blacks.

Repugs are anti-stem-cell research, but don't criminalize private stem-cell/embryo research, nor criminalize the disposal of 1000s of fertilized embryos at fertility clinics.

[Yonivore]

I'm glad that some are willing to support my government's use of barbarism in the name of protecting people.

I'm surprised the Administration's supporters aren't arguing for flying planes into buildings if there might be a terrorist located therein.
Well, of course you're surprised, you equate discomfort with barbarism.

[Ya Vez]

I see a the same pattern here over and over and over again. You worry too much about what others do and not about what your own do.

I can't force my beliefs on someone else.. even if they say they are christian... everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe... unless that freedom has been taken away... when you say my own... my own is mosaic of different thoughts and interputations of biblical principles... some still believe in a eye for and eye.. and some are opposed to an eye for an eye... so how can anyone say that every christian thinks alike .. as if some monolithic block of thought... most are agreed on the facts about Christ .. but after that denominations differ even on political stances... so I don't know how you can say that I don't worry about what my own are doing.. I believe most of the adminstration comes from main line religious thought... I believe bush is a methodist... and thats not my flavor of christianity... sorry....

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, of course you're surprised, you equate discomfort with barbarism.

No -- I hold my government to a higher standard, though. I also don't see the Constitution as a trifle that just gets in the way sometimes.

If my nation is committed to respecting the rights of individuals, that respect shouldn't know some arbitrary geographic boundary. If the government of my nation is not committed to respecting the rights of individuals, regardless of the existing global circumstance, then I do consider its actions barbaric.

[Yonivore]

No -- I hold my government to a higher standard, though. I also don't see the Constitution as a trifle that just gets in the way sometimes.

If my nation is committed to respecting the rights of individuals, that respect shouldn't know some arbitrary geographic boundary. If the government of my nation is not committed to respecting the rights of individuals, regardless of the existing global circumstance, then I do consider its actions barbaric.
I think you should just lay your cards on the table here FWD. What you're saying is that the U. S. Government has an obligation to safeguard the rights of non-U. S. Citizens over the security of U. S. Citizens.

Do I have that right?

[CommanderMcBragg]

I'm with John McCain on this issue. I'll take his word for it.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think you should just lay your cards on the table here FWD. What you're saying is that the U. S. Government has an obligation to safeguard the rights of non-U. S. Citizens over the security of U. S. Citizens.

Do I have that right?

Happily.

I'm not saying that one trumps the other. What I am saying is that using the proxy of national security strikes me as an insufficient basis for disregarding rights that the foundational documents of this nation describe as fundamental and inalienable for all people, not just Americans. Fight the war on terror, but don't violate rights that we hold to be fundamental in that process. To do otherwise might win a war but it will erode the foundational basis for the civilization that the war was fought to save.

Rights do not exist at the whim of government. Government exists because the People allow it to. Government's ability to conduct itself is always -- and should always be -- subject to the rights of the People. Somehow, that notion has been turned on its head after September 11, 2001.

It strikes me as odd that anyone who describes himself as a patriot would honestly think that the most basic principles addressed by the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution and its amendments should be capable of such willy-nilly subversion. That idea would obviously be anathema to many of those who played such a key role in the establishment of this nation and in ensuring its prosperity -- Patrick Henry didn't ask for Security or liberty; he asked for liberty or death. Benjamin Franklin famously adopted the proverb that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's ironic to me that this Administration props itself up for having brought freedom and democracy to Iraq while at the same time seeking every means available to avoid those responsibilities in its own activities. Again, I see no principled basis for an argument that this nation respects individual rights, but does not respect the individual rights of those who are not its citizens. We're better than that.

[Phenomanul]

Happily.

I'm not saying that one trumps the other. What I am saying is that using the proxy of national security strikes me as an insufficient basis for disregarding rights that the foundational documents of this nation describe as fundamental and inalienable for all people, not just Americans. Fight the war on terror, but don't violate rights that we hold to be fundamental in that process. To do otherwise might win a war but it will erode the foundational basis for the civilization that the war was fought to save.

Rights do not exist at the whim of government. Government exists because the People allow it to. Government's ability to conduct itself is always -- and should always be -- subject to the rights of the People. Somehow, that notion has been turned on its head after September 11, 2001.

It strikes me as odd that anyone who describes himself as a patriot would honestly think that the most basic principles addressed by the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution and its amendments should be capable of such willy-nilly subversion. That idea would obviously be anathema to many of those who played such a key role in the establishment of this nation and in ensuring its prosperity -- Patrick Henry didn't ask for Security or liberty; he asked for liberty or death. Benjamin Franklin famously adopted the proverb that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's ironic to me that this Administration props itself up for having brought freedom and democracy to Iraq while at the same time seeking every means available to avoid those responsibilities in its own activities. Again, I see no principled basis for an argument that this nation respects individual rights, but does not respect the individual rights of those who are not its citizens. We're better than that.


:tu well said....

[boutons_]

"Government exists because the People allow it to"

aka, the people, persons are superior to institutions.

.... but watch the SC of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia repeatedly favor the power of institutions over the rights of individuals.

[PixelPusher]

I think you should just lay your cards on the table here FWD. What you're saying is that the U. S. Government has an obligation to safeguard the rights of non-U. S. Citizens over the security of U. S. Citizens.

Do I have that right?

If the U.S. sets itself out to be the "world police" that goes out to spread democracy and topple tyrants (the motive Bush claims for Iraq), then yes, it does.

shit, or get off the pot.

[Yonivore]

If the U.S. sets itself out to be the "world police" that goes out to spread democracy and topple tyrants (the motive Bush claims for Iraq), then yes, it does.

shit, or get off the pot.
While I appreciate your characterization -- wrong as it may be -- that doesn't translate into a legal obligation never before asserted.

[RandomGuy]

No -- I hold my government to a higher standard, though. I also don't see the Constitution as a trifle that just gets in the way sometimes.

If my nation is committed to respecting the rights of individuals, that respect shouldn't know some arbitrary geographic boundary. If the government of my nation is not committed to respecting the rights of individuals, regardless of the existing global circumstance, then I do consider its actions barbaric.

Yup. Since the Y-meister has me on ignore, ask him this question:

If the bill of rights was created because of the ideals of freedom, do those ideals not apply to "all men"? ("all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights")

Is is obviously the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law that he is concerned with.

Without the spirit the letter is meaningless. It has been the policy of the US for decades to advance the causes of fair process and human rights. Does all that go out the window now?

It all goes back to the question: "If your neighbors do evil, does that make it ok for you to do evil?"

[MannyIsGod]

Again, I see no principled basis for an argument that this nation respects individual rights, but does not respect the individual rights of those who are not its citizens. We're better than that.
As if somehow being born within these borders granted us special rights that the rest of humanity did not also deserve.

Good post.

[Ya Vez]

great article on the some of the recent history on torture.. to be fair both political parties and adminstrations have condoned it for decades now... but of course I will get attacked for merely pointing out the obivious.... so go ahead shoot defend your side of the aisle... on this subject as well....


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1664174,00.html



It was the "Mission Accomplished" of George Bush's second term, and an announcement of that magnitude called for a suitably dramatic location. But what was the right backdrop for the infamous "We do not torture" declaration? With characteristic audacity, the Bush team settled on downtown Panama City.
It was certainly bold. An hour and a half's drive from where Bush stood, the US military ran the notorious School of the Americas from 1946 to 1984, a sinister educational institution that, if it had a motto, might have been "We do torture". It is here in Panama, and later at the school's new location in Fort Benning, Georgia, where the roots of the current torture scandals can be found.

According to declassified training manuals, SOA students - military and police officers from across the hemisphere - were instructed in many of the same "coercive interrogation" techniques that have since gone to Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib: early morning capture to maximise shock, immediate hooding and blindfolding, forced nudity, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, sleep and food "manipulation", humiliation, extreme temperatures, isolation, stress positions - and worse. In 1996 President Clinton's Intelligence Oversight Board admitted that US-produced training materials condoned "execution of guerrillas, extortion, physical abuse, coercion and false imprisonment".
Some Panama school graduates went on to commit the continent's greatest war crimes of the past half-century: the murders of Archbishop Oscar Romero and six Jesuit priests in El Salvador; the systematic theft of babies from Argentina's "disappeared" prisoners; the massacre of 900 civilians in El Mozote in El Salvador; and military coups too numerous to list here.

[boutons_]

"within these borders"

Nah, Yoni MUST include naturalized US citizens as also being better humans with "unalieanable" rights than non-US citizens with fully alienable rights.

For Yoni and incorrigibly chauvinistic retrogrades of similar ilk, it's the Bill of US Citizen Rights

For people of advanced intellect, seriosity, with broad vision of humanity (ie, most Ameicans, even some sheeple), and TRUE Christians, it's the Bill of Human Rights.

[RandomGuy]

Meaningless Bump.

(bows)

[RandomGuy]

Looks like the protorture camp has fled the field. Too bad they still might vote...

[gtownspur]

I don't think is it too elementary if it will not be answered. It goes to the very heart of what proponents of torture are saying.

The thread is about morals, and that is a very relevant moral question that deserves to be answered before any other discussion can take place.

On that note, in case anybody missed it, here it is again:

If your neighbors are doing evil, does that make it right for you to do evil?


No, one should not commit evil just because others do.

And state sanction torture is not evil. It is under the powers God has given to states to execute for it's own.

I thought i already made my point on why torture for personal gain, and torture for saving lives are two different things.

Let me ask you something.

Should by that same principle should Christians kill others in Combat?


Cmon Jockjuice, Phenambagamboa, Random Guy!

Awnser my question.

[gtownspur]

Here's my argument again.

No one's dodging the bullet here.

Explain to me out of proper biblical exegis why I'm wrong?

Hallmark Verses need not be written here.





Let me express my reservations on the whole religous angle of this argument first then i'll move on to the more mechanical and ethical aspects of my view on torture.

First of all the United States is a governmental entity which has a purpose rather different than you and I do as a christian.

The role of Government is to protect it's citizenry from endangerment, therefore as to where as a christian, Christ compels us through paul's epistle to "Make you're body a living sacrifice unto God", as well as "turn the other cheek", this is christ's instruction for daily living to be executed by individuals and not nations.

Christ is silent on the role of government, you got to remember, he came to set up a spiritual kingdom and not an earthly one. The book of Romans in one of it's passages states that God, the Father, gives the government the right to execute and protect.

If we are to make "Christ the sunday school hallmark card persona" an example of shunning torture, and not the writ in it's entirety, there are countless other practices and proffesions christians should abstain from:

1.Doctors at abortion clinics

2.Military Service

3. Law enforcement

4.Espionage

etc....

Torture done in the interest of the state to protect it's citizenry, and not of personal gratification is just.

For you; being the agent of the govt, trying to extract information, are not acting on your behalf, but on the will of the state.

Repeat this with me.... "The state is not relegated to private restrictions as so put forth in the Gospels."

Now, before you ever type another token "turn the other cheek" verse, be responsible and determine yourself wether christ was referring to nation states.


Now unto the ethical and mechanical aspect.

Random Guy, do us all a favor and remind yourself that our political and practical actions in the war on terror, used in a positive way as to show goodwill, to change the hearts of potential recruits for terrorism, is useless.


To a bunch of people who are already indoctrinated in believing that allah wills everything to the advantage of the spread of Islam. You're humanistic practices will only make you look weak.

Torturing, or not torturing, Strong or weak, liberal administration or Republican, wether you grant constitutional priveleges or not, none of this will decrease the recruitment of terrorism.

Let me ask you, if Bush would have used softer language, and goodwill efforts to get an extreme conservative to sit on the high court, would all his goodwill, good times fun and rock and roll antics make you support his nomination?

Therefore Islamofanatical extremist who are on the sidelines do not care that about you're delivery, but the substance.

And on substance, you are not on their side nor do you have any inclinations to advance islam for them, therefore you are standing in the way and are a threat.

It's as if we were to serve them shit on a silver platter and expect them to eat it. That's what it's like to go into the mideast and use humanistic approaches to wage as they see it "a war on their God, allah and his servants". Whether it be for a just cause, like afghanistan, or to you unjust(iraq), we are on sacred grounds.

The war as Islamofascist play is always to their advantage. Their rules are, "stay out of our land while we wage war from it, and stay confined to living in fear and putting up with thousands of individual terrorist to halt from killing your people. Even if you get approval from kings to come here and extract terrorist, we will tell their people that you infidels are filthy and should die for just setting foot in our territory. There is no right and wrong, but only what Allah wills. You are to stick to fighting this war always on the defensive."

My argument is not about how cruel and dedicated and fanatical they are to obtain their goal.(killing innocents, beheading school girls etc) But how they are so fanatical that anyway you deal with them, you will always be wrong because you are not under submission of allah.


Don't play this cheap card of "But our methods will recruit more terrorist" again. It's dishonest and pointless.

[RandomGuy]

No, one should not commit evil just because others do.


And state sanction torture is not evil. It is under the powers God has given to states to execute for it's own.
So any evil a state does is OK with God? You imply that evil becomes not evil when the government does it. Is this correct?


I thought i already made my point on why torture for personal gain, and torture for saving lives are two different things.
So committing adultry for seemingly good reasons is also ok? Stealing for good reasons is also ok?

I would also argue that in the long run such methods cost more lives than are actually saved by inspiring further attacks.


Should by that same principle should Christians kill others in Combat?
There are no few Christians who don't believe in killing even then.

[RandomGuy]

The role of Government is to protect it's citizenry from endangerment, therefore as to where as a christian, Christ compels us through paul's epistle to "Make you're body a living sacrifice unto God", as well as "turn the other cheek", this is christ's instruction for daily living to be executed by individuals and not nations.

If the role of the government is to protect its citizenry from endangerment, then why torture?

If it is known that we torture, and this leads to more attacks, is this policy not failing to protect?

[RandomGuy]

Random Guy, do us all a favor and remind yourself that our political and practical actions in the war on terror, used in a positive way as to show goodwill, to change the hearts of potential recruits for terrorism, is useless.


Prove this assumption.

It denies common sense to think that the vast population of muslims from which recruites are drawn are somehow immune to good PR. They are thinking rational people. To think otherwise is to deny them of humanity, is it not.?

[RandomGuy]

My argument is not about how cruel and dedicated and fanatical they are to obtain their goal.(killing innocents, beheading school girls etc) But how they are so fanatical that anyway you deal with them, you will always be wrong because you are not under submission of allah.


Don't play this cheap card of "But our methods will recruit more terrorist" again. It's dishonest and pointless.

People don't start out "cruel and dedicated". They are exposed to information that makes them that way.

It is not dishonest and pointless. It is the very heart of the pragmatic and dogmatic argument. You seek to make it that way because you know you cannot defeat the logic, so it is easier to simply dismiss it out of hand than actually admit that your position is neither logical or moral.

[Yonivore]

I'm not really going to enter into this debate again but, I have an interesting aside about a couple of the so-called "passive" exhortations of Jesus. I'm doing this from memory so, please, if you can expand on it, do.

First, this "turn the other cheek" business. It is my understanding that at the time, when Roman soldiers would slap a subject it was with a particular hand across a particular cheek -- I think it may have been with the left hand across the right cheek (I'm not certain). This was a sign of dominance and superiority, and in the screwy protocols of the first century, if you turned the other cheek the person doing the slapping would have to concede you are his equal -- by slapping the wrong cheek with the wrong hand -- or discontinue the assault and be bested by the person he was slapping.

Or something like that.

Then there is the "go the extra mile" story where Jesus is saying, if a soldier makes you carry his pack for a mile, go two instead. Again, according to the screwy laws of the time, a soldier was only allowed to force a subject to carry their load for a mile at a time. And, if the soldier was caught forcing someone to carry their load for more than a mile, they were punished. So, carrying the load for a second mile could result in the soldier being disciplined.

Again, these are vague recollections of a conversation had with a Presbyterian theologian a few years ago. He probably expressed all this in more biblical language, including chapter and verse. I also know he talked about other supposedly passive commands of Jesus.

The point was that Jesus wasn't telling people to lay down and be run over. He was telling them to be creative in their resistance to improper authority being exerted over them. Cause the perpetrator more discomfort than it is worth to pick on you.

[Phenomanul]

Cmon Jockjuice, Phenambagamboa, Random Guy!

Awnser my question.

??? OK, the namecalling is unnecessary.





Should by that same principle should Christians kill others in Combat?



This is an apples and oranges comparison. In combat both sides know that their life is at risk. Once someone has been captured however, their human rights have to remain intact and have to be valued -- that is the moral, civilized thing to do (and also why the Geneva Convention charter was agreed upon).

Should a Christian kill an unarmed defenseless person??... No.
If they were to kill in self defense, be it in a military field or in their home have they committed a sin?... I believe not.


As an aside, I believe conflicts should be solved diplomatically and not with military force. Terrorists of course don't want to open the lines of discussion and that has led to the problems and dilemmas we as a nation are facing today.

[Extra Stout]

They are thinking rational people. To think otherwise is to deny them of humanity, is it not.?
Rationality is not universal in all human cultures. It is far from being a prerequisite of humanity.

Outside of Western culture, entire patterns of thought are unrecognizable to us. They are not Westerners. They do not spring from the same core assumptions Westerners do. They do not process information the same way. They do not approach problems the same way. Thinking is cultural.

I find this to be a common liberal (and conservative, for that matter) fallacy, that people from different cultures can be reasoned with like a bunch of Western liberal critical thinkers.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Rationality is not universal in all human cultures. It is far from being a prerequisite of humanity.


rationality is what makes us human, and seperates us from the animals.

[velik_m]

What would Jesus, the mass murderer, do?

The catholics solved all this dilema long time ago - it's all ok, as long as they're not christian. (see crusades/inquisition/witch hunts)

[Phenomanul]

I'm not really going to enter into this debate again but, I have an interesting aside about a couple of the so-called "passive" exhortations of Jesus. I'm doing this from memory so, please, if you can expand on it, do.

First, this "turn the other cheek" business. It is my understanding that at the time, when Roman soldiers would slap a subject it was with a particular hand across a particular cheek -- I think it may have been with the left hand across the right cheek (I'm not certain). This was a sign of dominance and superiority, and in the screwy protocols of the first century, if you turned the other cheek the person doing the slapping would have to concede you are his equal -- by slapping the wrong cheek with the wrong hand -- or discontinue the assault and be bested by the person he was slapping.

Or something like that.

Then there is the "go the extra mile" story where Jesus is saying, if a soldier makes you carry his pack for a mile, go two instead. Again, according to the screwy laws of the time, a soldier was only allowed to force a subject to carry their load for a mile at a time. And, if the soldier was caught forcing someone to carry their load for more than a mile, they were punished. So, carrying the load for a second mile could result in the soldier being disciplined.

Again, these are vague recollections of a conversation had with a Presbyterian theologian a few years ago. He probably expressed all this in more biblical language, including chapter and verse. I also know he talked about other supposedly passive commands of Jesus.

The point was that Jesus wasn't telling people to lay down and be run over. He was telling them to be creative in their resistance to improper authority being exerted over them. Cause the perpetrator more discomfort than it is worth to pick on you.


That is one explanation... except that the Bible clearly defines what Jesus' teachings with regards to those concepts actually was. He was not advocating for 'creative resistance'... otherwise He would not have taught his followers to 'pray for your enemies' and to 'love your neighbor and your enemies' as thyself. He would not have healed (and restored an ear) of the soldier that arrested Him. More importantly he would not have prayed for the forgiveness of those that crucified him (including --- you guessed it... the Roman soldiers).

[Yonivore]

That is one explanation... except that the Bible clearly defines what Jesus' teachings with regards to those concepts actually was. He was not advocating for 'creative resistance'... otherwise He would not have taught his followers to 'pray for your enemies' and to 'love your neighbor and your enemies' as thyself. He would not have healed (and restored an ear) of the soldier that arrested Him. More importantly he would not have prayed for the forgiveness of those that crucified him (including --- you guessed it... the Roman soldiers).
First, praying for your enemies -- that they do God's will and that they be made right with God, isn't a passive direction either. If you believe in prayer, it is an active petition to God that your enemies will change.

Second, I would make a distinction between the Great Commandment, "to love your neighbor as yourself," and the directive to "love your enemies," (and, I'll note, Christ doesn't say "as yourself"). And, this will lead into my response to your other two points.

Loving someone doesn't mean you acquiesce to them or that you surrender to them but, that you recognize they are human and deserving of forgiveness and grace. Further, loving someone doesn't mean you accept their behavior or that you shield them from the consequence of their actions.

You can love someone and still be capable of killing that person. I'll give you an extreme example because, apparently, you don't buy that killing the enemy is consistent with Christ's teachings.

How about the mother who shoots to death the husband in the process of harming their children? Would you claim that her love for her husband should outweigh her protecting her children? No. Just like I wouldn't expect a soldiers love of mankind -- which may extend to the enemy -- to outweigh his sense of obligation to kill that enemy in order to protect his country or himself.

As for Christ healing the soldier's ear and forgiving those who crucified him. Okay, first, he's the Messiah and he knew beforehand his fate. I believe these soldiers were only fulfilling a destiny layed out and foretold in scripture and that Christ recognized this. Second, they were merely soldiers doing their jobs.

You'd have a point if, when the Sanheedren (sp?) handed him over to Pontius Pilate and demanded he be crucified, Christ had verbally forgiven them. But, as a Christian, we believe Christ died so that we all may be forgiven our sins...including the sins of those who crucified him.

Christ sets an impossible standard because, well, he is God and he knows the beginning and the end. Further, the events in which he was involved while here on earth were pre-ordained...and beyond everyone's control. That would include Judas Iscariot who betrayed him. There never was any doubt how the story of Jesus would end.

[Extra Stout]

rationality is what makes us human, and seperates us from the animals.
You are thinking of cognition, not rationality. Not all cognition is rational.

[RandomGuy]

WWJT

Who Would Jesus Torture?

[Phenomanul]

First, praying for your enemies -- that they do God's will and that they be made right with God, isn't a passive direction either. If you believe in prayer, it is an active petition to God that your enemies will change.

Second, I would make a distinction between the Great Commandment, "to love your neighbor as yourself," and the directive to "love your enemies," (and, I'll note, Christ doesn't say "as yourself"). And, this will lead into my response to your other two points.

Loving someone doesn't mean you acquiesce to them or that you surrender to them but, that you recognize they are human and deserving of forgiveness and grace. Further, loving someone doesn't mean you accept their behavior or that you shield them from the consequence of their actions.

You can love someone and still be capable of killing that person. I'll give you an extreme example because, apparently, you don't buy that killing the enemy is consistent with Christ's teachings.

How about the mother who shoots to death the husband in the process of harming their children? Would you claim that her love for her husband should outweigh her protecting her children? No. Just like I wouldn't expect a soldiers love of mankind -- which may extend to the enemy -- to outweigh his sense of obligation to kill that enemy in order to protect his country or himself.

As for Christ healing the soldier's ear and forgiving those who crucified him. Okay, first, he's the Messiah and he knew beforehand his fate. I believe these soldiers were only fulfilling a destiny layed out and foretold in scripture and that Christ recognized this. Second, they were merely soldiers doing their jobs.

You'd have a point if, when the Sanheedren (sp?) handed him over to Pontius Pilate and demanded he be crucified, Christ had verbally forgiven them. But, as a Christian, we believe Christ died so that we all may be forgiven our sins...including the sins of those who crucified him.

Christ sets an impossible standard because, well, he is God and he knows the beginning and the end. Further, the events in which he was involved while here on earth were pre-ordained...and beyond everyone's control. That would include Judas Iscariot who betrayed him. There never was any doubt how the story of Jesus would end.


They are good points Yoni... but clearly I do not believe Christ would sanction any form of torture.

Again, in my other post I even inferred that killing in self-defense was different from causing premeditated death. And obviously though not all torture leads to death, it does cross the fine fringe of premeditated harm. That is not a Christ-like attitude no matter how you spin it.

[Yonivore]

They are good points Yoni... but clearly I do not believe Christ would sanction any form of torture.
Nor do I. And, nor do I condone any form of torture. The problem here seems to be what is torture?


Again, in my other post I even inferred that killing in self-defense was different from causing premeditated death. And obviously though not all torture leads to death, it does cross the fine fringe of premeditated harm. That is not a Christ-like attitude no matter how you spin it.
Again, you'll have to define torture.

Then, once that is done, you'll have to tell me how causing extreme discomfort (with no lasting physical impairment) in exchange for actionable intelligence is a bad thing.

[RandomGuy]

WWJW

Who Would Jesus Waterboard?

[RandomGuy]

I am being a bit flippant, but Yoni's devil is in the details. :cooldevil