Can You Be A Christian and Support State Torture?

[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]

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?

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.

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.

[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- -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 at udes 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 at udes 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 e 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 at udes 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 bull . 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 bull .


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 bull .

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 bull 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 bull .

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 bull 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 e 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.

[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 bull .

which of our enemies treated our combatants with care.

Was it the Viets, Russians, IRanians?

This is bull .

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 bull .

which of our enemies treated our combatants with care.

Was it the Viets, Russians, IRanians?

This is bull .

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- ING-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 ??

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.