In response to all the lies and bed-wetting on the Left over supposed "torture" levied by Americans upon those poor poor blood-thirsty terrorists being given the royal treatment at Club Gitmo...
I say we give them nothing but Fig Newtons-- as much as they care to eat, six days a week. Let them fast on the seventh. Fasting after all is good for the soul.
I say, let them eat fruited cake until they either tell us what we want to know of future attacks, or they burst. Or their teeth fall out. I, as a taxpayer, am content to let them eat the very thing I am too poor to enjoy more often than I do.
How can subsisting upon a diet consisting solely of Fig Newtons and water hurt anyone? Or offend any convenient religious sensibility? Surely Hitler's Germany NEVER gave a single starving Jews a single Fig Newton.
How generous America would seem in the eyes of the world. 'How kind,' the French would declare, 'the Americans give them fruited cake!' The Germans would likely be jealous, asking themselves, 'why did we never think of Fig Newtons? Herr Schindler would have saved far far more had he only offered the SS Fig Newtons!'
Yes, let the enemy combatants eat fruited cake. Let them enjoy the dainties they've so earned. Let them savor the delicate flavor of fig and pastry before moving on to the REAL fruit of their labors-- seventy-two perpetual hymened virgins.
It's also interesting that, apparently, only three terrorists have been w'boarded since 9/11. THREE!!! That doesn't exactly sound like it's something that was used indescriminately (in fact, it sounds just the opposite). But, the way people are going on about it, you'd think thousands had been subjected to it (along with their families) as soon as they were captured.
Also, I doesn't help matters that some are defining torture as anything that makes a person disclose information against their will. Sheesh!
Are the suicide-bombers really taught that the 72 virgins will be so perpetually??? (And what are the female suiciders promised -- that they won't have to be one of anyone's 72?)
mmmmmmmm,....Fig Newtons.
I've long suspected that the suiciders would be a whole lot less willing if they didn't think they were going to die instantly and painlessly (like a bug on a windshield).
And am I the only one who has a hard time figuring out how suicide = martyrdom? I mean, you're killing yourself first -- taking a few infidels (or fellow Muslims) along with you doesn't change that fact.
Let me ask you a question, ER.
Do you own a gun?
Would you use it to protect yourself or your family members?
To protect your Freedom?
If you would, then why does your conscience not torture YOU?
If you wouldn't, then you are a sorry excuse for a man.
What you really need is a sheep.
Do you own a gun?"
YES.
Re, "Would you use it to protect yourself or your family members?"
YES.
"To protect your Freedom?"
Probably.
Maybe. Probably. But I'm not trying to be a man. Or an American. Or a Baptist. Or even a Christian.
Just trying to follow Jesus. Not finding must in these environs for guidance.
As usual.
ER would you mind explaining the following?
"Most interesting is that your conscience doesn't torture you, EL."What specifically in this post about fruited cake would prompt you to wonder about my conscience? Do you not recognize sarcasm when you read it? Frustration with idiots? You have these same problems at your place.-- loads of sarcasm and frustration with idiots. Why is it okay for you to be a blustering cowboy, but I can't be the same if I choose?
On another note... Happy Birthday! I thought you were older than me. "Age before Beauty," and all that !
I hope you enjoyed your day, and ate lots of Fig Newtons!
Would either of them loosen a Jihadist's tongue, and prevent further terrorists attacks on innocent Americans?
I wonder...just what would ER (or any other Liberal) do to to a terrorist to get him to talk?
You left out the part about how no one has been able to withstand more than 2 minutes of waterboarding before cracking. Not even battle hardened veterans.
To me, if I couldn't take 2 minutes of anything (even tickling) without cracking, that would be torture. But that's just me, I guess.
Eating Fig Newtons could never be considered torture, except for those who do not like Figs. A suitable substitution could be found in such cases.
Liberalism - he the Great Emasculator
I think I'd prefer my government get information the old-fashioned way: by infiltration of the enemy and his aid-and-abettors, and by paying-negotiating-bribing for it, which is proven effective.
And Marshall! I never figured you for a genuine situational ethicist! When I was a young Baptist lad, situational ethics was loathed exactly as much as communism. You've got a long way to go yet, brother! LOL
Oh, and i wasn't talking about the attitude of the torturers. I was talking about EL's cavalier attitude toward torture, and yours.
Once again, that attitude isn't cavalier, nor directed toward torture. The attitude is directed toward those like yourself, if you are among those who feel that loss of civilian life is a small price to pay for not roughing up a bad guy. Is that the case?
I've never been a Baptist. If they also have such problems, then they are also in need of deeper Biblical study. Jesus was without sin, it is said, yet he equates anger with more serious crimes, such as murder. How would a Baptist deal with the money changers, where Jesus showed anger? How do they explain the notion of God judging the heart? I've mentioned in my blog discussion the subject of David taking the consecrated bread, but he is not punished for what is normally forbidden. Situational ethics.
And you have also changed the subject concerning "torture" if you believe the "old-fashioned way" or bribery works every time, with every suspect and particularly when the clock's ticking. Such attitudes suggest tha "torture" is the first choice and I doubt that is supportable.
But let's back up a bit. Assume for a moment that none of this had ever come up or out. Our position on "torture" was never publicly stated one way or the other. The question of whether or not the United States uses or supports the use of ANY levels of torture had never been asked. Do you think the enemy not knowing how far we're willing to go works to our advantage or against it? Please don't "Dan" me on this question.
When someone claims my God blesses homosexuality when God plainly said Homosexuality is an abomination, thereby claiming God contradicts Himself, I get righteously indignant.
When that same someone who blasphemes God in that manner, suggests he believes in Christian values, I get angry.
When that same someone calls me a pervert while at the same time, calling God a liar, I get angry.
Well, historically, you're not much os a Baptist unless you would fight and die to keep church and state separate. And you're right: You're angry, and, as far as I've ever seen, incapable of righteous indignation.
Re, "When someone claims my God blesses homosexuality when God plainly said Homosexuality is an abomination, thereby claiming God contradicts Himself, I get righteously indignant."
Interesting. One, God is not *your* God; God is God; so any defensiveness you feel is to defend yourself and what you think God is, not what God is; since God, being God, does not need your defense, therefore is unlikely to have called YOU to defend God. God doesn't need you; you need God. Two, God is love, therefore God blesses love; the Bible says nothing whatsover about homosexuality; the Bible has some things to say about plumbing, that's all; is that why you're so fixated on it? Three, God does, in fact, according to the Bible change his mind, which is, by appearances at least, "inconsistent," that is, "inconsistent"; see the Book of Jonah, and God's original designs on that city versus what God is persuaded to do instead! Four, therefore, whatever you think gives you the privilege of claiming righteous indignation is false, and all in your proud head.
Re, "When that same someone who blasphemes God in that manner, suggests he believes in Christian values, I get angry."
Who has blasphemed? Not me. And, LOL, while you do, occasionally exhibit a Christian value here and there, when it fits your own concept of "values," you are in no position whatsoever to talk to *anybody* about ANY Christian value other than the value of repentance -- for your selfish pride, willful ignorance, and baseless anger, of nothing else.
Re, "When that same someone calls me a pervert while at the same time, calling God a liar, I get angry."
NO clue what you're talking about.
That's because I wasn't referring to you. But that is nonetheless something someone actually called me, while defending the practice of something God calls an abomination.
The "someone" I am referring to knows what I'm talking about, as do a couple of the regulars here.
"the Bible says nothing whatsover about homosexuality"
Really. Then tell me. Does Leviticus 18:22 say, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"?
Yes or no?
Blaspheme means to attribute to God things that come from Satan. When someone says, "God blesses Homosexuality", which is in direct contradiction with Leviticus 18:22, he is blaspheming.
"you are in no position whatsoever to talk to *anybody* about ANY Christian value other than the value of repentance"
Coming from someone who refuses believe sinners need to repent, I find that statement rather curious.
Yes or no?"
Well, I'll rely on your citation, but, "Yes." That's what it says.
And Mark, if you're heterosexual, it would be an utter abomination for you to lie with a man. So, I'd advise you not to. The biblical writer most assuredly having no more of a concept of homosexuality than of rocket science, I'm confident that he was not talking about homosexuality, that is, the state of being a homosexual, but was talking about plumbing, but more importantly, was talking about the true abberant behavior of a man naturally attracted to women so debasing himself in his selfishness and lusts to have sex with a man.
There are other reasons why I think that verse and the others don't apply to homosexuality, but there you go.
Bulls--t. Might've been important in Paul's time and place -- but I doubt that, too -- but most certainly not now.
In other words, I know this makes your head explode, but "The Bible says," without qualification, is no trump card.
If you say yes, than to say God blesses homosexuality is to accuse God of contradicting Himself.
That is heretical.
Saying God blesses that which He has proclaimed an abomination is blaspheme.
You know, ER, your attempt to explain what God really meant when He said what He said, is much the same as Satan saying, "Did God really say, Thou shalt not eat the fruit or you shalt surely die"?
But "no" -- the verse says nothing about homosexuality. You don't even know what the word means. Or, more likely, you simply deny that it can possibly mean anything other than anal sex or oral sex between men. Whatever.
Now *this* is an interesting direction to take this:
"Did God really say, Thou shalt not eat the fruit or you shalt surely die"?
Even that requires interpretation. Because even assuming that a legged snake literally said that to a First Woman we now call Eve, she, did die, but she didn't fall down dead on the spot, did she? Lived hundreds of years, I think. I reckon it depends on what yer definition of "die" is.
I reckon it depends on what yer definition of "lie with mankind" is -- and what it means to me is: If you're attracted to women, don't debase yourself by going against your nature and having sex with men. The flipside makes sense, to: If you're naturally atracted to men, don't debase yourself and go against your nature by having sex with women.
But again: all this talk about plumbing!
Next time I see or encounter someone with that attitude, I'll pass along your concern.
I'm sure you know of someone (judging by the tone of your comment...) but I didn't see a list of them in my Bible.
Nice try, though...
Do what? I said nothing of the sort. I suggested nothing of the sort. Talk about "nice tries" ...
??
I thought you had said something that you didn't exactly say... (although you sort of danced around it.) (depends on what your definition of "said" is, I guess.
As to your little opinion about the Torture issue, and our "cavalier attitude" toward it, I, and I would venture to say Eric, do (does) not intend to torture anyone. If someone should choose to torture a murderous Terrorist in the misguided notion that it might save a few innocent lives, then what right do we have to try to stop them.
It's none of my business what someone else might choose to do.
Does that sound logical to you now?
It's thier CHOICE.
So, when you encounter people who do intend to torture people, and they ask what I, and I would venture to say Eric, thinks about it, pass that along for us, would you?
Thanks.
(I will not engage you on the subject of Homosexuality. You're wrong, and we are right ( the Bible tells me so), and no amount of bickering will cange anyone's mind about it, so you are free to continue in your misled, misguided self-righteousness on that issue as far as I'm concerned.)
I think you should try again when you're not drunk.
As for the hom thing: Yeah, I might be wrong. I'll take that. I'll be wrong and splash Grace in places God might not have intended it -- and let God do with me what God will -- rather than be stingy with it and have to explain myself.
Both out ancestors, and maybe even both our daddies and grandpas, were the same stingy way with black folks. And women.
Not me. Not never. Not no how.
You keep holdin' that Bible SHUT and you keep that CHAIN on the church house door. See where it gets ya.
I. Will. Spend. The. Rest. Of. My. Life. Ripping. Arrogant. Hands. From. The. Bible. And. Cutting. Those. Chains. From. The. Doors. Of. The. Church!
IN Jesus name.
Own up to yourself.
tugboatcapn has left a new comment on the post "In Lieu of Virgins, Let Them Eat Fruited Cake":
Oh, I'm sorry.
I sometimes forget that people who know everything sometimes have to have things explained to them on a first grade level.
You contend that God telling Adam and Eve that they would surely die if they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge represented a contradiction of some sort.
I pointed out that no human being had ever died before that point in time, and after that, they did, thereby putting the lie to your assertion that God LIED to Adam and Eve.
Ergo: Nice try, ER.
As usual, your point did not hold up to close scrutiny. (Not that anyone expected it to.)
As to your little opinion about the Torture issue, and our "cavalier attitude" toward it, I, and I would venture to say Eric, do (does) not intend to torture anyone. If someone should choose to torture a murderous Terrorist in the misguided notion that it might save a few innocent lives, then what right do we have to try to stop them.
It's none of my business what someone else might choose to do.
Does that sound logical to you now?
It's thier CHOICE.
Post a comment.
Unsubscribe to comments on this post.
Posted by tugboatcapn to Pearls & Lodestones at May 6, 2009 10:34 PM
God's Grace and Forgiveness are free to ANYONE who wi REPENT OF THIER SIN and give their life over TO BE USED FOR HIS GLORY.
(NOTHING about a Homosexual lifestyle or Homosexual practices glorifies God, or anyone else, for that matter.)
There is no exception for those who would hold on to their own favorite sin, or who would re-write God's HOLY WORD in order to accept that SIN, and allow others to continue in their SINFUL(by every concievable definition) practices and self destructive lifestyles, while claiming to be followers of Christ, purified by HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD.
If, in your mind, you are erring on the side of Grace, then you are AGAIN misled, and misguided, and you should remove yourself from among those who have misled you.
Until you do, and as long as this is your belief, you are doing more damage to the cause of Christ, and His Church than you could ever do good, were you right. (Which you aren't.)
You accuse me of denying Christ.
I accuse you of undermining His Church, and diminishing the Message of Salvation with your acceptance of a practice and lifestyle that is labeled SIN in God's Word EVERY TIME IT IS MENTIONED.
God will deal with BOTH of us as He will.
I'll take my chances by standing up for Him, rather than watering down His clear definitions of Sin, and the requirements for Salvation for my own political reasons.
I hope you are proud of yourself.
That's real "Jesusy" of you.
And holding a snake up to a mirror to maybe it can see its snakiness is very Jesusy.
BTW, are you actually active in a church these days? Regular, I mean? I hope so. Even if it's an effed-up church, it's better than going it alone, which is all I, personally, have ever known you to do.
Whether or not I go to Church is irrelevant.
But since you mention it, going to an "effed up" church is a lot worse than going it alone (if that were what I am doing) because "effed up" churches create "effed up" "christians" like yourself, who believe that they are doing the Lord's work by tearing down His Church and misleading those who seek Him and His Salvation for DELIVERANCE from their Sin, and instead offering them a way to make peace with it, and continue in it's bondage.
I do not put chains on the Church Door, but rather attempt to remove the chains of sin and degradation from those who wish to enter them.
And yes, God does not need me. He guides me and leads me in all that I do.
Including opposing you, and your coopting of His House to use as a place of Political Activism.
The apostle Paul persecuted Christians with a clear conscience, and with righteous zeal until he was enlightened on the Damascus Road.
You believe that you have been similarly enlightened, but you go around the Blogosphere persecuting Christians in the name of Sinfulness, ER.
And your tired attempt to diminish my Witness for Christ by announcing that, as far as you know, I don't even go to Church, only illustrates how shallow your understanding of Christianity really is.
Again, Nice try.
I never said, or even indicated, that homosexuals should be barred from the church.
My God, man! What would that solve?
I have said, and often repeated that homosexuals, and any other sinner be welcomed into the church. But churches shouldn't stop there. Welcome them into our churches. Then plead, cajole, teach, and preach to them and pray for them to try to convince them to repent from their sin in love.
Your mistake is not in welcoming them into your church, but in encouraging them to continue in their lifestyle choice when it is a lifestyle choice that is plainly condemned by God in Leviticus.
I submit that welcoming them into your church for the purpose of validating their sin is not loving at all. It is escorting them straight into Hell with a smile on your face.
I repeat: Yes, by all means, welcome homosexuals into your church. Welcome pedophiles. Welcome murderers. Welcome spouse abusers. Welcome Idolaters. Welcome all sinners into your church. But don't teach them that their sin is "blessed by God". It isn't.
And, in your heart, you know it.
Back in 1991, when the first Gulf War broke out, I was not going to church. Indeed, I had fallen far away from the church, until the last thing on my mind was anything related to God, yet I was still a Christian.
When the war broke out, I came across a preacher on television who was insisting that this war was the beginning of the last judgment or something like that. It scared me, and though I knew I was a Christian, the thought of having to account for myself before God was disturbing to me to say the least.
So, I called my father who was an ordained lay preacher, and voiced my concerns. His answer? "Get back in church". He said we need the camaraderie of faithful church members to stay faithful to God.
And he was right. I started going back to church, and my fears were relieved.
That said, my wife was asking me the other day about whether we should try attending another church, and I said, "I don't care. I can worship God in a thunderstorm." And I can. In fact, I love thunder and lightening storms. Nothing better reminds me of Who's in control.
But, it doesn't matter where we go. We go to church to worship God.
But we need to go. It's just too easy to fall away without the gathering of like-minded people together.
But not in ER's case. He needs to find a real Bible Believing church that really listens to what the Lord says. The like-minded people in his church are apparently not listening to the Lord.
Unfortunately, I think ER has searched out and found a church that best echoes his own personal ideas of what he thinks God's Word should mean, even when it's obvious it doesn't. His church appears to be a "feel good, regardless of what the Word says" type of church.
And that is all I will say on this subject. For now.
I apologize to you, Tug. If you are attending a church, I didn't need to say much of what I said, but it's still true. We must not forsake the gathering of ourselves together.
Unless we are gathering together with those who are preaching and teaching heresy. Then, forsake it.
Bull. If you do, you have the right to challenge me, question me, reprove me, or agree with me. If you do not, then you're just a prattling hypocrite.
Three things got me going to church again a few years ago: Katrina, the UCC "bouncer" ad, and cussin' and discussin' matters of faith online.
On that last thing: I'd have been a faker and a hypocrite to argue matters of faith were I not active in church myself. True dat. Same for you -- and anyone else. It's not just relevant. It's critical.
"But let's back up a bit. Assume for a moment that none of this had ever come up or out. Our position on "torture" was never publicly stated one way or the other. The question of whether or not the United States uses or supports the use of ANY levels of torture had never been asked. Do you think the enemy not knowing how far we're willing to go works to our advantage or against it?"
We're talking about the morality of the methods used, aren't we? I insist they're immoral. You say they're OK. I don't know what Dan would say. I say: I don't care whether what the enemy knows about our methods works to our advantage or against it. Doesn't matter. Torture, and the immorality of it, is a bigger question.
It's the exact opposite, man. I wouldn't try to get a black man to repent of his blackness. I wouldn't try to get a homosexual to repent of his homosexuality. And yes, the two are the same: a state of being.
Not even close. Dude, sometimes I glance around there on the fourth pew from the front on the left side (as seen from the pulpit), and I realize I'm sitting among six or seven gay guys, and it gives this ol' natural-born redneck the heebie-jeebies. Sometimes, I get tired of being preached to about how we're to love ALL, including our enemies, because this ol' natural born redneck actually likes to hook it up sometimes, especially with people who suck. Sometimes, I want to throw a hymnal when I'm admonished, yet again, to actually work for peace, not just pray for peace, because, you know, this ol' natural born redneck has a lot to do in life, and making phones calls, or attending protests or going to meetings and trying to organize people is just so much trouble for so little return, and this ol' natural born redneck has better things to do. Sometimes, I wonder what the hell I'm thinking, planning to take seminary classes this fall, when I have so many irons in the fire already, and a wife whose health ain't the best. Sometimes, this ol' natural born rendneck wants to go back where he was comfortable, on a pew with a bunch of other smug, self-righteous rednecks. But I'm not just a natural born redneck, man, I'm a born-from-above redneck, and I didn't go looking for ANY of this way of thinking that is so unnatural to me! It found me. God God's self led me here, and continues to lead me. Thank. God. Almighty.
Being black is not a choice.
Participating in same sex sexual relationships is a choice. And, it is participating in homosexual relationships that make one a homosexual. The act defines the label.
As I have said before, If a woman doesn't have sex with other women, she is not a lesbian. She's really just a woman in comfortable shoes. Likewise, if a man does not have sex with another man, he is not a homosexual. He is really just a man who acts effeminate.
But a black man cannot be any other color but black. If a white man calls himself black, as Bill did, he is still white. If a black man calls himself white, he is still black. The state of being black cannot change on pronouncement of being white.
The "state" of being homosexual can change on a whim, and often does.
How can you say you love them when you will do nothing to save them from eternal damnation?
I said, "No, you aren't."
A couple of months later he called to announce he and his wife had reconciled. They are still together to this day. And he has fathered two more children since. When asked if he was still a homosexual, he replied, "I never was."
See, he made a conscious choice to become homosexual, and then when he got his brain uncurled, he made the conscious choice to be heterosexual.
It's a choice.
"See, he made a conscious choice to become homosexual, and then when he got his brain uncurled, he made the conscious choice to be heterosexual."
Based on what you wrote, no, he did not. He made a conscious decision to engage in homosexual acts, or at least to seriously consider them, but then changed his mind. He no more decided to "become" homosexual than I could decide to "become" a chair. He even said so, you said: "I never was."
But the fact remains, he made a conscious choice.
Thanks for finally gettin' back to me. I've skipped over the off-topic stuff even though I'd love to add my correcting insights to your unfortunate understandings. Another time perhaps.
"Doesn't matter. Torture, and the immorality of it, is a bigger question."Totally disagree. Torture, of the type that is being discussed in the news these days, is far less immoral than risking the lives of civilians or allies, should professional people feel a little rough treatment will procure the info to prevent it. Or do you believe that allowing people to die is OK as long as you weren't applying an attention grab on a known terrorist?
Regarding the morality of an act, as you know, I believe the situation and the intention behind it's use determine the morality of an act, and I backed that up with a number of examples, including some Biblical.
But the original question I posed is an important one considering who is whining about what was done, and what their purpose was for doing so. The publicizing of the techniques in question was an incredibly stupid move, but rather than show our nation to be barbaric, it shows just the opposite. The techniques are far less than what most people think when the word "torture" is used. And whether or not they belong in the same category with pulling out fingernails is really not the issue at all. I agree with that morality is the issue and just as there are times when killing is not only justified, but required, the relatively mild "harsh" techniques have a place, even if one is only threatened with them. If the alternative to these techniques means that the info guarded by the uncooperative terrorist cannot be had otherwise, and people die as a result, where then is your morality? Your absolutism, in the worst possible circumstance, makes you complicit in their deaths. All because you refused to make them uncomfortable.
Your sense of morality is twisted indeed.
And, I am still stunned that you not only are a moral relativist, but that you so casually own up to it. ... On the other hand, I guess I should not be surprised at all.
Yet, it is said that KSM sang like a canary after less than a minute of waterboarding. So what I'm beginning to understand about those in your camp, is that gov't officials are credible when they say what you want to hear. In this case, the CIA defends the practices listed in the memos, and the FBI says they aren't necessary.
I believe if it was reversed, you'd side with the CIA. And keep in mind, that the memos do not include such things as clamping pliars to your privates. So you can stop pretending that we're talking about the worst forms of torture and stick with the program. Such tactics don't work for Dan and you do yourself no service by trying it yourself. In the same vein, please resist the urge to pretend our people are using these techniques to fish for info, as opposed to using them when in their professional opinion, valuable info can be had by using them on high value, uncooperative individuals.
It would also be imprudent to assume, if indeed it has so far shown to be the case that harsher techniques don't work, that such would be the case with absolutely every terrorist we capture. This flies in the face of logic.
Regarding moral relativism. There are righteous versions and not so righteous versions. That which is the hallmark of your standard liberal social activist is generally of a self serving kind. What I'm doing is the type under which falls the example of two men who kill themselves. One does it because life's too hard as a homosexual and people make fun of him. That's called suicide and is wrong. The other throws himself on a hand grenade to save the lives of his comrades. That's called love and is righteous.
To slam a terrorist against a wall, slap him in the face, scream at him, make him remain in an awkward position for extended periods, turn the heat off in his cell, and finally waterboard him to get info the professionals have good reason to believe will save lives, that's a righteous use of harsh techniques.
Now let's back up that last example and use every technique except waterboarding. Let's say the scumbag, because we're dealing with known scumbags in these situations, let's say he coughs up the intel and lives are saved. Are you still going to say that those techniques were immoral? And if they refused to use those techniques, and the dude never talked, and the people died, you're cool with that? Get a pair and answer these questions. Because this whole issue is about whether or not the techniques should remain on the table for use by the CIC's discretion.
And here's the last one for ya (depending): Is the scumbag better off getting roughed up in Club Gitmo, or would getting his head blown off instead of his live self captured be better in your mind? Please, no dancing here as I offer no third option. With the release of these memos, why would anyone bother taking prisoners?
Get behind me. No more.
The agent didn't "kill" the terrorist... it was a "harsh" technique, and just because the others talk the means is justified?
Slamming some guys in the face, against the wall, beating the shit out of them is justified?
I disagree. Waterboarding does not kill or otherwise harm the subject. Physical abuse does.
I could live with stress positions, harsh lighting, strange music to prevent sleep... waterboarding. What I can't call righteous is using techniques that physical abuse and/or maim, or kill the subject. However much it makes others talk to avoid the same, it is still NOT righteous.
But waterboarding? What everyone is making such a fuss about?
That I could live with, and my conscience would rest easy. I got what I needed and I didn't have to hurt the scumbag in the process.
[sorry about typos, I don't have time to wade back through this]
From my understanding, none of the techniques in the memos produced any physical harm, unless you call temporary sting from a slap to be a horror. The slamming against a wall was slamming against a wall constructed for the purpose, that produced a report louder than the slam would have produced against a standard wall. In other words, all effect and no substance, which should be of some alure to the left. And keep in mind, that these techniques were used in specific situations where it was thought that lives hung in the balance. Again, when all else fails, we're giving a scumbag an occasional slap to get his attention. It's akin to swatting a small child on the ass to get it's attention. If you'll allow people to die rather than slap the guy who has info that would prevent it, how is THAT justifiable?
"MA, I think I'll take my leave of you for now."
If by "for now" you mean you may revisit the discussion later, then I wish you well as you take your leave. But by your lack of coherent response to my clearly laid out position on the subject of the specific forms of "torture", to use the purposely more inflamatory term for what the memos describe, described in the released memos, I must state that I sincerely pray that your loved ones are never in any danger from anyone. Should an enhanced techinique be required to save their lives, I hope the person in the position to choose between roughing up the person with knowledge of the impending fate of your loved ones, or letting them die instead isn't as stupid and falsely sanctimonious as you are now trying to portray yourself. I don't believe for a minute that if you were in that position that you wouldn't go much farther than the "comfy chair" techniques that now so outrage you lefty frauds.
I don't worry what our gov't will do to save its people, I'm far more worried about what people like you WON'T do to save them. Righteous? Perhaps you can explain how risking civilian lives in order to not cause discomfort to a known evil-doer is righteous. If you can't, or won't, you're a fraud and your posturing as a loving-Christian is all talk.
I need to back up a bit.
"The agent didn't "kill" the terrorist... it was a "harsh" technique, and just because the others talk the means is justified?"
What's at stake? Justification is based upon what's at stake. This has been the crux of the entire debate between those who support the notion that harsh techniques have a place and those who pretend otherwise because like Pharisees, appearances are everything and they hate Bush and want to see him incarcerated.
But the rational person understands that these techniques, like war itself, or the use of any violent or potentially or purposely fatal techniques in either wartime or law enforcement, aren't used joyfully or eagerly, but reluctantly and only as a situation demands their use. To say that roughing up a suspect is in anyway immoral when lives hang in the balance is the mark of a fraud. It is not Christian charity to allow people to die rather than to cause discomfort to evil people who are the only source of info that would serve to prevent it. Neither ER, nor Dan, for little Geoffrey could support that contention if their own lives depended upon it. That people such as these exist in our government or worse, in that area of gov't where protecting people is their duty, we might just as well blow our brains out now. They are inviting attempts at our destruction.
To think that my concern for the lives of our own people and our allies makes the likes of ER want to vomit, or the likes of Geoffrey to find me beneath contempt, these are things I can live with very easily. They are a sad lot, devoid of understanding and reason. I have no problem questioning their faith when they show such a lack of compassion for their own people.
What does "knowing" have to do with it? Faith brings suffering. There is no way of knowing the hour or the day.
Pick up your cross, he says. Does that come with a note that on such-a-such day at such-a-such time, you will really, really feel that cross? Nope.
I am suggesting that Marshall is conflating his feeling that America is a kind of chosen, God-loved people and thereby inherently righteous in the extreme actions it takes however it wants to define "self-defense" and how he takes a totally unconnected stance that this is modern, cosmopolitan and diverse society for which it is unreasonable to ask it to behave in toto by Christian faith.
In these latter Marshall presentations I am in total agreement.
So, then, how do we acquire this righteousness from God that lifts the need to justify interrogation that may be torture?
Americans cannot be Christian martyrs. Only a subset of Americans can do that. America as a nation state must engage in self-defense, but not by practices that put us on the road toward immoral power abuse.
It corrupts our moral fiber, our ability to lead, it corrupts our soldiers, it does not give us proportionate advantage, and it sets up a future where in any conflict, American soldiers should not expect any kind of treatment respecting human rights. Because if we damage human rights, everyone will.
What were the problems?
Why don't you just get to your point? Martyrs are as I've described them. I didn't move any goalposts, for you didn't set any terms. You just asked what a martyr was. All that has followed is what you've decided to project upon me. And your immediate critique of my response has nothing to do with martyrdom. If you're trying to relate everyday Christian living as martyrdom, how would I know you're making this analogy based on a request for the definition of the word? This is another case where you're just an insufferable bore. Quit playing games and debate like an honorable person. There'll be less confusion. Lord knows there's plenty of that on your side to begin with.
And mom2s silence belies her hypocrisy.
What were the problems?
You recommended it so wholeheartedly, surely it was not made up out of nothing.
I am hoping you have experience, otherwise, you are suggesting you know something that you do not in fact know -- made up remedies -- lies.
We wouldn't want lies coming from such a confirmed Christian, would we?
It would not seem very Christ-like.
So where did you live in the Middle East and what was your experience like?
What were the problems?
You've never been there. You have no idea.
As for atrocities, we don't have to go far from home to find them do we?
When you play moral one-up-manship with history, you've lost hold on Godliness, mom2.
I don't think I'll take any advice from an ignorant liar.
It's a pretty safe bet that one could travel most anywhere and find both reasons to rate it either higher or lower than here. But as the list grows, only a liar would insist this ain't the best country in the world. I mean we have people like Feodor who can spout off without a care. That's a pretty cool place to live. But atrocities? We might have the quality, if you like counting Hiroshiman and Nagasaki, but we sure don't have the quantity as various Middle Eastern countries do, and as a few African nations do, and as a number of communist countries did.
Don't let a punk like Feodor try to push you around Mom2. He's just an expert bloviator with no substance behind him.
"Among" our problems is a moral blindness to our history. We would be a better nation if we weren't so blind.
I mention atrocities and all Marshall can think of is war action on foreign lands. He counts that as "quality" but not quantity.
Quantity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_slavery
www.withoutsanctuary.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar
Marshall does not think an American body has "substance" if it is not white. Or, rather, he does not think.
And I don't believe we should flog ourselves.
It's simply that, in the context of mom2's statement, I prefer to judge not (lest you be judged) and work on the better side of people and nations.
For years we've lectured China on fiscal responsibility and human rights. For years they countered with our history of slavery and Jim Crow. Now they can answer our feelings of fiscal superiority.
If we are better, when do we see the proof?
What isn't true is the accusations of racism that Feo enjoys throwing my way. He is entirely incapable of supporting this lie. Liars never can. He is a liar, and no, I see no substance in any of his arguments, if by substance one means something that makes one stop and think. His arguments are transparently lame to relieve one of the need for deep thought. He needs to put some deep thought into the argument first, and I believe he lacks the ability.
OK Eric. I'll say no more about Feo's obvious deficiencies and lack of character.
Carry on.
I do think Marshall is lazy. He is lazy about his own thinking. He does not review the statements that come to his mind and spend a moment in critical thought about his own thought.
As someone said in a commencement speech a few years ago, "I know you can think. You would not have gotten into this great institution if you couldn't think. But education is supposed to teach how to control what you think."
That Marshall is lazy with what he thinks is evidenced by loose talk. We are a very young country compared to most. And what other young country gave birth to itself by the massacre of men, women, and children? The land each of us lives on belonged to one of a thousand tribes.
Marshall's laziness blurs his vision and he swerves, unintentionally, into wrong lanes. But he doesn't want anyone to notice, least of all himself. That's when he gets mad and defensively stupid. When it's pointed out.
Not that as a society we don't also go into wrong lanes. But discovering those wrong lanes as a society happens with persuasion, not spitting. President Obama acknowledged this at Notre Dame. It is an American virtue, it seems to me, but one which we have lost since 1980.
And yet what makes this country great are the founding political ideals which we continue to realize and re-define as we grow more aware, morally speaking. The ideals have a life that can be envisioned always ahead of us and toward which we always strive.
My problem with Marshall -- and you, Eric -- is that he wants to stop way too much of that striving, to freeze dry some constellation of values which never really existed except in handbooks of moralizing Victorians (who in their own day no more lived up to their guidebooks than our current ones).
Liar.
"I do think Marshall is lazy. He is lazy about his own thinking."
Sez you.
" He does not review the statements that come to his mind and spend a moment in critical thought about his own thought."
The quality of my thoughts are apparent to those who themselves are critical thinkers, and that quality if validated by how it so easily confounds those like yourself and others who disagree but can't explain why.
"And what other young country gave birth to itself by the massacre of men, women, and children?"
Most of those on this planet.
You believe my opinions are the result of "lazy thinking" only because they run with the traditional. I believe in absolutes that have existed forever and will remain forevermore, whether the foolish want to consider them "Victorian" "outdated" "old-fashioned" or whatever. What troubles the likes of you, and it's been said before by myself and others, is that some of us seek to adhere and conform our lives according to those truths that serve humanity so well, while the truly lazy seek to force truth to conform to their laziness. They think THAT crap goes unnoticed. It does not. That's when your kind get pissed and defensive. I don't get pissed too often because of that adherence to truth. I don't need to get defensive regarding what is true. On the contrary, truth provides comfort against such unnecessary emotions. It would be like getting pissed over the color of the sky. I know it's blue. Why get pissed?
This country doesn't improve by "redefining" the principles upon which we were founded. It IS great because of those founding principles and continues to be so when we adhere to those principles. True awareness confirms the value of tride and true values and traditions and ideals. Your belief that we somehow outgrow the old ways and transcend them is not new or modern or even sophisticated. It's as old as the story of Babel and just as destructive.
What all this has to do with waterboarding scumbags is beyond me unless you are disputing the contention that when lives are at risk and time is a factor that harsh techniques conflicts with those values. I disagree.
Or is rape worse than torture?
Hard to know how you parse such morals.
Not surprisingly, you're not getting a clue. You once again bring up something unrelated and try to tie the two together to bolster some weak position. Cut the crap, you fraud.