by MD » Sun 03 May 2009, 12:01:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."
On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."
More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.
![[smilie=eusa_clap.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/eusa_clap.gif "eusa_clap")
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.
Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
-
MD
- COB
-
- Posts: 4953
- Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: On the ball
-
by MD » Sun 03 May 2009, 12:13:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', 'I')'m surprised the Christian cross has not been raised here yet.
Actually the Christian cross was invented by the Vatican?
The Romans didn't hang ppl on the cross, They hung them on sticks/ poles. Check yer Bible........
Yeah they did some of that.
Crucifixion used a cross bar. Mounted across the top, not part way down, or that's what my memory is telling me anyway. It's been a couple decades since I've studied the topic in depth.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.
Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
by vision-master » Sun 03 May 2009, 12:22:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', 'I')'m surprised the Christian cross has not been raised here yet.
Actually the Christian cross was invented by the Vatican?
The Romans didn't hang ppl on the cross, They hung them on sticks/ poles. Check yer Bible........
Yeah they did some of that.
Crucifixion used a cross bar. Mounted across the top, not part way down, or that's what my memory is telling me anyway. It's been a couple decades since I've studied the topic in depth.
There is nothing in the Bible about the cross.
by smallpoxgirl » Sun 03 May 2009, 13:25:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('StormBringer', 'I') do believe the new Testament states in various forms and several times that if you do not find Christ as your lord and saviour you shall burn in the everlasting fires of hell for all eternity....Wow talk about no parole.....Last I checked HELL was torture not a warm place to vacation......LOL
One of the things that always bugged me about evangelical churches was the duplicity. This is one of the major areas where that manifests. Everyone is supposed to be A:nominally scared of going to hell and thus trying to follow Jesus' teachings and B: love the nonbelievers, want to spare them the anguish of hell, and thus evangelize them. Two problems. Once you've invented salvation by grace, then you take away any particular need to follow Jesus' teachings. As long as you can convince yourself and your friends that you're sinning because of your human frailties rather than willfully, you're covered. Secondly, for the non-believer, by definition, doesn't believe in hell. Evangelism then, mostly comes down to telling people all these horrible stories, most of them completely fabricated for the occasion, about how bad hell is. The truth is that a lot of evangelicals get really into the scare tactic. Many of them start to really enjoy the idea of all the horrible things that are going to happen to non-believers. The literature of Jack Chick is one of the more flagrant examples. It's not terribly surprising that the enjoyment of seeing non-believers tortured, pretty readily translates into a willingness to go ahead and get it started. Thus the results of this poll. Supposedly you love them and want to save them the anguish of hell, but in reality you're more than ready to hook a car battery up to their testicles.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
-
smallpoxgirl
- Expert
-
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
-
by jasonraymondson » Sun 03 May 2009, 13:47:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('green_achers', 'I') think the point about the cross is that it is a symbol of a religion based on the teachings of a man who was tortured to death. Slightly ironic to this ~ twice a week goer.
No, it's about Astrology. The ending of the age of Pisces into the age of Aquarius. The symbolic death of a zodiac sign (age). The precession of the equinoxes.
You all have made my point for me.
If torture is wrong, what is the difference here. Either we don't torture, or we do torture. Trust me I would kill the son of a bitch as well, but if we torture him to get what we want... sure it works. But, isn't torture still wrong no matter who we do this to?
Torture is about inflicting pain and suffering in order to get a desired outcome, whether it is to make them break... or to just make them suffer for the wrongs they have transgressed against us. It amounts to an eye for an eye regardless of whether you get your desired outcome or not.
So how can we justify it based off a christian sensibility? Would Jesus have tortured the rapist? Would he condone the actions you would take to save your child? So where would this leave us in a christian sense? According to the bible for Christianity and the commandments he left behind, this is damnation.. as it would be a capital sin.
Christians by the majority support torture which is a major sin... and a lot of them do it without hesitation.
Where does this put them, and where does it put the rest who don't... and who wouldn't torture to save their child?
by threadbear » Sun 03 May 2009, 14:13:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jasonraymondson', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('green_achers', 'I') think the point about the cross is that it is a symbol of a religion based on the teachings of a man who was tortured to death. Slightly ironic to this ~ twice a week goer.
No, it's about Astrology. The ending of the age of Pisces into the age of Aquarius. The symbolic death of a zodiac sign (age). The precession of the equinoxes.
You all have made my point for me.
If torture is wrong, what is the difference here. Either we don't torture, or we do torture. Trust me I would kill the son of a bitch as well, but if we torture him to get what we want... sure it works. But, isn't torture still wrong no matter who we do this to?
Torture is about inflicting pain and suffering in order to get a desired outcome, whether it is to make them break... or to just make them suffer for the wrongs they have transgressed against us. It amounts to an eye for an eye regardless of whether you get your desired outcome or not.
So how can we justify it based off a christian sensibility? Would Jesus have tortured the rapist? Would he condone the actions you would take to save your child? So where would this leave us in a christian sense? According to the bible for Christianity and the commandments he left behind, this is damnation.. as it would be a capital sin.
Christians by the majority support torture which is a major sin... and a lot of them do it without hesitation.
Where does this put them, and where does it put the rest who don't... and who wouldn't torture to save their child?
"Either we torture or we don't torture". The best policy, in that case is the "no we don't torture". If you know for certain you can torture info out of the guy who has your kid hidden somewhere, society will be 100% behind whatever you do, regardless of the law. No court would convict.
Let's turn it around, the cops are convinced that YOU'VE got a kid stashed somewhere. They pick you up and are about to put the thumbscrews to you and waterboard you., until they are reminded by their superiors there are laws against torture. Under the "we torture" rules, you would have lost your thumbs. Now what law would you prefer? Turns out your innocent.
Say the cops have irrefutable evidence that someone has a child hidden somewhere, do you think the law will stop them from extracting info, one way or the other, regardless of how it reads? Doubt it. It's not reducible to fundamentals. Perception rules and guides reaction, by authorities.
