Please start a thread if you want to debate theology. Otherwise accept the reality that Americans who claim they are the most religious really aren't for a litany of well-documented reasons.
It is a bit odd that it is the only religion that uses an instrument of torture as its universally recognized symbol.
From cover to cover the Bible is a book for the underdog.
Hmm.
Paleocon wrote:OG_slinger wrote:I couldn't grab a picture of it, but I was behind someone in a truck today who had a bumper sticker that read "God and I are on the same team. We're both conservatives."
And like I said above. The fact that Cheney and his ilk will likely die peacefully in their sleep is evidence enough of the non-existence of any kind of righteous god.
Unless of course, death is not the end.
HAIL CARCOSA!
oh...sorry.
Paleocon wrote:Malor wrote:If you think that all justice takes place in the short time between the cradle and the grave, you understand far less about the Bible you love to crusade against than you say.Or, maybe, he thinks the Bible is fan fiction, and that if we want justice, we have to do it ourselves.
Pretty much this.
Fan fiction that, incidentally always seems to advantage folks in power.
Again, this shows incredible ignorance(in the truest sense of the word, not meant as an insult) of the content of the Bible. From cover to cover the Bible is a book for the underdog. Were the Hebrew slaves the "folks in power"? Did God always choose the biggest and strongest to lead? How many times in scripture does God make it clear that His heart is for the poor and defenseless, and that abusers of them will be dealt with severely? (see Sodom and Gomorah) Even when the Creator put skin on Himself, he didn't come as one of the "folks in power", but humbled Himself to become a servant to all and give His life for the ones who despised and rejected Him. If that doesn't speak volumes about the kind of God He is, I don't know what does.
I don't think that pointing out that a lot of the Bible is easily used, and perhaps tailor-made, to convince poor and downtrodden people to hang in there and keep letting the powerful stomp on them until they die and everything will get taken care of then, is really a way to convince a non-believer that the Bible isn't used to give advantage to folks in power.
I don't think that pointing out that a lot of the Bible is easily used, and perhaps tailor-made, to convince poor and downtrodden people to hang in there and keep letting the powerful stomp on them until they die and everything will get taken care of then, is really a way to convince a non-believer that the Bible isn't used to give advantage to folks in power.
The entire Catholic Church has no idea what you're talking about, most especially during the Middle Ages.
AHEM. come on guys
Please start a thread if you want to debate theology. Otherwise accept the reality that Americans who claim they are the most religious really aren't for a litany of well-documented reasons.
Other than providing numerous examples what does the bible have to do with torture?
What report is this referring to? I've been a bit out of the loop over the holidays.
What report is this referring to? I've been a bit out of the loop over the holidays.
It was a report that the minority of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee published the same day as the torture report.
It basically claimed that the report was a partisan hack job designed to make Republicans look bad. It also claimed that the CIA's torture program actually resulted in numerous instances of usable information that saved American lives and the mere fact of letting people know it existed has endangered Americans.
It also claimed that the CIA's torture program actually resulted in numerous instances of usable information
Which, it should be pointed out, is yet another outright, baldfaced lie by the surveillance proponents.
Absolutely. That claim has been debunked by numerous people in positions to know.
Guantanamo guard: ‘CIA killed prisoners and made it look like suicide’
A FORMER Guantanamo Bay guard has spoken for the first time about what he claims was a CIA murder of detainees, covered up as a triple suicide.Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman was on guard at the Cuban prison camp on the night they died, and calls the official version of events “impossible”.
“They would have had to all three tie their hands and feet together, shove rags down their throats, put a mask over their face, made a noose, hung it from the ceiling on the side of the cellblock, jumped into the noose and hung themselves simultaneously,” the ex-Marine told Vice News in an explosive video interview.
“In a cellblock where guards are ordered to check on detainees every four minutes.”
I keep hearing people excuse water boarding as not being torture. Can anyone explain to me how it could possibly not fit the definition?
I keep hearing people excuse water boarding as not being torture. Can anyone explain to me how it could possibly not fit the definition?
Don't know if you're going to find many waterboard defenders hanging out in this thread. As best as I can tell, the argument goes, "Come onnnn, it's not that bad. Not like we're putting a car battery to their testicles or anything although that would be completely legal if deemed necessary." Okay, I'm being snarky, but that's basically the argument. Since you're not technically drowning them, just making them believe that they're drowning, it's...okay?
I keep hearing people excuse water boarding as not being torture. Can anyone explain to me how it could possibly not fit the definition?
Because we did it to them, not the other way around.
America is awesome!
I keep hearing people excuse water boarding as not being torture. Can anyone explain to me how it could possibly not fit the definition?
We executed Japanese in WW2 for war crimes because they waterboarded our soldiers.
It was torture then. It's still torture now.
realityhack wrote:I keep hearing people excuse water boarding as not being torture. Can anyone explain to me how it could possibly not fit the definition?
Don't know if you're going to find many waterboard defenders hanging out in this thread. As best as I can tell, the argument goes, "Come onnnn, it's not that bad. Not like we're putting a car battery to their testicles or anything although that would be completely legal if deemed necessary." Okay, I'm being snarky, but that's basically the argument. Since you're not technically drowning them, just making them believe that they're drowning, it's...okay?
Waterboarding is kind of drowning - just not drowning to death. It's kind of like putting electricity to your balls isn't electrocuting you to death.
I am pretty sure the argument that that nameless embarrassment to Koreans everywhere used was that if it doesn't result in death or permanent organ damage it can't be torture. It just classifies as "harsh treatment".
realityhack wrote:I keep hearing people excuse water boarding as not being torture. Can anyone explain to me how it could possibly not fit the definition?
We executed Japanese in WW2 for war crimes because they waterboarded our soldiers.
It was torture then. It's still torture now.
Do you happen to have a good link for that? I wasn't aware of it.
Guantanamo guard: ‘CIA killed prisoners and made it look like suicide’
A FORMER Guantanamo Bay guard has spoken for the first time about what he claims was a CIA murder of detainees, covered up as a triple suicide.Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman was on guard at the Cuban prison camp on the night they died, and calls the official version of events “impossible”.
“They would have had to all three tie their hands and feet together, shove rags down their throats, put a mask over their face, made a noose, hung it from the ceiling on the side of the cellblock, jumped into the noose and hung themselves simultaneously,” the ex-Marine told Vice News in an explosive video interview.
“In a cellblock where guards are ordered to check on detainees every four minutes.”
Huh. He's a deadman.
Do you happen to have a good link for that? I wasn't aware of it.
Bobby Scott: After WWII U.S. executed Japanese for war crimes including waterboarding
It's a little bit complex, in that it wasn't called waterboarding back then, and the people we executed were typically accused of multiple crimes, but ultimately: yes, we executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding our people.
kazooka wrote:realityhack wrote:I keep hearing people excuse water boarding as not being torture. Can anyone explain to me how it could possibly not fit the definition?
Don't know if you're going to find many waterboard defenders hanging out in this thread. As best as I can tell, the argument goes, "Come onnnn, it's not that bad. Not like we're putting a car battery to their testicles or anything although that would be completely legal if deemed necessary." Okay, I'm being snarky, but that's basically the argument. Since you're not technically drowning them, just making them believe that they're drowning, it's...okay?
Waterboarding is kind of drowning - just not drowning to death. It's kind of like putting electricity to your balls isn't electrocuting you to death.
Yeah, this argument gets even stickier when you learn that we actually did waterboard a few people to death.
Let's not forget that there were several instances of conservative commentators who volunteered to be waterboarded to "prove" that it wasn't torture, and they all changed their opinion afterwards almost instantly.
A Guantanamo detainee wrote a memoir and it's absolutely horrifying.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...
Everyone should read this.
A Guantanamo detainee wrote a memoir and it's absolutely horrifying.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...
Everyone should read this.
I stopped reading when the author used CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR as an reference. Geez, how far has journalism fallen.
Edwin wrote:A Guantanamo detainee wrote a memoir and it's absolutely horrifying.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...
Everyone should read this.
I stopped reading when the author used CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR as an reference. Geez, how far has journalism fallen.
Couldn't you already see how far journalism had fallen from the documentary NEWSROOM?
Edwin wrote:A Guantanamo detainee wrote a memoir and it's absolutely horrifying.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...
Everyone should read this.
I stopped reading when the author used CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR as an reference. Geez, how far has journalism fallen.
Actually, it's an interview, and the author's attorney is who made that reference. Geez, how far reading comprehension has fallen.
Greg wrote:Edwin wrote:A Guantanamo detainee wrote a memoir and it's absolutely horrifying.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...
Everyone should read this.
I stopped reading when the author used CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR as an reference. Geez, how far has journalism fallen.
Actually, it's an interview, and the author's attorney is who made that reference. Geez, how far reading comprehension has fallen.
This. Also I think it was a way of saying 'this is common knowledge, beyond doubt to the extent that the events have been dramatized in a major hollywood movie which many readers may already be aware of'.
I think maybe I fully appreciated how far it had fallen when I started yelling at NPR/BBC. That was the looked up to gold standard when I was a kid.
Now I want to read the entire original source before believing anything making journalism as useless.
Thanks for nothing journalists. Just join the screen writers guild already.
Pages