All Comments (238)

Ahh The poor Jihadist, still suffering from her Islamic brainwashing and still believing in "pwtfft"s!!! And note again not one word about the country that perfected terror and torture i.e. the Islamic terror theocracy of Iran.

But again we offer her and her fellow Islamics our Five Step Deprogramming method:

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to the your brainwashed neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Really???? Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) is more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron deletion. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Welcome back, Jihadist!

We are agreed on Concerned.

Dear Schmoozealert -

Sorry to disappoint, but Christianity doesn't measure up to those things in life that anger me. It isn't any more an antagonism to me than is, say, a deep belief in the paranormal.

Anger is the wrong word as anger doesn't enter into the equation for me when considering religion. Mild bemusement and bewilderment comes closer to what I feel about religious beliefs in general. That doesn't mean that I treat the subject flippantly when posting here.

My anger is reserved for the actions of primates like gw bush and his cronies.

As to disdain. You have a point there.

>>So, why do I lump all Xians together? For the same reason that you lump all of the bushies together. The exception to the rule IS A GIVEN. But until that exception becomes the MAJORITY aspect of a group, then the not-so-flattering generality stands.

Mr. Mark's 'generalities' obviously stem from many years of disdain toward Christianity as a whole. As he is playing judge toward Christians and Christianity, one could equally ponder how many not-so-flattering generalities would apply to him, too. Certainly not an easy person to have dialogue with. Alot of anger there.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

Hello pussycat. Miss lobbing missiles and nuking me here? And always missing but hitting everyone else as collateral damage? I'm still standing:)

I'm a Muslim. We're used to self-torture and being tortured in one way or another. Go ahead, torture me with Madonna's latest public persona and music styles.

I see you've been busy doing "shock and awe" even on your fellow Americans on the question of torture. The "firstist" and the "mostest", eh.

I don't recall anyone of them making first strike at you.

Aren't you supposed to defend your fellow Americans, and not to carpetbomb them?

And stop torturing Victoria. She's your fellow American even if she's a Muslim. American Muslims have rights like other Americans, no?

Ah, the creative need for torture. Waterboarding is right up there with oral sex when I have to explain them to my children. So, now we know waterboarding is not a cool new watersport.

Sleep and food deprivation for two days? With water allowed? Won't work for me as a form of torture. Used to fasting and staying up all night for prayers during Ramadan. And going for up to four days without food and sleep and just liquids to finish up term papers and work projects.

Torturing people with very loud crass rock music on speakers around their home is one way. Ask Noriega when he was holed up in a Holy See.

You: "War is Hell!!!"

Moi: "Good to know that you've watched that movie, "All Quiet on the Western Front" to use that as a quote here. Now, go rent or buy "Dr. Strangelove" and "Full Metal Jacket". And reread Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and Clausewitz's "On War".

You: "For all those global "sideliners" and "goody goodshoes", welcome to Hell and all its terror and torture of waterboardings, beheadings and bombs!!!"

Moi : Global "sideliners"? You mean those "sidelined" of their lands, homes and lives for one's objectives attained with guns and bombs?

"Goody goodshoes"? Is is not goody two shoes? And what is wrong with being a goody goodshoes or goody two shoes. They never start fights.

Short notes:

Waterboarding is a form of torture.

Beheadings is a form of punishment.

Showing beheadings is a form of torture for the living.

Bombs are life and environmental killers and not just punishments, vengeance, revenge or war-enders.

But, never mind. As you've served five years in the military, perhaps one should understand that you're trained to kill, kill, kill and see enemies everywhere. If none, create one.

Perhaps one should understand that a soldier is needed to be brainwashed to see the enemy as evil and vile to make it easier to justify and rationalise torturing and killing them and keep one's conscience clean.

Unfortunately, I was never in the military and never a soldier who have to witness or torture, shot, bomb and kill people without question and as directed by my superior officers.

Unfortunately, I never have to be linguistically crass all the time to desensitise myself to what I have to do to hate, torture and kill.

Unfortunately, I never have to think of and come out with creative forms of torture and to kill because it is for God and country.

Unfortunately, I have seen the impact of the too coldy planned and efficient military killings, bombings and tortures. Soldiers move in, move out after their task is done. Civilians are left to pick up the pieces.

Perhaps some soldiers after leaving the service, should do a Five Step Prgramme to at least "demilitarise" their communications with their fellow Americans. With me, go ahead Rambo. Nuke away. Bomb away, shot away, militant baby:)

"J"

Karen writes:

"I don't think it would too tough for you to say: some christians or even most christians..."

Why do you need a qualifier? When someone says "Democrats care for the poor," we don't require a qualifier like "some" or "most." Same with, "Republics support bush in spite of his treason." No "some" or "more" needed there, either.

As I said, the exception to the rule is a given, whether it's Christians, Democrats or fish mongers. No special pleading is needed just because we're speaking about some religious group. Every "group" moniker is generalized. Even you write to Daniel as "a fellow Christian." There's lots of differences between Xian sects. Shouldn't you be more specific in addressing Daniel if he belongs to a different sect than you? Aren't you "lumping him in with all Xians?"

Unless you are going to start writing "some or most" for each and every group identity you mention in your posts, I don't see why it should be required of me when I mention a religious group.

As far as "setting up barriers between us," I would only mention that there are plenty of barriers between the Xian sects right now. As a Xian, you might do well to work on tearing down those barriers first.

Re: my being offensive - that's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Concerned: don't have a copy, but I doubt the UCMJ says torture is ok as long as the subject's leaders haven't signed the Geneva Convention. and if you can believe the military has been torturing prisoners for decades and successfully keeping it a secret, you can believe anything.

To: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

I notice that you are, for the time being, at least, actually posting your real thoughts, and not just copying and pasting the same thing over and over. I am actually reading your comments, to find out what you think. Isn't that better, don't you think?

Even if terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Conventions, that is unimportant. The Geneva Conventions were not designed and adopted to restrain Americans from torturing anybody, since it has always been tabooed and forbidden under the American ethos. We can do just as well with it, or without it.

The Geneva Conventions have only one purpose: to establish legal accountability for parties that DO torture. We, Americans, shouldn't have to split hairs over what may or may not be torture, since it goes against the American ethos. Hair-splitting over torture is for people like Putin, or Mushrif, not for us; since we don't torture at all, period! That is, up until the advent of Bush.

Karen

Upon reminding me, I think I saw your reply, but it got all mixed up with Rich, since he copied and pasted your remarks a few times. I got a little mixed up about who was commenting on whom. I suppose it is kind of mixed up mess here, just like real life.

Mr Mark: The reason I said Bush and Co. was for brevity's sake and for the significant fact that it is Bush and Co that set policy, the likes of Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil having had to leave in frustration because they could not make themselves heard and could not influence the decision making process. So I really don't think that your comparison stands.

For my part, I do not lump all atheists together because I know that they are a diverse group just as christians are a very diverse group. There are atheists who have nothing but contempt for people like me and always grace us with the amazing news that no one with half a brain or any intellect could possibly believe in God. Then there are those who are very considerate like A Hermit who say let's us agree to disagree but work together on the things that we agree on such as the environment, human rights etc.

I don't think it would too tough for you to say: some christians or even most christians...Unless you really mean to set up barriers between all of us and be offensive, thus deterring the possibility of dialogue.

A. Hermit and Joet,

Sleep tight tonight and we accept your not so appreciative words as evidence that we continue to protect free speech unlike the countries of Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.

Hmmm, "Me thinks", terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Therefore the US Military Code of Justice is a non-issue.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/genevaConventions/gc-schmitt.html

And the success of interrogation will never be reported in a terror filled world in order to protect those that "ratted" on their fellow low lifes.

Karen asks:

"Mr. Mark and others in the same vein:
why do you keep lumping all Christians in the same bag? So many of us have so many times posted to say that we do not approve of Bush and Co and have not voted to put them in office."

Why do YOU keep lumping everybody in the bush administration together? That's what you do when you write, "and Co," isn't it? Yet, there are surely have been and continue to be a few exceptions to the rule in the bush administration, people like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke who served in the bush administration but came out swinging against them once they left.

So, why do I lump all Xians together? For the same reason that you lump all of the bushies together. The exception to the rule IS A GIVEN. But until that exception becomes the MAJORITY aspect of a group, then the not-so-flattering generality stands.

Daniel: as a fellow christian, I did respond to you I think on thursday or friday, as well as to Norrie Hoyt and Mr Mark. Did you not see my response?

Dear Duckphup -

I couldn't disagree more with your last post.

I'd say that you are the one who has, "thrown up their hands and said, 'Oh, well, I know that torture doesn't work, but what the hell. I'm out of ideas.' "

Strange how you don't apply the same standard that you do for torture to a belief in deities, as in throwing up your hands and saying, "Oh well, we can't explain everything, so what the hell? We may as well believe god did it."

Why anyone would believe that a time constraint of 24 hours would make torture methods effective when the same methods have proven unreliable time and again when employed over days, weeks and even months? It's beyond reason.

There is always a better option than torture, an option that will actually produce a good result. The fallacy is in assuming that torture would have a chance of extracting good information in the scenario you outlined. The chances of that happening are about as good as Jesus making an appearance to get the information from the subject. The problem is in the "eventually" of the methods used, and torture has a worse track record at getting info than do other methods.

We have to accept that in some situations, there is no answer that will appear as a knight in shining armor to make it all better. Sometimes, the bomb will go off no matter what we do. Deluding ourselves to believe that torture will somehow step in to save the day is as ludicrous as believing that a fervent prayer to Jesus will have the same effect in the same situation.

I usually find myself in agreement with you. Not this time.

Concerned: you just keep dodging. If your SAC generals would waterboard, they would be courtmartialed - period, end of debate. what difference does it make that the Geneva Convention allows stuff that would still be unpleasant? are you suggesting that the UCMJ is just window dressing that any decent general will ignore?

On Thursday, I posted this:

"To: Pierre PC

You are exactly right. Among the vocal Christians on this page, there is a distinct and disturbing disconnect. They are Christians and believe in God, Jesus, the resurrection of the soul, and Heaven. Yet they also support torture, which is against God, against Jesus, against all normal and standard morality that I have been taught or that I have even ever heard of.

And they are afraid. They are afraid of what may happen next. Their belief in God, in Jesus, in the ressurection of the soul, and in Heavan is all for naught, and empty and hollow beliefs, if they can not find even a tiny ounce of assurance and courage in these beliefs, that they can live moral and upright lives, in the hope of a happy future, without devolving into torture.

What sayest thou, fellow Christians, to this?"

There was no response, for or against. I would like one of the "Christians-for-torture" to explain why torture is a Christian value.
(Hint: think about it good and hard, before you start to type).

CCNL bleats:

..."Old A. Hermit is having a bad day hiding in his cold Canadian cave as US spy satellites keeps him safe and free just like I proudly did in the 1960's"...

Actually those ABM silos just South of where I grew up were probably the biggest threat to my safety at the time; like painting a big old bullseye next door to Grandpa's sugar beet fields...

And somehow the thought of those spy satellites keeping track of us and our communications doesn't make me feel safer, just violated by the "Daddy State" you bedwetters need to kep you feeling protected from the Bogieman...

Thanks for nothing...;-)

Duckphup stated, "Never say 'never'.

Assume: We have certain knowledge that a nuclear device (purchased from rogue elements within the Russian miitary) has been smuggled into New York city... and that it has been set to explode in the next 2 hours. We have captured a known terrorist who we have long suspected to be involved in a plot to accomplish exactly that... and we have every reason to believe that he knows where this device is located."

So, we could somehow find out 1) the exact type of device involved, 2) exactly how it was acquired, 3) the city in which it is currently placed, 4) the exact time of detonation, and 5) one individual who positively knows the exact location. However, the exact location is unknown to us? How could we possibly determine all of that specific information? We couldn't, and that's why such "examples" are meaningless.

Duckphup then asked "Would you not do whatever might be necessary to extract the required information from the individual?"

No, I would not become that which I detest.

Duckphup continued "SOMEBODY would have the MORAL courage to rise ABOVE the prevailing law and sense of ethics, put the safety of the community above the inevitable consequences and penalties associated with his actions... and do what was necessary to extract the information that would terminate the inevitable calamity."

If you aren't willing to do it yourself, personally, then you shouldn't be condoning it. Because, if you couldn't personally do it, then you know it's wrong.

For the imagined scenerio described above, in which millions of people might die, depending upon the rapid extraction of vital information from a prisoner, would torture be acceptable?

That is a special case, the most extreme case imaginable, which is unlikely to happen. But if it does happen, the people involved can decide what to do at that time. If they think they could get the information by torturing the prisoner, then that is a decision that they would have to make at that moment, whether it is legal or not.

People violate the laws all of the time, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for reasons that are not so good. When such cases are tried, there is a legal term called "mmitigating circumstances" which alters the guilt of the accused in the eyes of the law.

I do not think that torture should be legal to cover this particular case. If I and my family were starving, I might steal food, but that does not mean that I believe that stealing should be legal. I would commit an illegal act due to the extreme circumstance.

I think people are a little confused here about the rule of law, and what it means. The theory of our politcal and economic system is founded on the concept of rule of law. The whole society is synchronized around the rule of law.

People mostly go along with the rule of law because that is instilled in us from an early age. There is a sort of agreement among us all that we all accept and believe in the rule of law. And mostly, we obey the laws.

However, people can violate the laws anytime they choose. People speed; people smoke marijuana; people have sex in public.

Some people take it further; some people rob banks; some people steal cars; some people commit murder. They do all of these things, despite the fact that there are laws forbidding all these things.

I think that under our rule of law, torture should be forbidden and tabooed. However, if there is an extreme occasison, when the lives of millions may depend upon the rapid extraction of vital information from a prisoner, then the people involved at that time must decide what they are to do, knowing that they may be violating the law.

Bizarre and far-fetched scenarios that might somehow justify the use of torture on one or perhaps a few individuals in order to save millions seems more like the feverish exercise of a vivid imagination rather than anything based in real-world possibilities.

Ironically, the threat of nuclear holocaust implied here is also a work of the imagination, and one unlikely to be undone by the torture of one person. No body stopped us in Japan as I recall.

Had the USA pursued Islamic extremists/terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than setting off an endless war in a country posing no threat to America, we may not even be having this discussion - but who knows?? Today is what it is, with no end in sight.

It might be better to employ our collective imaginations in finding a solution to problems
that we've helped to create ourselves (never forgetting the elected representatives that largely got us where we are today).

But no one is going to dissuade advocates of torture and/or Bush foreign policy on this blog. More is the pity.....

In my previous life way back in the 60's I was a flight controller for fighters, bombers and sundry aircraft for the USAF, so I've seen it up close and personal like. That said, I'm not an advocate of torture under any circumstances - it's both futile and de-humanizing as many here have pointed out in countless ways.

Old A. Hermit is having a bad day hiding in his cold Canadian cave as US spy satellites keeps him safe and free just like I proudly did in the 1960's. Time to bill him for the service??

And the key to all this torture/terror talk is to simply outsource it to Islamic Pakistan. Or simply use the more effective two day sleep and food deprivation, or booze and/or truth serums. War is Hell!!!

Hmmm, the codes of US Military Justice and the Geneva Convention?? I dare say there are some provisions for appropriate, effective interrogation methods that "goody goodshoes" probably would not approve of.

Sternberg regurgitates the Party Propaganda Line:

..."Torture in olden times broke both bodies and mind and was used to extract desired confessions.
The US does none of those things, but instead uses phsychological warfare to gain information that can be verified. We then leave the Interagatee, whole and capable of performing every act of skill or mental acumen that he was previously capable of."...

I'm guessing Sternberg and the rest of the torture fans here have never met someone who's been tortured...it's not the physical scars that are the worst; it's the loss of humanity; it's never feeling safe again, the never ending nightmares and fear that torture inflicts.

Your government is now doing this, often to innocent people, just so the bedwetters can feel safe and enjoy the vicarious thrill of a perceived revenge.

As Pogo said "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us."

Regards

A Hermit

Concerned the Christians squeals:

"Hmmm, unless you can show written documentation that the SAC generals would not have used/approved the (topic) torture"

There are written documents to that effect; its called the Geneva Conventions and the US Military Code of Justice.

You might want to refer to the WWII war crimes trials of Japanese camp guards who convicted of using waterboarding, or to the history of the Spanish American War, during which American soldiers were convicted by American courts-martial for using waterboarding Phillipino prisoners.

Sounds to me like you're a disgrace to that uniform you say you wore...American soldiers are supposed to be men of honour, not savages.

Regards

A Hermit

Never say 'never'.

Assume: We have certain knowledge that a nuclear device (purchased from rogue elements within the Russian miitary) has been smuggled into New York city... and that it has been set to explode in the next 2 hours. We have captured a known terrorist who we have long suspected to be involved in a plot to accomplish exactly that... and we have every reason to believe that he knows where this device is located.

Would you not do whatever might be necessary to extract the required information from the individual?

Screw water-boarding... chances are, enduring that was a part of his training regimen. Bring on the burning bamboo splinters under the fingernails. Heck... I'd be looking into the torture manuals and procedures from the Spanish Inquisition. There was one particularly innovative method that involved placing a rat on a person's abdomen... strapping a metal bowl over it... and then setting a small fire on top of it, so that the rat's only means of escape was by burrowing...

Yeah... that might do it.

I most certainly agree that resort to such measures should not be a routine part of doing the routine business of interrogating and extracting information... and I would strongly oppose anyone who advocated such measures. However... despite my moral objections (based primarily on squeamishness... and the idea that if it was OK to torture people in general, then it would be OK for somebody to torture me), I would hope that in such circumstances that I have described, SOMEBODY would have the MORAL courage to rise ABOVE the prevailing law and sense of ethics, put the safety of the community above the inevitable consequences and penalties associated with his actions... and do what was necessary to extract the information that would terminate the inevitable calamity.

Or... I suppose... everybody could just throw up their hands, and say "Oh, well... threats and harsh language did not work... and it's against the law and prevailing secular humanist ethics to cause this guy any discomfort. So... we might as well just have a cup of coffee and wait for the bomb to go off, and get incinerated along with the 4.2 million other New Yorkers who can't get out of town. We can, however, die smug and satisfied in the knowledge that this miscreant will die with us."

I don't know about you Susan... but I'd be one of the guys who was running around looking for a rat, or a suitable metal mixing bowl and a strap... arguing about which would have the greater psychological impact... heating the bowl with a propane torch?... everybody forming a circle and doing it with their Bic lighters?... building a small fire?...

Joet,

Hmmm, unless you can show written documentation that the SAC generals would not have used/approved the (topic) torture e.g. waterboarding or sleep/deprivation, your childlike observations are outside the realm of reality. Of course, with the weapons under their command, they already imposed mental terror and torture on the citizens and military of the USSR.

Too bad that you don't want do some minor self-"terroring"/torturing. You would learn a lot from the experience.

Concerned: why would I try it? thanks for your service. I was born at a SAC missle base hospital while my dad was serving in the Phillipines. Any general in that war would have been executed as a war criminal for waterboarding (which was the topic, not sleep deprivation).

Joet,

Hmmm, my buddies and I protected the USA citizens in USA cities with local Nike Missiles and radars. No enemies to torture. The general I served under, however, would have had no problem with imposing some sleep and food deprivation.

How goes your self-imposed torture i.e. two days without sleep and food?

Concerned: so he who tortures the mostest fastest wins? I'm sure war and torture come in degrees, but the difference between them isn't just one of degree. I dare say you never served under any general who thought torture was a tactical option.

and if a couple sleepless nights without food is enough to crack you, I'm glad you weren't captured with any usefull information.

Joet,

I learned a lot in my five years in the US military to include two important principles i.e. "War is Hell" (General Sherman's burning of Georgia) and "The Firstist with the Mostest" wins the battle/war".

Hell/War is terror and torture, so yes indeed terror/torture come in degrees/scale.

Another thing I learned is that most individuals will sell their mothers after two days without sleep or food i.e. waterboarding not needed.

Rich,

My questions to you were in response to you claiming 3 innocent people tortured were not enough for you. And you take that as me saying the people who died in the World Trade Center towers were guilty of something? Talk about grasping at straws.

You said:
"Mistakes will be made and innocent people will die. I guess you thought all those people in the towers were guilty of something then, right?"

By your logic in that statement, America was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Nice.

Rich: I believe it's Marquis, not Marcus. are you really arguing that since Osama hasn't signed the Geneva Convention we get to torture anyone we label a terrorist? We considered the Japanese subhuman in WWII, and I don't recall McCarthur ever entertaining torture as appropriate. Dont recall anyone calling him a pinko pansy.

Concerned: are you really arguing that the only difference between dropping the bomb and torturing an individual is scale? as soon as we call it war, anything goes?

"Marcus of Queensbury rules will not protect us. "

This is what it all boils down to for people like Rich; "I'm afraid" he whimpers, "please protect me, I don't care who you hurt or how you do it, just please please make me feel safe Daddy!!"

Unprincipled, unthinking cowardice is all it is. Pathetic, really...

A Hermit

Andrea:

Rich,

How many innocent people tortured would be enough for you? Is one enough? Do you need more innocent people to be tortured in order for you to acknowledge the fact that it's ineffective? What's your limit?"

According to your logic there Andrea then we should do nothing for fear of making a mistake. Do not bomb or attack a house or area for fear of hitting the wrong person. Your logic would imply then that we simply wait till they are attacking us here so as not to hit the wrong person. Mistakes will be made and innocent people will die. I guess you thought all those people in the towers were guilty of something then, right? Marcus of Queensbury rules will not protect us.

Andrea:

Rich,

How many innocent people tortured would be enough for you? Is one enough? Do you need more innocent people to be tortured in order for you to acknowledge the fact that it's ineffective? What's your limit?"

According to your logic there Andrea then we should do nothing for fear of making a mistake. Do not bomb or attack a house or area for fear of hitting the wrong person. Your logic would imply then that we simply wait till they are attacking us here so as not to hit the wrong person. Mistakes will be made and innocent people will die. I guess you thought all those people in the towers were guilty of something then, right? Marcus of Queensbury rules will not protect us.

Pierre JC:

Hey Rich:
Thanks for proving my point.
Of those who oppose torture, you said, "Their argument is you are a Nazi or Hitler or Stalin or the Romans, a liar, stupid."
You deliberately avoid the obvious issue (Is Torture Moral?) because you obviously cannot win that argument.
Torture is immoral, but you are too much of a coward to admit it. Or else you are so morally retarded (i.e., conservative) to understand that fact; you believe that torture is sometimes a good thing. How sickening.
You also said, "You fire those words off to anyone that does not tow your line." That's right, Rich, I exercise freedom of expression! This is clearly an affront to you. Too bad you live in a democracy where people can express any political idea they please.
"I know you want to lump everything in as one." Actually, Rich, you don't have the faintest idea of what I want. You presume to know what I think, even without my expressing it. How do you do that, Rich -- does Jesus whisper my thoughts into your ear? Thanks for providing such a clear and unmistakable example of the vile egotism of the typical conservative. You have proven my point most brilliantly. Bravo!

You also said, "You fire those words off to anyone that does not tow your line." That's right, Rich, I exercise freedom of expression! This is clearly an affront to you. Too bad you live in a democracy where people can express any political idea they please.
"I know you want to lump everything in as one." Actually, Rich, you don't have the faintest idea of what I want. You presume to know what I think, even without my expressing it. How do you do that, Rich -- does Jesus whisper my thoughts into your ear? Thanks for providing such a clear and unmistakable example of the vile egotism of the typical conservative. You have proven my point most brilliantly. Bravo!"

Pete, that is your name, right? Simply saying I prove your point doesn't make it so. Now you need to do a little more reading of my posts before pulling things out to fit your own view. Now it would seem all you have is name calling to back you your opinion. I think your post here just proved my point that all the left can do is call you names. Here is just another quote by you in this post:

" Pierre JC: Torture is immoral, but you are too much of a coward to admit it. Or else you are so morally retarded (i.e., conservative) to understand that fact; you believe that torture is sometimes a good thing. How sickening."

Talk about proving my point. I could hardly say it better myself there Pete. Keep up the good work and I will not need to post other then repeating your own words. Keep up the hate there Pete. It works well on the left.

A Hermit:

Rich:
I see form your reply that you can't be bothered to look at the facts; did you visit any of the links I gave you?

Innocent people are being tortured in your name; are you so frightened that you are willing to let that happen?

You should be ashamed...

Regards

A Hermit"

I seen some of your websites and I am just not buying what they are selling. Also, you pointed to three people and yet proclaimed nearly all of those at gitmo. Now that to me sounds like a big difference. Maybe you need to go back and read your leftists sites again to double check your own facts. I need better sources then the Anti-American ACLU. Everyone knows they are not an American organization. Heck they are fighting for illegal aliens now. Tell me that is an American group.

Paganplace,

It depends on your definitions of torture and terror. I see no difference.

On a microscale we have waterboardings and beheadings or a threat thereof.

On a macroscale, we have dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. You might argue the morality of it all, but it did effectively end WWII.

Paganplace,

Hmmm, you bring up the subject of torture by Islamics. Actually, I point out the flaws in the founders and foundations of Islam as noted below. Note the absence of the word "torture".

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Of course, I have noted that torture and terror are sometimes synonymous as noted below:

Torture and terror come in different degrees. Micro torture/terror would be waterboarding as supposedly practiced by our military and intelligence agengies or beheadings of Iraqi Shiites by Sunni intelligence groups and vice versa.

Well worth repeating: thank you SJ.

There may not be a just God, but there is always a reckoning for sanctioning or turning a blind eye to practices that violate fundamental human rights.

TORTURE IS MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE IN EVERY CASE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PERPETRATOR OR THE OBJECT OF THE TORTURE.

Rich:
I see form your reply that you can't be bothered to look at the facts; did you visit any of the links I gave you?

Innocent people are being tortured in your name; are you so frightened that you are willing to let that happen?

You should be ashamed...

Regards

A Hermit

I mean, hey, Concerned, didn't you spend a few months obsessively-telling us we should hate all Muslims *because* some Muslims and their governments use torture?

Why should we be thought of any differently if we go there?

Why don't we stand up, as you say Muslims should, and *stop our government from doing it?*

I'd like to, but I'm a Pagan, ...all-but-totally denied a voice in what the government does in my name.

About the best I *can* do is say no.

A majority of Americans, in fact, say no, but our 'faith-based' government simply disregards those voices as 'liberal' or 'ungodly' or 'unpatriotic.'

Personally, the more I hear from those who support torture, the *less* I feel that some fantastic 'extenuating circumstances' could even be *recognized* by these people, never mind adhered to.

There's a reason the Constitution denies them this power, and our pious President's signing statements aside, they still should be.

All the more.

Concerned, we've already learned that torture is no way to win wars in the first place, as if torturers deserved to win, anyway.

There is nothing religious or humanly moral about Hell but sometimes we must go there to learn the methods to win wars.

Frankly, I have a hard time taking anyone who claims there is any religious or humanistic justification for torture seriously.

Rich, are you serious? You make me ashamed to be an American. To think that we have to destroy a country (that had nothing to do with 9/11) to be secure? You have offered nothing to any of these arguments but typical smug right-wing nonsense straight from a politician or Rush Limbaugh. Do us all a favor. Don't vote.

War is Hell!!! For all those global "sideliners" and "goody goodshoes", welcome to Hell and all its terror and torture of waterboardings, beheadings and bombs!!!

In a posting above, Rich has generously provided us with the essential nature of the morally bankrupt conservative:
"I know the left has no qualms about giving up a few more Americans so we do not have to crawl into the gutter to catch the rats."
Anyone with intelligence understands that governments make mistakes, sometimes quite often. Rich understands this, too. If the U.S. engages in torture, some innocent people will inevitably be tortured. In all liklihood, they will not be white, nor Christian, nor American.
So here is the essence of Rich's point of view:
There's something terrible about innocent Americans being tortured, but nothing wrong with innocent non-Americans being tortured.
What hateful, idiotic, tribalist nonsense.

Hey Rich:
Thanks for proving my point.
Of those who oppose torture, you said, "Their argument is you are a Nazi or Hitler or Stalin or the Romans, a liar, stupid."
You deliberately avoid the obvious issue (Is Torture Moral?) because you obviously cannot win that argument.
Torture is immoral, but you are too much of a coward to admit it. Or else you are so morally retarded (i.e., conservative) to understand that fact; you believe that torture is sometimes a good thing. How sickening.
You also said, "You fire those words off to anyone that does not tow your line." That's right, Rich, I exercise freedom of expression! This is clearly an affront to you. Too bad you live in a democracy where people can express any political idea they please.
"I know you want to lump everything in as one." Actually, Rich, you don't have the faintest idea of what I want. You presume to know what I think, even without my expressing it. How do you do that, Rich -- does Jesus whisper my thoughts into your ear? Thanks for providing such a clear and unmistakable example of the vile egotism of the typical conservative. You have proven my point most brilliantly. Bravo!

Rich: We are (I mean, we were) discussing Susan Jacoby's essay. Scroll back up to the top and read it. Then maybe you would have more of a clue about the topic. It was a fairly intelligent exchange of ideas, but now, it has sort of fizzled out. Thank you very much.

Arminius:

Daniel,

You came to your senses. Might as well argue with a brick wall - at least it won't insult your intelligence.

To all you pathetic, benighted souls who support torture: it might interest you that at one time, it was illegal in the good ol' US of A. Even a sheriff in Texas - yes, Texas, home of that sad moron who's now leaving knuckle-dragging tracks in the White House carpet - that sheriff was sent to jail for 10 years for waterboarding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

Read it and weep."

Since when is this about anyone other then Gitmo or terrorists. Me thinks you want to change it to something else. Unless this guy was deemed an enemy combatant and sent off to gitmo I think you are arguing about something else then. Take that case up with your state rep. I am sure he would be more then willing to look into it for you.

Ok Hermit, you listed three names. That is a far cry from most of the people being held there. Care to revise your remarks? I'll stick with the numbers from the government, sorry. I guess you are of the mind we have put down around 650k or more Iraqi's. Am I correct. With the millions that have left the country should be getting empty. We need only keep the pressure on and we can start over. Maybe make that the 51st state or something. Ignoring the real threat in front of your face will be what brings down the country. I am not of the mind that feels we should wait till they are building a new golden mosque in downtown Pittsburgh for us all to kneel to before doing something.

Daniel,

You came to your senses. Might as well argue with a brick wall - at least it won't insult your intelligence.

To all you pathetic, benighted souls who support torture: it might interest you that at one time, it was illegal in the good ol' US of A. Even a sheriff in Texas - yes, Texas, home of that sad moron who's now leaving knuckle-dragging tracks in the White House carpet - that sheriff was sent to jail for 10 years for waterboarding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

Read it and weep.

Don't mind Rich. He is not a serious person. Why argue with him?

But we are not talking about being in a death match, or fighting hand to hand combat, or defending our homes and families from thugs breaking in and trying to kill us.

We are talking about pre-meditated torture as an instrument of government policy, conducted by government bureaucrats, who are cool, calm, and collected.

Rich is a little mixed up.