kallend 1,679 #51 December 13, 2008 Quote their opinon was bought and paid for. . I wasn't aware Blagojevich was involved.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #52 December 13, 2008 This Thread Needs To Be Concluded! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #53 December 13, 2008 QuoteActually you have it wrong as christ said " "You have heard that it was said to those of old,'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." Theres a lot more there than just don't kill! In addition, In romans the 13:4 it says that the goverment is "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” There is more to it than just that but I won't go into detail but I think you have seen your initial assesment is incorrect. A. Huh? B. Are you honestly saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth would condone torture? For any reason? C. I have seen that you are willing to bend the scripture to say anything you want. D. Huh? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cari 0 #54 December 13, 2008 Quote>I don't see the abuse Imagine a US soldier is beaten to death in a Taliban cell. Will you still not "see the abuse?" Or is it only abuse when our guys are beaten to death? Didn't you know that people only count if they're the same as you? Geeze...what planet are you from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #55 December 13, 2008 Quote>I didn't see anything about anybody being beaten much less to death. I think this is one of the big problems trying to discuss this with many americans. They simply don't know what has happened, and have no incentive to find out. That way they can maintain the illusion that the US is never the bad guy, and can say things like: >Why should the enemy be given better treatment than what our soldiers >are having to endure? Treat others as you wish to be treated. The most basic law of my morality, and of some people's religions. (Not that many people follow their own religions, of course.) i like the one "do unto others as they have done unto you" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #56 December 13, 2008 Quotei like the one "do unto others as they have done unto you" Be sure to run that one past your priest or pastor... see what they think of it .. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #57 December 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteActually you have it wrong as christ said " "You have heard that it was said to those of old,'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." Theres a lot more there than just don't kill! In addition, In romans the 13:4 it says that the goverment is "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” There is more to it than just that but I won't go into detail but I think you have seen your initial assesment is incorrect. A. Huh? B. Are you honestly saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth would condone torture? For any reason? C. I have seen that you are willing to bend the scripture to say anything you want. D. Huh? Thanks Dan. [Ion01]’s comments made me ashamed to identify as a Christian who attended church this morning. Where are all the usual defenders of Christianity around here? Do you need to be called out by name? Question for the Christian apologists for torture: Who would Jesus torture? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #58 December 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteActually you have it wrong as christ said " "You have heard that it was said to those of old,'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." Theres a lot more there than just don't kill! In addition, In romans the 13:4 it says that the goverment is "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” There is more to it than just that but I won't go into detail but I think you have seen your initial assesment is incorrect. A. Huh? B. Are you honestly saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth would condone torture? For any reason? C. I have seen that you are willing to bend the scripture to say anything you want. D. Huh? Thanks Dan. [Ion01]’s comments made me ashamed to identify as a Christian who attended church this morning. Where are all the usual defenders of Christianity around here? Do you need to be called out by name? Question for the Christian apologists for torture: Who would Jesus torture? /Marg Burning in Hell for eternity seems like it fits the description.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #59 December 14, 2008 >i like the one "do unto others as they have done unto you" So do suicide bombers. An eye for an eye and all that. I prefer the Christian take on it, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,369 #60 December 14, 2008 Quote Quote I think it would make some happy if we could get the ACLU involved.... It would make me happy if the next administration repudiates the Bush doctrine and declares that the USA will abide by the Geneva Conventions. Don't the Geneva Conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers? And exclude irregular/guerilla forces? Don't they specifically allow summary execution of those out of uniform, or in the enemy's uniform? (The very famous picture of the man in civilan clothes being shot in the head during the Tet offensive in Vietnam was such an event-he was a NVA office in civvies). Would the Geneva Conventions even apply to the Taliban and Al Queada? I could be wrong on this, but I think not. I am in no way advocating torture. It is counterproductive in most cases. But when the other side plays by its own rules, and the media seems to ignore their misbehavior, I get a little jaded."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #61 December 14, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I think it would make some happy if we could get the ACLU involved.... It would make me happy if the next administration repudiates the Bush doctrine and declares that the USA will abide by the Geneva Conventions. Don't the Geneva Conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers? And exclude irregular/guerilla forces? Don't they specifically allow summary execution of those out of uniform, or in the enemy's uniform? (The very famous picture of the man in civilan clothes being shot in the head during the Tet offensive in Vietnam was such an event-he was a NVA office in civvies). Would the Geneva Conventions even apply to the Taliban and Al Queada? I could be wrong on this, but I think not. I am in no way advocating torture. It is counterproductive in most cases. But when the other side plays by its own rules, and the media seems to ignore their misbehavior, I get a little jaded. There's nothing in the Geneva conventions to prevent us from behaving in a civilized manner to all prisoners. The conventions don't force us to be as disgusting as out worst enemies - that was a CHOICE on the part of the Bush administration.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #62 December 14, 2008 QuoteI am in no way advocating torture. It is counterproductive in most cases. But when the other side plays by its own rules, and the media seems to ignore their misbehavior, I get a little jaded. How the.. what the... are you... where the f... I'm literally speechless! Ignores their misbehaviour? What? Seriously? I don't even know what you think you mean. You have blown my mind.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #63 December 14, 2008 QuoteThere's nothing in the Geneva conventions to prevent us from behaving in a civilized manner to all prisoners. Ok so why bother if the Geneva Conventions are not good enough for you? You obviously believe they should apply to a non-uniformed combatant Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,369 #64 December 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteI am in no way advocating torture. It is counterproductive in most cases. But when the other side plays by its own rules, and the media seems to ignore their misbehavior, I get a little jaded. How the.. what the... are you... where the f... I'm literally speechless! Ignores their misbehaviour? What? Seriously? I don't even know what you think you mean. You have blown my mind. How many news reports covered the Abu Graib scandal? Thousands? How many news reports covered the Al Queda comic book torture manual? The manual that showed how to use power tools. The manual that showed what areas just hurt and maim without killing. How many news reports cover the civilians killed by US forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Hundreds? How many reports cover the civilans killed by the Taliban and Al Queda? The thousands of civilans killed either in direct retaliation for cooperating with US forces, or killed for refusing to cooperate with the Taliban or Al Queda. I'm not saying that atrocites committed by the US are justified. Or acceptable. Or anything but atrocities. As with the Vietnam war, the US news media seems to cover human rights violations committed by the US far more aggressively than any atrocities committed by the other side. And sometimes seems to dismiss the version put out by the military as propaganda, while believing in full the version put out by the other side."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #65 December 14, 2008 >How many news reports covered the Al Queda comic book >torture manual? The manual that showed how to use power tools. The >manual that showed what areas just hurt and maim without killing. About the same number that showed the US military SERE manuals that covered torture. Now, how many news networks covered the beheadings? All of them. >How many news reports cover the civilians killed by US forces in both >Afghanistan and Iraq? Hundreds? At least. >How many reports cover the civilans killed by the Taliban and Al Queda? Thousands. Surely you remember at least a few articles concerning what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #66 December 14, 2008 QuoteAs with the Vietnam war, the US news media seems to cover human rights violations committed by the US far more aggressively than any atrocities committed by the other side. Yeah, all that stuff about IED's, about kidnappings and beheadings, about civilians killed by Al Qaeda, yeah, we don't know about any of that stuff. There are two things here which you are really missing, ok? First, they're terrorists. Terrorists, pretty much by definition, do really bad stuff. We know that they do really bad stuff. That's why we're fighting them. No-ones trying to make them look better by not reporting at great length each and every atrocity they commit. Fuck, there'd be no time for any other news. Saying that they are getting a pass is ridiculous, it's just that we can pretty much be trusted to remember that they're the bad guys. Our soldiers on the other hand, they're supposed to be the good guys. When they go wrong, it's news. It's not supposed to happen. It's not what we're in this for. Second, we can't control what the terrorists do, they aren't with us. We can only try to put a stop to them. Our soldiers though, are our responsibility. They represent us and we are in control of what they can and can't do. We hear more about them when they go wrong because they are much more closely connected with us than some Afghan loon with an AK47 is. We expect better from them than we do from terrorists.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stitch 0 #67 December 14, 2008 QuoteThere's nothing in the Geneva conventions to prevent us from behaving in a civilized manner to all prisoners.Do the Geneva conventions even apply anymore ? I thought modernized doctrines like the UN's "Laws of Land Warfare" changed all of that."No cookies for you"- GFD "I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65 Don't be a "Racer Hater" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #68 December 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteThere's nothing in the Geneva conventions to prevent us from behaving in a civilized manner to all prisoners. Ok so why bother if the Geneva Conventions are not good enough for you? You obviously believe they should apply to a non-uniformed combatant And you obviously don't read carefully enough. I do not believe the Bush administration made an effective case as to why the GCs should NOT apply to all US prisoners.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #69 December 15, 2008 QuoteI do not believe the Bush administration made an effective case as to why the GCs should NOT apply to all US prisoners. I don't understand your reasoning. Why should they make a case at all? The GC's are already defined. Has the U.S. military or intelligence tortured any *uniformed* captives lately? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #70 December 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteI do not believe the Bush administration made an effective case as to why the GCs should NOT apply to all US prisoners. I don't understand your reasoning. Why should they make a case at all? The GC's are already defined. Has the U.S. military or intelligence tortured any *uniformed* captives lately? What advantage has the US obtained by abusing and mistreating its prisoners? Vilification by the rest of the world and unreliable information - what else? Maybe you should try reading the senate report too, and read the SC decisions on rights of detainees.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #71 December 15, 2008 Quote What advantage has the US obtained by abusing and mistreating its prisoners? Vilification by the rest of the world and unreliable information - what else? Maybe you should try reading the senate report too, and read the SC decisions on rights of detainees. He's questioning why you've brought the GC into the argument. SC decisions have nothing to do with the GC. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #72 December 15, 2008 Quote>I don't see the abuse Imagine a US soldier is beaten to death in a Taliban cell. Will you still not "see the abuse?" Or is it only abuse when our guys are beaten to death? You mean we've beaten detainees to death??!! edit: that's right...out of the tens-of-thousands, we have one accounted for. I'm looking for a pattern though...none can provide one. How's everyone going to feel when the president-elect doesn't close Guantanamo?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #73 December 15, 2008 QuoteQuotei like the one "do unto others as they have done unto you" Be sure to run that one past your priest or pastor... see what they think of it .. sorry but I like to ask questions about morality to those that are actually living on good moral standards, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #74 December 15, 2008 Quote Quote What advantage has the US obtained by abusing and mistreating its prisoners? Vilification by the rest of the world and unreliable information - what else? Maybe you should try reading the senate report too, and read the SC decisions on rights of detainees. He's questioning why you've brought the GC into the argument. SC decisions have nothing to do with the GC. Simple - The GC were referenced in the report which is the topic of the OP. The GC sets a standard of behavior for treatment of prisoners. The Bush administration had to explicitly find an excuse why it need not to use those standards, which it did. Which IS the subject of this thread.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #75 December 16, 2008 QuoteThe GC sets a standard of behavior for treatment of prisoners. correction: QuoteThe GC sets a standard of behavior for treatment of UNIFORMED prisoners. thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
