PDA

View Full Version : Obama signs order to close Guantanamo Bay facility


NateR
02-18-2010, 04:26 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html

updated 10:10 p.m. EST, Thu January 22, 2009
Obama signs order to close Guantanamo Bay facility

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.

Oh wait, nevermind......:Whistle:

:laugh:

huan
02-18-2010, 04:33 AM
Amusing, however Obama has a sound explanation for his failure to deliver:
http://granitegrok.com/pix/Obama-BlameBush.jpg

NateR
02-18-2010, 04:44 AM
Amusing, however Obama has a sound explanation for his failure to deliver:
http://granitegrok.com/pix/Obama-BlameBush.jpg

This is true. Fortunately, the Blame-Bush train is running out of steam and the only passengers left are the Obama Administration and the brainwashed Obama-zombies.

Mark
02-18-2010, 12:06 PM
brainwashed Obama-zombies.

There are some zombies on here. I bet they dont even know it.

NateR
02-18-2010, 12:50 PM
There are some zombies on here. I bet they dont even know it.

Real zombies never do. :laugh:

Tyburn
02-18-2010, 08:52 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html



Oh wait, nevermind......:Whistle:

:laugh:

Is it still open :huh: I thought it was closed already...I could of sworne the internationals many have already been sent back to foreign countries.

I think he just lost interest :laugh: He cant even make true on his liberal promises can he :blink:

VCURamFan
02-19-2010, 04:00 PM
Is it still open :huh: I thought it was closed already...I could of sworne the internationals many have already been sent back to foreign countries.

I think he just lost interest :laugh: He cant even make true on his liberal promises can he :blink:

The prisoners were never going to be set free, Dave. Are you kidding me? After all the lives lost in order to catch them, you think we're going to just say "Now don't do it agian" & let them go??? "Everyone" was behind the closing until they realized that Obama wanted to move the detainees to American soil. Then the states, for some odd inexplicable reason, all said "No thanks!" So now that he's got no where to put them, he's had to keep Gitmo open. Thank goodness for the states not being stupid this time around!!

Tyburn
02-19-2010, 05:05 PM
The prisoners were never going to be set free, Dave. Are you kidding me? After all the lives lost in order to catch them, you think we're going to just say "Now don't do it agian" & let them go??? "Everyone" was behind the closing until they realized that Obama wanted to move the detainees to American soil. Then the states, for some odd inexplicable reason, all said "No thanks!" So now that he's got no where to put them, he's had to keep Gitmo open. Thank goodness for the states not being stupid this time around!!

You miss understand me Ben. I meant that a lot of the foreign Nationals that you guys collected, were not native to the land you captured them in, some were even British and some others European, and they have been sent back to prisons in their countries of origen. I suspect your left with those native to the lands you caught them in...in which case they should go to the United States shouldnt they which is what I assumed he had done :)

NateR
02-19-2010, 06:29 PM
Is it still open :huh: I thought it was closed already...I could of sworne the internationals many have already been sent back to foreign countries.

I think he just lost interest :laugh: He cant even make true on his liberal promises can he :blink:

As what usually happens, the warm, fuzzy, starry-eyed idealism got vetoed by cold, hard reality. :laugh:

atomdanger
02-19-2010, 08:51 PM
So, serious question.

What are we doing with the inmates?

Tyburn
02-19-2010, 09:06 PM
As what usually happens, the warm, fuzzy, starry-eyed idealism got vetoed by cold, hard reality. :laugh:

but I could have sworne either you or Mac said there was some prison near you in illinois that was getting some Gauntanamo convicts...and that was ages ago... :unsure:

I am so dissapointed in Obama over this...and over Star Wars...that pissed me off, that was the first time I decided I didnt think he was much cop :sad:

NateR
02-19-2010, 09:44 PM
but I could have sworne either you or Mac said there was some prison near you in illinois that was getting some Gauntanamo convicts...and that was ages ago... :unsure:

Yeah, that idea is pretty much getting shot down, I believe. The other thing that people never seemed to consider is that anywhere these terrorists are held would become a target for terrorism. That was one of the primary reasons that we held them outside of the US.

Also, to prevent them from being given the same rights as US citizens. Now, we are starting to see why denying these prisoners habeas corpus was such a good idea.

I am so dissapointed in Obama over this...and over Star Wars...that pissed me off, that was the first time I decided I didnt think he was much cop :sad:

So, Obama was responsible for Jar Jar Binks? :scared0015: I knew the man was evil. :angry:

:wink:

NateR
02-19-2010, 09:48 PM
So, serious question.

What are we doing with the inmates?

I think we need to keep some of them detained and keep interrogating(waterboarding) them for information. The others should be sped through trial and executed or released back to their home countries as necessary.

Tyburn
02-19-2010, 09:55 PM
Yeah, that idea is pretty much getting shot down, I believe. The other thing that people never seemed to consider is that anywhere these terrorists are held would become a target for terrorism. That was one of the primary reasons that we held them outside of the US.

1) Also, to prevent them from being given the same rights as US citizens. Now, we are starting to see why denying these prisoners habeas corpus was such a good idea.



2) So, Obama was responsible for Jar Jar Binks? :scared0015: I knew the man was evil. :angry:

:wink:

THAT was the reason for Guantanamo...you couldnt have gotten away with the sort of misstreatment that happened at Guantanamo, nor kept them without trial, if they were on U.S Soil

2) :blink: No I meant the Star wars plan. Bush wanted to occupie parts of the Eastern Bloc...so that he could set up listening stations and extend the Satalite protection system that the U.S has. The Eastern Bloc said YES, which majorly upset Russia...now The U.S has backed out...leaving those nations in deep shyte with the Russians :unsure-1:

Plus...I dont see anything wrong with Star Wars...and I read that Obama had called off the extention whilst I was in the U.S :ninja:

NateR
02-19-2010, 11:28 PM
THAT was the reason for Guantanamo...you couldnt have gotten away with the sort of misstreatment that happened at Guantanamo, nor kept them without trial, if they were on U.S Soil

EXACTLY why we need to keep them off US soil.

Besides, these are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. There is no reason and no historical precedent for giving them the same rights as US citizens. Abraham Lincoln denied habeas corpus to American citizens fighting for the Confederacy, so why should we grant it to foreign terrorists captured while trying to kill American citizens?

Buzzard
02-20-2010, 03:20 AM
THAT was the reason for Guantanamo...you couldnt have gotten away with the sort of misstreatment that happened at Guantanamo, nor kept them without trial, if they were on U.S Soil

EXACTLY why we need to keep them off US soil.

Besides, these are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. There is no reason and no historical precedent for giving them the same rights as US citizens. Abraham Lincoln denied habeas corpus to American citizens fighting for the Confederacy, so why should we grant it to foreign terrorists captured while trying to kill American citizens?

So you condone the intentional mistreatment/torture of prisoners and suspects? Is that what Jesus would do, torture people? The reason I bring Jesus name into it is because you are so adamant about stating that the Bible is 100% truth, yet I don't ever recall reading anything about Jesus and his love of torturing people, nor of him condoning it. Now I don't think these folks should be coddled and given silk sheets to sleep on, but torture is not the answer. Please forgive me for bringing up your religious beliefs, but sometimes I think it is a necessity, especially when someone has beliefs(torture) that go completely against the religious beliefs for which they say they stand. If you are offended, kindly let me know and I will remove the religious reference, though I am interested in how you will try to defend them. I don't mean to come off as rude in this post, and it is not my intent.

Can you show me any factual data that I can read where it shows that torture is a viable means of interrogation and gives accurate information? I've read from professional interrogators that in their opinion, it isn't.

How about this; if you think that water-boarding isn't torture, how about putting that to a little test? I'll fly out to visit, and with your permission and consent will water-board you 2/3x an hour for a period of 16 hours, followed by 8 hours of sleep and proper nourishment, for a period of 3 days. I'll even pay for your room and board as long as I get to record the sessions. I'll even give you a "I survived a water-boarding and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirt.:laugh: Deal?:ninja: You know something, I doubt that I could/would do that even with your consent as I am not a sadist, but if you take me up on the offer I will consider it.:wink:

I'm going to post something a friend of mine from another forum posted, which is from the U.S. Army Interrogation Handbook. It seems what you want to do is in violation of our laws. Why are you so keen on violating our laws and acting in such a manner as to almost guarantee reprisal if we torture detainees? Why would you want to sink to the level of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and remove any respect that any nations still have for us by using a tactic that isn't considered effective by professional interrogators?

Here is the post used with permission.

Let's go to pages 9-10 of the US ARMY INTELLIGENCE AND INTERROGATION HANDBOOK The Official Guide on Prisoner Interrogation (Lyons Pres, 2005)

"One of the significant means used by the intelligence staff is the interrogation of the following:
* EPWs.
* Captured insurgents.
* Civilian internees.
* Other captured, detained, or retained persons.
* Foreign deserters or other persons of intelligence interest...
In conducting intelligence interrogations, the J2, G2, or S2 has primary staff responsibility to ensure these activities are performed in accordance with the GWS(2), GPW(3), and GC(4), as well as US policies regarding the treatment and handling of the above - mentioned persons.
The GWS, GPW, GC, and US policy expressly prohibit acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to inhuman treatment as a means as an aid to interrogation.
Such illegal acts are not authorized and will not be condoned by the US Army. Acts in violation of these prohibitions are criminal acts punishable under the UCMJ(1)....

"Experience indicates that the use of prohibited techniques is not necessary to gain the cooperation of interrogation sources. Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
Revelation of use of torture by US personnel wil bring discredit upon the US and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort. It also may place US and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors. Conversely, knowing the enemy has abused US and allied PWs does not justify using methods of interrogation specifically prohibited by the GWS, GPW, or GC, and US policy...

"Physical or mental torture and coercion revolve around eliminating the source's free will and are expressly prohibited by the GWS, Article 13; GPW, Article 13 and 17; and GC, Articles 31 and 32. Torture is defined as the infliction of intense pain to body or mind to extract a confession or information, or for sadistic pleasure.
Examples of physical torture include -
* Electric shocks.
* Infliction of pain through chemicals or bondage (other than legitimate use of restraints to prevent escape).
* Forcing an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time.
* Food deprivation.
* Any form of beating.
Examples of mental torture include -
* Mock executions.
* Abnormal sleep deprivation.
* Chemically induced psychosis.
Coercion is defined as actions designed to unlawfully induce another to compel an act against one's will. Examples of coercion include -
* Threatening or implying physical or mental torture to the subject, his family, or others to whom he owes loyalty.
* Intentially denying medical assistance or care in exchange for the information sought or other cooperation.
* Threatening or implying that other rights guarunteed by the GWS, GPW, or GC will not be provided unless cooperation is forthcoming."

(1) - UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice
(2) - GWS - Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949
(3) - GPW - Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949
(4) - GC - Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949

Mark
02-20-2010, 03:32 AM
So you condone the intentional mistreatment/torture of prisoners and suspects? Is that what Jesus would do, torture people? The reason I bring Jesus name into it is because you are so adamant about stating that the Bible is 100% truth, yet I don't ever recall reading anything about Jesus and his love of torturing people, nor of him condoning it. Now I don't think these folks should be coddled and given silk sheets to sleep on, but torture is not the answer. Please forgive me for bringing up your religious beliefs, but sometimes I think it is a necessity, especially when someone has beliefs(torture) that go completely against the religious beliefs for which they say they stand. If you are offended, kindly let me know and I will remove the religious reference, though I am interested in how you will try to defend them. I don't mean to come off as rude in this post, and it is not my intent.
.

Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Mark
02-20-2010, 03:36 AM
Genesis 9:6 (NIV)
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

NateR
02-20-2010, 03:43 AM
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.


Exactly. These men are terrorists and hatching plans to kill Americans in mass numbers, I could care less about their rights and comfort level.

Mark
02-20-2010, 03:45 AM
Exactly. These men are terrorists and hatching plans to kill Americans in mass numbers, I could care less about their rights and comfort level.

I just wish I could smack them around... alot.

NateR
02-20-2010, 03:57 AM
I just wish I could smack them around... alot.

Yeah, and I don't think there is anything un-Christian about wanting to see unrepentant, evil men pay for their crimes. And if they have to endure a little bit of hardship and discomfort to prevent further evil acts, then so be it.

Llamafighter
02-20-2010, 04:06 AM
Yeah, and I don't think there is anything un-Christian about wanting to see unrepentant, evil men pay for their crimes. And if they have to endure a little bit of hardship and discomfort to prevent further evil acts, then so be it.

I think we could torture the heck out of the guys in custody and not affect the other terrorists that much. they are so mobile out there that any information is old information. i could be wrong

NateR
02-20-2010, 04:50 AM
I think we could torture the heck out of the guys in custody and not affect the other terrorists that much. they are so mobile out there that any information is old information. i could be wrong

Some of the guys we've captured were the masterminds behind the 9/11 attack. They have information of attacks planned years in advance. Those are the ones who need to be subjected to enhanced interrogation the most.

Tyburn
02-20-2010, 11:29 AM
EXACTLY why we need to keep them off US soil.

Besides, these are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. There is no reason and no historical precedent for giving them the same rights as US citizens. Abraham Lincoln denied habeas corpus to American citizens fighting for the Confederacy, so why should we grant it to foreign terrorists captured while trying to kill American citizens?

Thats a good Question...I dont dissagree...except that there is difference between mistreating prisoners, and holding someone hostage...if you give them a trial then so be it...but you cant deny them a trial.

The whole point of closing that facility is so that the prisoners would get a trial and then be treated alright. I think that was Obamas plan :laugh:

Tyburn
02-20-2010, 11:34 AM
So you condone the intentional mistreatment/torture of prisoners and suspects? Is that what Jesus would do, torture people? The reason I bring Jesus name into it is because you are so adamant about stating that the Bible is 100% truth, yet I don't ever recall reading anything about Jesus and his love of torturing people, nor of him condoning it. Now I don't think these folks should be coddled and given silk sheets to sleep on, but torture is not the answer. Please forgive me for bringing up your religious beliefs, but sometimes I think it is a necessity, especially when someone has beliefs(torture) that go completely against the religious beliefs for which they say they stand. If you are offended, kindly let me know and I will remove the religious reference, though I am interested in how you will try to defend them. I don't mean to come off as rude in this post, and it is not my intent.

Can you show me any factual data that I can read where it shows that torture is a viable means of interrogation and gives accurate information? I've read from professional interrogators that in their opinion, it isn't.

How about this; if you think that water-boarding isn't torture, how about putting that to a little test? I'll fly out to visit, and with your permission and consent will water-board you 2/3x an hour for a period of 16 hours, followed by 8 hours of sleep and proper nourishment, for a period of 3 days. I'll even pay for your room and board as long as I get to record the sessions. I'll even give you a "I survived a water-boarding and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirt.:laugh: Deal?:ninja: You know something, I doubt that I could/would do that even with your consent as I am not a sadist, but if you take me up on the offer I will consider it.:wink:

I'm going to post something a friend of mine from another forum posted, which is from the U.S. Army Interrogation Handbook. It seems what you want to do is in violation of our laws. Why are you so keen on violating our laws and acting in such a manner as to almost guarantee reprisal if we torture detainees? Why would you want to sink to the level of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and remove any respect that any nations still have for us by using a tactic that isn't considered effective by professional interrogators?

Here is the post used with permission.

I have nothing against the torture of prisoners for information. The Law gives you your rights, if you break the law, why should the law grant you any rights at all?

Do you think that the Gaols of the past had central heating and bloody video games???? Do you think they fed you nutritional meals and sunday lunches??? The whole standard of captivity should be the same as you'd find in a third world country.

The problem I have with Guantanamo is that those prisoners have not even been charged. THATS wrong. They havent been prooved guilty...once they are prooved guilty you can do what you like with them, or you should be able to...but keeping someone indefinately without trial is Moral Bancuptcy. Its hostage taking, its not taking prisoners.

Dont believe what your government tells you, that they dont do torture anymore...of course they do...one mans pain, is worth it if it saves thousands of lives.

Sado-Masochism often involves whats known as breath control. I imagine someone who is well versed in that as a masochist might enjoy waterboarding. I'm not joking.

Neezar
02-20-2010, 01:00 PM
Can you show me any factual data that I can read where it shows that torture is a viable means of interrogation and gives accurate information? I've read from professional interrogators that in their opinion, it isn't.



You ask for factual data and give opinions.

:laugh:

Factual data? How about this: It has worked for thousands and thousands of years. lol. I think your professional interrogators were probaly just not good at it.

Tyburn
02-20-2010, 02:30 PM
You ask for factual data and give opinions.

:laugh:

Factual data? How about this: It has worked for thousands and thousands of years. lol. I think your professional interrogators were probaly just not good at it.

INDEED!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMijvruC5WM :ninja: THAT is what prisons should have been kept like :laugh:

Tyburn
02-20-2010, 02:39 PM
:laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4R8kVmbTgQ :laugh:

VCURamFan
02-20-2010, 05:57 PM
I just wish I could smack them around... alot.
Tell you what: I'll call up Obama & see if next Tuesday he can fly a coupla of 'em into Litchfield for ya, how 'bout that? :happydancing:

Spiritwalker
02-21-2010, 02:20 AM
I just wish I could smack them around... alot.

That would be a good PPV...

Silverback
02-21-2010, 02:59 AM
Tell you what: I'll call up Obama & see if next Tuesday he can fly a coupla of 'em into Litchfield for ya, how 'bout that? :happydancing:

I just wish I could smack them around... alot.

Please do that would save me a little smacking:tongue0011::tongue0011::tongue0011:

VCURamFan
02-21-2010, 02:46 PM
Please do that would save me a little smacking:tongue0011::tongue0011::tongue0011:

Yeah, you're in desperate need of Mark finding a new punching bag! :laugh:

Tyburn
02-21-2010, 03:16 PM
Yeah, and I don't think there is anything un-Christian about wanting to see unrepentant, evil men pay for their crimes. And if they have to endure a little bit of hardship and discomfort to prevent further evil acts, then so be it.

True.

But I do hope you both pray blessings on them. After all, GOD can be revealed to them as much as the next man. The most horrible thing you can ever do to your enemy is ask GOD to reveal himself to them. Firstly, rather then lasting damage, it helps the war effort

secondly...Blessings can be truely horrific if they come upon a person who has no fear of the Lord. It will be enough (if you pardon the pun) to put the Fear of GOD into them...literally :)

of course...I'm sure you were about to say that, and suggest it also to Mark :laugh:

Bonnie
02-21-2010, 04:23 PM
I think we could torture the heck out of the guys in custody and not affect the other terrorists that much. they are so mobile out there that any information is old information. i could be wrong

I just saw General Patreaus on Meet the Press. David Gregory was asking him about Guantanamo, Pakistan, Al Quaeda, waterboarding, etc...

He said how flexible Al Quaeda is, how adaptable, so we have to be constantly on alert and ready for anything they might attempt to do to harm us over there or here at home.

He said he was on the record that he is for closing Guantanamo, but we have to be very careful and thoughtful with how we go about processing them through our court system.

As far as being inhumane to terrorists.....show me a humane terrorist. :wink:

Mark
02-22-2010, 02:38 AM
I think it is a necessity, especially when someone has beliefs(torture) that go completely against the religious beliefs for which they say they stand.

I am waiting for you to reply. Are you?

Silverback
02-22-2010, 02:50 AM
Yeah, you're in desperate need of Mark finding a new punching bag! :laugh:

You got that right, but it does tuffen me up :tongue0011::tongue0011::tongue0011:

matt hughes
02-22-2010, 06:04 AM
I am waiting for you to reply. Are you?

i am waiting too.....

Buzzard
02-22-2010, 09:47 AM
I am waiting for you to reply. Are you?

I had a reply typed out, but decided to wait to post it due to the fact that it was written when I was 24 hours plus without sleep and it probably would not have come out as I had wanted it to. I'll reply after I reread what I was originally going to post and have more time to address the issues with a more refreshed outlook. Thanks for waiting.

BTW, I'll post the list tomorrow.:laugh:

Tyburn
02-22-2010, 12:11 PM
i am waiting too.....

:w00t: Hi Matt :laugh:

Buzzard
02-23-2010, 03:43 AM
I just had a huge reply typed out, with more to type and my browser closed on me causing me to lose everything.:angry: I had well over forty minutes invested in that and due to the browser mishap. I don't know if it is really worth my time trying to address everything in it again because I really doubt that I will change any minds. If you really want me too, I will again take the time to address everything but it won't be tonight. I am a little angry with myself for the mishap and don't want it to come out in my reply.

Thanks for all the input and participation so far.

rearnakedchoke
02-23-2010, 02:48 PM
I just had a huge reply typed out, with more to type and my browser closed on me causing me to lose everything.:angry: I had well over forty minutes invested in that and due to the browser mishap. I don't know if it is really worth my time trying to address everything in it again because I really doubt that I will change any minds. If you really want me too, I will again take the time to address everything but it won't be tonight. I am a little angry with myself for the mishap and don't want it to come out in my reply.

Thanks for all the input and participation so far.

yes, please .. i want to hear .. and also, did you ever post the list? if so, i missed it ...

NateR
02-23-2010, 03:51 PM
What was this "list" supposed to be again?

VCURamFan
02-23-2010, 03:52 PM
What was this "list" supposed to be again?

I think it's supposed to be the list of people who blindly follow you & suck up to you because you're the Webmaster/Matt's friend.

rearnakedchoke
02-23-2010, 04:52 PM
I think it's supposed to be the list of people who blindly follow you & suck up to you because you're the Webmaster/Matt's friend.

Yes that is the list.

CAMPO
02-25-2010, 12:31 AM
I think it's supposed to be the list of people who blindly follow you & suck up to you because you're the Webmaster/Matt's friend.

:laugh:

VCURamFan
02-25-2010, 02:39 AM
:laugh:

What I wanna know is this: is this an invite-only list, or do we have the option of joining of our own accord? :huh:

NateR
02-25-2010, 02:55 AM
What I wanna know is this: is this an invite-only list, or do we have the option of joining of our own accord? :huh:

Maybe I should send a prize to whoever makes the #1 spot on Buzzard's list. :laugh:

VCURamFan
02-25-2010, 03:00 AM
Maybe I should send a prize to whoever makes the #1 spot on Buzzard's list. :laugh:

Yes, Nate, yes!! What a fantastic, wonderful, inspired idea!! I've never in my entire life ever found a man who speaks the infallible truth with every post!! Three cheers for the great, amazing, unbelievably just NateR!!!! :happydancing:

HIP HIP, HOORAY!! HIP HIP, HOORAY!! HIP HIP, HOORAY!!!!

Neezar
02-25-2010, 03:02 AM
Yes, Nate, yes!! What a fantastic, wonderful, inspired idea!! I've never in my entire life ever found a man who speaks the infallible truth with every post!! Three cheers for the great, amazing, unbelievably just NateR!!!! :happydancing:

HIP HIP, HOORAY!! HIP HIP, HOORAY!! HIP HIP, HOORAY!!!!

:dry: Suck up!


:laugh:

VCURamFan
02-25-2010, 03:05 AM
:dry: Suck up!


:laugh:

Hey, I keep this up & get to the top of the list, I might get some random prize! :punch:

Tyburn
02-25-2010, 07:47 PM
Maybe I should send a prize to whoever makes the #1 spot on Buzzard's list. :laugh:

have you noticed he's promised to publish this list several times...and perfect Buzzard, he doesnt actually get round to doing it...its a bit like in every debate...he never actually answers the question :laugh:

Bonnie
02-25-2010, 08:12 PM
Yes, Nate, yes!! What a fantastic, wonderful, inspired idea!! I've never in my entire life ever found a man who speaks the infallible truth with every post!! Three cheers for the great, amazing, unbelievably just NateR!!!! :happydancing:

HIP HIP, HOORAY!! HIP HIP, HOORAY!! HIP HIP, HOORAY!!!!

<sigh> AMATEUR! :rolleyes:

Nathan, you ROCK! :winking0071:

:laugh:

VCURamFan
02-26-2010, 06:47 PM
<sigh> AMATEUR! :rolleyes:

Nathan, you ROCK! :winking0071:

:laugh:

Who's move of an amateur: the amateur or the amateur who follows him? :tongue0011:

Bonnie
02-27-2010, 03:39 AM
Who's move of an amateur: the amateur or the amateur who follows him? :tongue0011:

:rolleyes:

:laugh:

Btw, it's not "following" unless I'm in the thread at the same time as you. Besides, I choose to look at it as you are behind me....as in....eat'n....my....dust! :tongue0011:

Mark
03-02-2010, 10:17 PM
I am waiting for you to reply. Are you?

I just had a huge reply typed out, with more to type and my browser closed on me causing me to lose everything.:angry: I had well over forty minutes invested in that and due to the browser mishap. I don't know if it is really worth my time trying to address everything in it again because I really doubt that I will change any minds. If you really want me too, I will again take the time to address everything but it won't be tonight. I am a little angry with myself for the mishap and don't want it to come out in my reply.

Thanks for all the input and participation so far.

I am waitimg for a reply, I thought you would have this done over mt vacation.

You said "I think it is a necessity, especially when someone has beliefs(torture) that go completely against the religious beliefs for which they say they stand."
I am waiting for you to reply to your statement. Nice try to put words in my mouth. It doesn't have to be long, make it nice and short.

Buzzard
03-03-2010, 03:18 AM
I am waitimg for a reply, I thought you would have this done over mt vacation.

You said "I think it is a necessity, especially when someone has beliefs(torture) that go completely against the religious beliefs for which they say they stand."
I am waiting for you to reply to your statement. Nice try to put words in my mouth. It doesn't have to be long, make it nice and short.

Since you asked for a reply, I promise that I will, just not tonight. It will be in the next few days when I have the time. While I did make that statement, it wasn't directed towards you, but towards NateR. That statement was written in response to NateR's response to Tyburn's statement. NateR inferred that we should keep the prisoners out of America so we can treat them badly.

Tyburn
03-03-2010, 11:19 AM
Since you asked for a reply, I promise that I will, just not tonight. It will be in the next few days when I have the time. While I did make that statement, it wasn't directed towards you, but towards NateR. That statement was written in response to NateR's response to Tyburn's statement. NateR inferred that we should keep the prisoners out of America so we can treat them badly.
:laugh: I just think you should change the law so your can treat them badly on American Soil :laugh:

Listen...if they are Convicted...then I'm alright with them being stripped of their rights...BUT they do need to go through a Trial first. THATS what I object to at Guantanamo, the fact half of them are not prisoners, but hostages...thats just wrong.

VCURamFan
03-04-2010, 08:38 PM
I choose to look at it as you are behind

Hey, I'm down for whichever position you prefer, just so long as the lady's pleased...:Whistle:

Spiritwalker
03-05-2010, 03:18 AM
Since you asked for a reply, I promise that I will, just not tonight. It will be in the next few days when I have the time. While I did make that statement, it wasn't directed towards you, but towards NateR. That statement was written in response to NateR's response to Tyburn's statement. NateR inferred that we should keep the prisoners out of America so we can treat them badly.

Nate didn't exactly "infer that".. he almost said it out right... and I happen to agree completely.....

Not that I am sucking up... just that 97% of his political views... if more people felt the same.. this country would be better off...

Spiritwalker
03-05-2010, 03:25 AM
:laugh: I just think you should change the law so your can treat them badly on American Soil :laugh:

Fine w/ me...

Listen...if they are Convicted...then I'm alright with them being stripped of their rights...BUT they do need to go through a Trial first.

So if a prisoner is found guilty of a crime.. it's ok to treat them like dirt? Sub Human?.. Is that what I am hearing????

THATS what I object to at Guantanamo, the fact half of them are not prisoners, but hostages...thats just wrong.

Which half??? The half that were caught in act... the know associates of the Al Qaeda? The ones with bomb making materials and maps of the US in their mosques? Be more specific as to which "hostages".. you are talking about

Buzzard
03-05-2010, 04:52 PM
You ask for factual data and give opinions.

:laugh:

Factual data? How about this: It has worked for thousands and thousands of years. lol. I think your professional interrogators were probaly just not good at it.

I am quite aware that I asked for factual data showing that torture provided valuable information.:blink: Unfortunately you couldn’t provide any which is what I figured would happen. Why do you think I made the effort to state that in their opinion(the interrogators) it didn’t provide any valuable information. His professional opinion was based on first hand knowledge and experience, which included actual interrogations. I thought that since I made it clear that it was a professional’s opinion, you would be able to understand the difference. I was quite aware of what I stated and what I asked for. I thought you could understand the difference too. rolleyes:

The professional interrogators weren't mine, they were from our very own armed forces who were highly trained. I do believe that their testimony carries more weight than unprofessional opinion such as yours and mine. Can you show me any facts or professional opinion to validate your claim? Your claim that torture has worked for thousands and thousands of years is not a fact. What proven information came from these thousands of years of torture?

Tyburn, your lust for torture is also disgusting, especially when you try and pretend to be all righteous and above those who don't believe. I would expect scum of the earth Al Qaeda and the likes to condone torture, not civilized people though.

It seems no one want to answer the question of WWJD? Would your Lord and Savior condone torture? Would he condone your blood thirst for torture on a suspect who hasn't had his day in court and been found to actually be guilty of a crime? Mark made a few biblical quotes regarding following laws, yet seems to condone the breaking of laws in order to satisfy a craving for torture. Torture is against our laws. And folks on here have questioned my morality. Priceless.

I've read reports of many folks who were turned in not because they were actually terrorists, but because of feuds and grudges. You think these folks should be tortured too? Where do you stop and at what age do you stop? Are you going to torture a small child because he might know something or have seen something? No wonder our society has gone down the toilet.

Here is a link; in it describes one such incident, not the first one which I originally read. A more thorough search would most likely find many more similar stories.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html

Nate didn't exactly "infer that".. he almost said it out right... and I happen to agree completely.....

Not that I am sucking up... just that 97% of his political views... if more people felt the same.. this country would be better off...

Spiritwalker, I happen to be of the belief that you shouldn't be punished unless convicted of a crime. I am especially against torturing innocent suspects who haven't had their day in court. If they are proven to be and found guilty in a court of law, then they should be punished for their actions, but torture should not be part of the punishment.

I agree with some of NateR's political views, the ones posted here aren't some of them though. I'm all for punishing those found guilty in accordance with our laws and constitution, with the exception of the death penalty. There is a part of me which thinks that some convicted criminals do deserve death, but not as a public policy.

I feel that the death penalty ends the punishment right then and there when the convicted is put to death. It seems like an easy way out, final but easy. Once dead the convicted persons sentence is done and the punishment is over. As some on here believe that if you have accepted God and truly repent for your sins, you will go to heaven, then if the convicted has truly repented and is put to death, doesn't his punishment end at death? Does he not then go to heaven where it's all good?

Sorry for the delay in my response, I had things to take care of and wasn't able to properly respond before now. I'm sure I am missing some of the original points I wanted to address, but this will have to do for now.

Tyburn
03-05-2010, 05:13 PM
:laugh::laugh: Lust for Torture :laugh::laugh: the word your looking for is masochism :rolleyes: but thats not exactly what I was talking about.

Listen to me. The thing that gives you your Rights is called the Law. If you break the Law you can not appeal to the same Law to protect your rights. This means you dont have any rights, and its your fault you dont have them. Now in the case where how you have broken the law may cause the imminent deaths of thousands, then I think it is perfectly warrented to instill a case of Utilitarian Ethics into Prisoner keeping. You simply say that What brings about the best for the most should be done. This applied to the prisoner means the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...and he is the few.

Further more, I also believe that once he has been to trial and been convicted if his crime is serious enough he should be given State Execution. I Think the manner in which he should be kept in the prison should be mainly solitary, a small cell, a hard bed, ZERO mod cons, and a bread based food source with milk or water. He should be kept in chains at all times, and when his time comes to die, which would involve only one appeal, then he should be put to death in a way suitably befitting his crime. This means, forget your lethal Injections and fireing Squads...and bring back the gas chambre or the noose. His death should be a public spectical open for any member of the public to view, as a deterent, and as a means by which Justice is visually seen by all to be appropriated.

FAR from being outrageous, these are the methods most common, and indeed enforced...and indeed suffered by Jesus Christ himself, and the Apostle Martyrs, like Saint Paul....There is a point where if you become TO civilized, you actually find yourself committing gross violations of Justice.

It is not right to spend money on Prisoners, it is not right to le them out early, it is not right to have them waiting to die for years, it is not right to give them a quick and painless death....THAT is NOT civilized behaviour Ironically...and no bloody wonder people committ petty offences to break up the monotony of sleeping on the street vs sleeping and getting free meals in a tax payers institution.

You have no idea what its like to be a believer anyway, so for you to charge anyone with the slightest hint of indecency is not only a misnomer...but a proposterous idiocy :laugh:

You dont let a child guide in planes at the worlds busiest airport, why would you let someone who doesnt have a sound moral basis make any decisions over Justice pertaining to cases of right and wrong :huh:


What would Jesus do? He would distroy cities full of people like you without thinking about it. He would consider you an enemy and he would command his soldiers to kill the whole city, including women and children

..and he would suggest that people who committed offenses against him be beaten to death with large rocks. Before some well meaning twerp points out that Christians are not under Law but Grace...i would remind you that the law not only still applies to us...but to the heathen there is warrented only the offer of Grace which is not theres to claim without taking up the faith...No Faith, No Grace.

Try reading the Psalms Buzzard...and you'll find out what happens, or what is asked of GOD in defending from the enemy

WTF do you know about GOD :huh:
ITyburn, your lust for torture is also disgusting, especially when you try and pretend to be all righteous and above those who don't believe. I would expect scum of the earth Al Qaeda and the likes to condone torture, not civilized people though.

.

Buzzard
03-05-2010, 06:00 PM
:laugh::laugh: Lust for Torture :laugh::laugh: the word your looking for is masochism :rolleyes: but thats not exactly what I was talking about.

Tyburn, if you are going to correct me, at least do it correctly. For you I post the definition of Masochism.


Main Entry: mas·och·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈma-sə-ˌki-zəm, ˈma-zə- also ˈmā-\
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch †1895 German novelist
Date: 1892

1 : a sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object — compare sadism
2 : pleasure in being abused or dominated : a taste for suffering

The words I was looking for were the words I used. You appear to be the masochist on this forum.



Listen to me. The thing that gives you your Rights is called the Law.

No Tyburn, one of the documents that gives each American citizen our rights is our Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to our constitution. Notice the following amendments.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Notice too that there is nothing in it which states that these rights are solely for the American populace.


If you break the Law you can not appeal to the same Law to protect your rights. This means you dont have any rights, and its your fault you dont have them. Now in the case where how you have broken the law may cause the imminent deaths of thousands, then I think it is perfectly warrented to instill a case of Utilitarian Ethics into Prisoner keeping. You simply say that What brings about the best for the most should be done. This applied to the prisoner means the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...and he is the few.

We have this neat little thing here called the presumption of innocence.


Further more, I also believe that once he has been to trial and been convicted if his crime is serious enough he should be given State Execution. I Think the manner in which he should be kept in the prison should be mainly solitary, a small cell, a hard bed, ZERO mod cons, and a bread based food source with milk or water. He should be kept in chains at all times, and when his time comes to die, which would involve only one appeal, then he should be put to death in a way suitably befitting his crime. This means, forget your lethal Injections and fireing Squads...and bring back the gas chambre or the noose. His death should be a public spectical open for any member of the public to view, as a deterent, and as a means by which Justice is visually seen by all to be appropriated.

Ah, your lust for pain and torture again shows through.


FAR from being outrageous, these are the methods most common, and indeed enforced...and indeed suffered by Jesus Christ himself, and the Apostle Martyrs, like Saint Paul....There is a point where if you become TO civilized, you actually find yourself committing gross violations of Justice.

Show me scripture where Jesus condones torture.


It is not right to spend money on Prisoners, it is not right to le them out early, it is not right to have them waiting to die for years, it is not right to give them a quick and painless death....THAT is NOT civilized behaviour Ironically...and no bloody wonder people committ petty offences to break up the monotony of sleeping on the street vs sleeping and getting free meals in a tax payers institution.

Show me the quotes from Jesus where he says it's not right to give a quick and painless death. If you wish to follow the ways of Al Qeada and Saddam Hussein, join up with them, you seem to have a lot in common with them. BTW, it says nothing of that in our constitution.


You have no idea what its like to be a believer anyway, so for you to charge anyone with the slightest hint of indecency is not only a misnomer...but a proposterous idiocy :laugh:

Ah, but there you are once again wrong. I once was, I now am not.


You dont let a child guide in planes at the worlds busiest airport, why would you let someone who doesnt have a sound moral basis make any decisions over Justice pertaining to cases of right and wrong :huh:

Whom are you referring to when you talk of one without a sound moral basis? It seems that you are referring to yourself.


What would Jesus do? He would distroy cities full of people like you without thinking about it. He would consider you an enemy and he would command his soldiers to kill the whole city, including women and children

Show me quotes from Jesus himself where he states this. If this Jesus man were real, he would see that I have a stronger moral base than you.



..and he would suggest that people who committed offenses against him be beaten to death with large rocks. Before some well meaning twerp points out that Christians are not under Law but Grace...i would remind you that the law not only still applies to us...but to the heathen there is warrented only the offer of Grace which is not theres to claim without taking up the faith...No Faith, No Grace.

Did he suggest that everyone kill the prostitute? What was said there again, something like "he who is without sin should cast the first stone?"


Try reading the Psalms Buzzard...and you'll find out what happens, or what is asked of GOD in defending from the enemy

WTF do you know about GOD :huh:

I find it strange that you would use the term WTF in the same sentence with God. You do know that WTF stands for "what the *uck" don't you? Priceless.

I don't feel that I need to know all that much about a mythical figure. You apparently have studied the topic but seem to have missed a lot of the lessons.

Tyburn
03-05-2010, 06:17 PM
1)Tyburn, if you are going to correct me, at least do it correctly. For you I post the definition of Masochism. The words I was looking for were the words I used. You appear to be the masochist on this forum.




2) No Tyburn, one of the documents that gives each American citizen our rights is our Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to our constitution. Notice the following amendments.



3) Notice too that there is nothing in it which states that these rights are solely for the American populace. We have this neat little thing here called the presumption of innocence.


4) Show me scripture where Jesus condones torture.



5) Show me the quotes from Jesus where he says it's not right to give a quick and painless death.



6) Ah, but there you are once again wrong. I once was, I now am not.



7) whom are you referring to when you talk of one without a sound moral basis? It seems that you are referring to yourself.



8) Show me quotes from Jesus himself where he states this. If this Jesus man were real, he would see that I have a stronger moral base than you.




9) Did he suggest that everyone kill the prostitute? What was said there again, something like "he who is without sin should cast the first stone?"



10) I find it strange that you would use the term WTF in the same sentence with God. You do know that WTF stands for "what the *uck" don't you? Priceless.


1) :laugh: Thanks...I had no idea :laugh:

2) The Bill of Rights is part of the Law Buzzard. If you break the Law, you should not be allowed to appeal for THE SAME law to give you rights. If you want your rights dont break the Law. Its not rocket science.

3) Where did I say it was right to torture BEFORE one was condemned by law :huh: Havent you heard why I was in opposition to Guantanamo :huh: because I said they were Hostages rather then prisoners, for Prisoners have been tried and found guilty. No wonder your confused when you dont even listen to me.

4) After you show me the quote where he says torture is abhorent :)
5) How much of Leviticus do you want me to post exactly?
6) No Buzzard. You either ARE or you ARE NOT, you cant be sometimes and sometimes not. Once Saved Always Saved dear chap. If you were saved in the first place then you would still be saved now...and I recognise that as you well know in my centenary blog where I specifically say I have an idea you might have been "religious" at one stage

would you like the link...ohhh...go on...you twisted my arm :laugh:

7) Morals come from GOD...so anyone who is not of GOD strictly speaking does not have a sound basis for which to base their morality of right and wrong.

8) its a Historical fact that he lived...and I assure you that he still lives this day...the fact you despute that alone is lack of faith...ergo unsound moral judgement.

9) Did he tell them to spare the Prostitute? NO, he told them they may stone her, but that he who was blameless may go first.

Then he personally chose to forgive her, telling her not to sin again...and guess what, she then had faith...and so then she had His Grace. No Faith, No Grace Buzzard.

10) I perfer the term Idiosyncratic...When your expecting the Tiger, I give you the Dragon :laugh:

Tyburn
03-05-2010, 06:21 PM
...ohh and when you thought I was gonna spare you the link to my centenary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB_9HFdZXVA

you were wrong :laugh:

Buzzard
03-05-2010, 09:18 PM
1) :laugh: Thanks...I had no idea :laugh:

1. No problem.


2) The Bill of Rights is part of the Law Buzzard. If you break the Law, you should not be allowed to appeal for THE SAME law to give you rights. If you want your rights dont break the Law. Its not rocket science.

2. No, the BoR is part of our Constitution and disagrees with your position. On this you have no legs to stand upon.


3) Where did I say it was right to torture BEFORE one was condemned by law :huh: Havent you heard why I was in opposition to Guantanamo :huh: because I said they were Hostages rather then prisoners, for Prisoners have been tried and found guilty. No wonder your confused when you dont even listen to me.

3. Torture is illegal and immoral regardless of when it is done. No confusion here. I read what you wrote and give you credit for your position about the detainees needing to be charged and tried instead of being incarcerated without due process. Torture at any time is against our laws and Constitution. Did you know that the U.S. tried and convicted people post WW2 for the crime of torture by water-boarding? Look it up. There is no need to sink to their level. We are better than that.


4) After you show me the quote where he says torture is abhorent :)

4. If you can't answer the question, a simple "He never said it" will suffice. Since Jesus was never known to have said "priests shouldn't fondle altar boys", does that mean he would be ok with it?


5) How much of Leviticus do you want me to post exactly?

5. Leviticus was written before Jesus was allegedly born, therefor you can't post anything from it that would have come from Jesus' mouth.


6) No Buzzard. You either ARE or you ARE NOT, you cant be sometimes and sometimes not. Once Saved Always Saved dear chap. If you were saved in the first place then you would still be saved now...and I recognise that as you well know in my centenary blog where I specifically say I have an idea you might have been "religious" at one stage

would you like the link...ohhh...go on...you twisted my arm :laugh:

6. Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
You have no idea what its like to be a believer anyway, so for you to charge anyone with the slightest hint of indecency is not only a misnomer...but a proposterous idiocy

You contradict yourself or are lying, which is it? I was once a believer because of what I was taught. After further review, I realized I was duped and became Agnostic. If it is as you say, "once saved always saved", then I am still saved even though I don't believe. I haven't listened or watched your centenary blog or video, and I doubt that I will. It matters not to me what you have said. As I have said before, I once believed but now I don't.


7) Morals come from GOD...so anyone who is not of GOD strictly speaking does not have a sound basis for which to base their morality of right and wrong.

7. Morals are a construct of man. Religion has used the morals constructed by man in its teachings. It seems that I have a higher moral standard than you because I don't ever condone torture.


8) its a Historical fact that he lived...and I assure you that he still lives this day...the fact you despute that alone is lack of faith...ergo unsound moral judgement.

8. No it isn't. There are suggestions that he existed, but no facts except ones made up by the religious. What human form does he exist in this day? Just because you believe he exists doesn't mean he actually does exist. If I believe that the FSM and Santa exist, do they? One does not need faith to have sound moral judgment as shown by your support of torture.


9) Did he tell them to spare the Prostitute? NO, he told them they may stone her, but that he who was blameless may go first.

Then he personally chose to forgive her, telling her not to sin again...and guess what, she then had faith...and so then she had His Grace. No Faith, No Grace Buzzard.

9. Ah, but he never suggested that everyone kill her, that is if he were ever alive and this event actually happened.


10) I perfer the term Idiosyncratic...When your expecting the Tiger, I give you the Dragon :laugh:

10. Do you believe that your God would approve you using the term "What the F**k" in the same sentence with His name? That doesn't seem like sound moral judgment to me.

Tyburn
03-05-2010, 09:59 PM
2. No, the BoR is part of our Constitution and disagrees with your position. On this you have no legs to stand upon.



3. Torture is illegal and immoral regardless of when it is done. No confusion here. I read what you wrote and give you credit for your position about the detainees needing to be charged and tried instead of being incarcerated without due process. Torture at any time is against our laws and Constitution. Did you know that the U.S. tried and convicted people post WW2 for the crime of torture by water-boarding? Look it up. There is no need to sink to their level. We are better than that.



4. If you can't answer the question, a simple "He never said it" will suffice. Since Jesus was never known to have said "priests shouldn't fondle altar boys", does that mean he would be ok with it?



5. Leviticus was written before Jesus was allegedly born, therefor you can't post anything from it that would have come from Jesus' mouth.



6.

You contradict yourself or are lying, which is it? I was once a believer because of what I was taught. After further review, I realized I was duped and became Agnostic. If it is as you say, "once saved always saved", then I am still saved even though I don't believe. I haven't listened or watched your centenary blog or video, and I doubt that I will. It matters not to me what you have said. As I have said before, I once believed but now I don't.



7. Morals are a construct of man. Religion has used the morals constructed by man in its teachings. It seems that I have a higher moral standard than you because I don't ever condone torture.



8. No it isn't. There are suggestions that he existed, but no facts except ones made up by the religious. What human form does he exist in this day? Just because you believe he exists doesn't mean he actually does exist. If I believe that the FSM and Santa exist, do they? One does not need faith to have sound moral judgment as shown by your support of torture.



9. Ah, but he never suggested that everyone kill her, that is if he were ever alive and this event actually happened.



10. Do you believe that your God would approve you using the term "What the F**k" in the same sentence with His name? That doesn't seem like sound moral judgment to me.

2) so the consitution isnt part of your legal portfolio then?? Besides...I'm not saying what it is...I'm saying how it should be. :)

3) Really?? What if you could prevent a tragidy by doing no permanent damage to an evil person?? Are you REALLY that much of a fool. What...you think your captive is suddenly just going to tell you which building on the National Mall is hiding a Nuke set to go off within the hour?

What would you do...Say "pleeeeeeease" :huh:

You havent time to search one of the buildings, let alone all of them, You havent time to evacuate the Mall let alone the city...and that evil bugger knows where the bomb is hidden.

So Buzzard sits on his arse and watches his countries capital distroyed in moments, all the monuments to the Great Presidents of olde, the Parliament of the United States, billions of tourists, thousands of residents, the entire fixed centre of control for your armed forces.

...and the criminal gets tried, and he gets put on Death Row...and he dies of old age fifty years later.

Buzzard...this is called real life. You dont know how many times your Government might have saved your ass because the tortured an international terrorist. Waterboarding wont kill you...we arent talking the sorts of torture that the spanish inquisition used...if your worried about a Criminals life...dont fear, you kill him, you never find the location of the Bomb.

So you say that I am in league with the terrorist mind frame...yet you are the one defending the guy who might kill everyone.

So if you have a better idea on the analogy above...other then asking politely...you let me know...you give an ulternative, or STFU whilst your Secret Service personnel save you :blink:

4) I didnt say I couldnt answer the question, I asked you to answer mine first.

5) :laugh: Buzzard....Jesus was alive LONG before he was Incarnate. Do you understand the difference, or would you like me to explain it to you :huh:

6) Firstly, you have watched my Centenary Blog, I have PM transcripts that proove it. Dare me to expose YOU as the big liar. Secondly...the portion of the Blog where I speak about you was taken from the Blog in which I went into some detail about who I thought you were.

7) IF Morals were a human construct...then they would be opinions...in which case you dont have a "higher" anything...you just have a difference of opinion. You cant even argue logically on the subject. Morals CANT be opinions Buzzard...and without a definate Right and Wrong, you cant claim that anything is better then anything else...So perhaps if there is no Morals...then MY opinion is higher then yours...Just because you follow the Golden Law...why should everyone else?? What makes your foolish opinion Higher?? Its a question you have no answer for...because in order to proove anything like that you have to have an objective basis for right and wrong. YOU DONT!

8) Who said he was Alive "in Human form" where did I ever say that :huh: Nice try! I know he's alive because he speaks to me. The Psalmist and Christ says over and over that if you dont hear him, its because you dont belong to him.

9) yes he did...He said that the person without sin should throw the first stone.

10) My GOD is slow to Anger, and abundant in Grace. How do you know that he isnt speaking to you through my Words right now. You are Spiritually Blind Buzzard...You dont know GOD

but...he still cares for you, and he still offers you eternal life. He desires that noone is lost. He says so in Ezekiel, and he says we all have a choice, in Deuteronomy...If you want the text I can copy and paste it for you. :)

...oh...and Patience which is a Fruit...is not my Strong point. I didnt pray for any, so I dont know why He has Inflicted you upon me again today :laugh:

Buzzard
03-05-2010, 11:11 PM
2) so the consitution isnt part of your legal portfolio then?? Besides...I'm not saying what it is...I'm saying how it should be. :)

2. Didn't say that or mean for my comment to be taken that way. If it was, my apologies. How it should be is how it is. I certainly don't want you mucking up my Constitution or Bill of Rights.


3) Really?? What if you could prevent a tragidy by doing no permanent damage to an evil person?? Are you REALLY that much of a fool. What...you think your captive is suddenly just going to tell you which building on the National Mall is hiding a Nuke set to go off within the hour?

What would you do...Say "pleeeeeeease" :huh:

You havent time to search one of the buildings, let alone all of them, You havent time to evacuate the Mall let alone the city...and that evil bugger knows where the bomb is hidden.

So Buzzard sits on his arse and watches his countries capital distroyed in moments, all the monuments to the Great Presidents of olde, the Parliament of the United States, billions of tourists, thousands of residents, the entire fixed centre of control for your armed forces.

...and the criminal gets tried, and he gets put on Death Row...and he dies of old age fifty years later.

Buzzard...this is called real life. You dont know how many times your Government might have saved your ass because the tortured an international terrorist. Waterboarding wont kill you...we arent talking the sorts of torture that the spanish inquisition used...if your worried about a Criminals life...dont fear, you kill him, you never find the location of the Bomb.

So you say that I am in league with the terrorist mind frame...yet you are the one defending the guy who might kill everyone.

So if you have a better idea on the analogy above...other then asking politely...you let me know...you give an ulternative, or STFU whilst your Secret Service personnel save you :blink:

Your "what if" scenario is ridiculous for many reason and not worth my time to reply in full to it. Your "what if" scenario isn't what you call "Real Life." No matter how you try to justify it, our laws forbid torture. Get that through your head. Do you not believe that you have to follow the law? Doesn't your good book also tell you this? Do you believe that your good book is wrong in this instance?


4) I didnt say I couldnt answer the question, I asked you to answer mine first.

Then answer it.


5) :laugh: Buzzard....Jesus was alive LONG before he was Incarnate. Do you understand the difference, or would you like me to explain it to you :huh:

Show me Jesus' quote from his mouth in Leviticus. No mumbo jumbo allowed. Please don't explain, I haven't time for fairy tales.


6) Firstly, you have watched my Centenary Blog, I have PM transcripts that proove it. Dare me to expose YOU as the big liar. Secondly...the portion of the Blog where I speak about you was taken from the Blog in which I went into some detail about who I thought you were.

6. I watched 10 seconds of your Centenary video from around the 4 minute mark which you directed me to. That's it. I'll make it easy for you by posting my reply to you.

I'm honored, though you went back on your word and continued talking with me.

Yes, that was my reply in the above quote to you. I don't think watching 10 seconds of a video really counts as watching it, but it's not worth arguing about. I hardly think you have anything which proves me to be a liar. Me saying I'm honored was sarcasm in case you missed it.


7) IF Morals were a human construct...then they would be opinions...in which case you dont have a "higher" anything...you just have a difference of opinion. You cant even argue logically on the subject. Morals CANT be opinions Buzzard...and without a definate Right and Wrong, you cant claim that anything is better then anything else...So perhaps if there is no Morals...then MY opinion is higher then yours...Just because you follow the Golden Law...why should everyone else?? What makes your foolish opinion Higher?? Its a question you have no answer for...because in order to proove anything like that you have to have an objective basis for right and wrong. YOU DONT!

You talk of logic yet bring up fairy tales. There can be morals without religion. Here, read the definition of the word. Notice not one mention about religion.


–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6.
virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7.
of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8.
resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
–noun
9.
the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10.
the embodiment or type of something.
11.
morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.


Take notice of item number 9.


8) Who said he was Alive "in Human form" where did I ever say that :huh: Nice try! I know he's alive because he speaks to me. The Psalmist and Christ says over and over that if you dont hear him, its because you dont belong to him.

8. When speaking of a person, and since you stated "he lives to this day", one would be led to believe that you were talking about a human life. The voices in your head lead me to believe that you are in need of meds.:wink: What do you think of people who say "God told me to do ......"?

How are you using the term "alive"?



9) yes he did...He said that the person without sin should throw the first stone.

9. No, that was not a suggestion that everyone should kill her.


10) My GOD is slow to Anger, and abundant in Grace. How do you know that he isnt speaking to you through my Words right now. You are Spiritually Blind Buzzard...You dont know GOD

but...he still cares for you, and he still offers you eternal life. He desires that noone is lost. He says so in Ezekiel, and he says we all have a choice, in Deuteronomy...If you want the text I can copy and paste it for you. :)

...oh...and Patience which is a Fruit...is not my Strong point. I didnt pray for any, so I dont know why He has Inflicted you upon me again today :laugh:

10. Yeah right. If the stories are true, then he killed thousands upon thousands of babies and children and multitudes of wild and domestic animals because he is slow to anger and abundant in grace. I know he isn't speaking to me because I have caller ID and my phone is off the hook. I'm not spiritually blind, I am reality aware.

No need to copy/paste, I have 2 bibles here if I need to check out references. Thanks for the offer though.

I think you inflicted yourself upon me today.:wink:

Just to make it clear, my responses are not meant to be rude. It's hard to show my dis-belief in less harsh words. I mean no offense and I hope none taken.

Spiritwalker
03-06-2010, 02:08 AM
I find it strange that you would use the term WTF in the same sentence with God. You do know that WTF stands for "what the *uck" don't you? Priceless.

I don't feel that I need to know all that much about a mythical figure. You apparently have studied the topic but seem to have missed a lot of the lessons.


Not that I am the biggest fan of either of you... I was wondering the same thing myself...

Spiritwalker
03-06-2010, 03:26 AM
BTW.....

http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp224/daspiritwalker/image009.jpg

Tyburn
03-06-2010, 11:35 AM
2. Didn't say that or mean for my comment to be taken that way. If it was, my apologies. How it should be is how it is. I certainly don't want you mucking up my Constitution or Bill of Rights.

2) the point is, that the Consitution applies only to American Citizens. My argument is very simple. If you break that consitution why should you still attest to be a Citizen? Citizens follow the rules.

Freeing a criminal from the constraints of being bound by Constitutional Law because breaking that constitution means they are no longer entitled to be saved by that law...its hypocritical to claim sanctuary using the same law you just broke.

That would be the only possible improvement to that document...oh...also, I hasten to add, if your Consitution was perfect in the first place, why did it need any Ammendments...thankfully the majority of them are not really ammendments at all, they are simply detailed clarity on previous points written at the time.

Your "what if" scenario is ridiculous for many reason and not worth my time to reply in full to it. Your "what if" scenario isn't what you call "Real Life." No matter how you try to justify it, our laws forbid torture. Get that through your head. Do you not believe that you have to follow the law? Doesn't your good book also tell you this? Do you believe that your good book is wrong in this instance?

Again, your not listening to my argument. You have to be a citizen for the law to apply. If you are not covered by the law, then what exactly is their stopping torture?? Also...I assure you my "what if" scenario is not ridiculous at all. Your just stupid if you dont think that sort of thing can and does happen.


Show me Jesus' quote from his mouth in Leviticus. No mumbo jumbo allowed. Please don't explain, I haven't time for fairy tales.

I'll show you when I get back from work. I'm on lunch and havent time to waste until later. You have two bibles, go look it up for yourself if your in a hurry :laugh:
You talk of logic yet bring up fairy tales. There can be morals without religion. Here, read the definition of the word. Notice not one mention about religion.

There can be no Morality outside of a Higher Source of right and wrong then your opinion. Me, I've done degree level study in ethics, I know what I'm talking about here. You just have an opinion based on your own foolish notion of right and wrong.

8. When speaking of a person, and since you stated "he lives to this day", one would be led to believe that you were talking about a human life. The voices in your head lead me to believe that you are in need of meds.:wink: What do you think of people who say "God told me to do ......"?

When Speaking of a person?? A person :huh: We were not speaking about just a person. We were speaking about GOD..."one" shouldnt be "led to believe" just anything :laugh:
How are you using the term "alive"?

Alive in the ressurectional Body dwelling in the Heavenly Realm, with influence through His Spirit that indwells the spirit of the believer, living in Unity within a Trinity.

Next Question :laugh:


10. Yeah right. If the stories are true, then he killed thousands upon thousands of babies and children and multitudes of wild and domestic animals because he is slow to anger and abundant in grace. I know he isn't speaking to me because I have caller ID and my phone is off the hook. I'm not spiritually blind, I am reality aware.

Your not only spiritually blind...your also reality UNAWARE...you have the same denial towards Torture that you have towards GOD...your really about as...dumb as they come. (I mean unable in the word Dumb...not thick...I mean you are powerless and you are blind)

No need to copy/paste, I have 2 bibles here if I need to check out references. Thanks for the offer though.

You only need one Buzzard :laugh:

I think you inflicted yourself upon me today.:wink:

Just to make it clear, my responses are not meant to be rude. It's hard to show my dis-belief in less harsh words. I mean no offense and I hope none taken.

What a lot of balls, the whole reason you respond is simply to annoy people on here. if you really meant no offense you wouldnt speak at all. What you think a crudly little disclaimer is going to annull your intention...we arent all as stupid as you think Buzzard

:)

Mark
03-07-2010, 04:09 PM
It seems no one want to answer the question of WWJD? Would your Lord and Savior condone torture? Would he condone your blood thirst for torture on a suspect who hasn't had his day in court and been found to actually be guilty of a crime? Mark made a few biblical quotes regarding following laws, yet seems to condone the breaking of laws in order to satisfy a craving for torture. Torture is against our laws. And folks on here have questioned my morality. Priceless.


but torture should not be part of the punishment.

Proverbs 26
3 A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey,
and a rod for the backs of fools!

Proverbs 23
13 Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.
14 Punish him with the rod
and save his soul from death.

Mathew 18
The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Revelations 9
5They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.


What do you think happens in Hell?

Mark
03-07-2010, 04:20 PM
Exactly what did you mean when you said the word "Priceless".

Tyburn
03-07-2010, 04:23 PM
Exactly what did you mean when you said the word "Priceless".

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3645/mastercard1.gif (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/mastercard1.gif/)

:laugh:

NateR
03-07-2010, 05:19 PM
Since you asked for a reply, I promise that I will, just not tonight. It will be in the next few days when I have the time. While I did make that statement, it wasn't directed towards you, but towards NateR. That statement was written in response to NateR's response to Tyburn's statement. NateR inferred that we should keep the prisoners out of America so we can treat them badly.

As usual, you can only make your arguments by misrepresenting the opinions of those you disagree with. I said that terrorists and enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield and in enemy territory, should be kept out of the US for interrogation.

These men are not American citizens and they want to destroy America, so why should be bring them onto our soil and allow them to lawyer-up, tie up our court system and possibly go free on technicalities? That's not justice and there is no precedent for treating wartime POWs like American citizens, not even when they were American citizens.

And the arguments for waterboarding have nothing to do with bloodlust or sadism. Again, you're making a straw man argument here. The enhanced interrogation methods only exist to withdraw information to aid on the battlefield and information necessary to prevent more 9/11s. Once we've extracted all the information we need from them, then they will get military tribunals, not criminal trials, and be executed or sent back to their countries of origin.

I guess I could take a cue from you and say that you must have been one of those people dancing in the streets and celebrating during 9/11, because you obviously care more about terrorists than you do about the safety of American citizens. Are you offended by that? Well, then maybe you should at least attempt to understand those with a differing point of view before passing judgment on all of us.

Mark
03-09-2010, 01:20 AM
Do I have to wait 2 weeks for Buzzard to reply?

Tyburn
03-09-2010, 01:42 AM
Do I have to wait 2 weeks for Buzzard to reply?

I'm sure he'll reply to you tommorow.....



...its ALWAYS tommorow with him Mark :laugh:

Neezar
03-11-2010, 07:09 PM
I am quite aware that I asked for factual data showing that torture provided valuable information.:blink: Unfortunately you couldn’t provide any which is what I figured would happen. Why do you think I made the effort to state that in their opinion(the interrogators) it didn’t provide any valuable information. His professional opinion was based on first hand knowledge and experience, which included actual interrogations. I thought that since I made it clear that it was a professional’s opinion, you would be able to understand the difference. I was quite aware of what I stated and what I asked for. I thought you could understand the difference too. rolleyes:


I did understand the difference. That is what made it so funny. :laugh:

Buzzard
03-20-2010, 05:34 AM
3) Really?? What if you could prevent a tragidy by doing no permanent damage to an evil person?? Are you REALLY that much of a fool. What...you think your captive is suddenly just going to tell you which building on the National Mall is hiding a Nuke set to go off within the hour?



2) the point is, that the Consitution applies only to American Citizens. My argument is very simple. If you break that consitution why should you still attest to be a Citizen? Citizens follow the rules.

Incorrect in numerous ways.

Again, your not listening to my argument. You have to be a citizen for the law to apply. If you are not covered by the law, then what exactly is their stopping torture?? Also...I assure you my "what if" scenario is not ridiculous at all. Your just stupid if you dont think that sort of thing can and does happen.

Again you are incorrect. Non-citizens in the United States are protected by many of our laws, and by many of the ideas in the CONUS. Our armed forces are under most if not all of our laws even when out of country. Not sure to what extent though.

How do you "know' that this person has the information? How do you "know" the information would be accurate? How would you "know" that the person wasn't just giving you a false statement just to stop the pain? That is why you scenario is stupid and unrealistic.

Show me Jesus' quote from his mouth in Leviticus. No mumbo jumbo allowed. Please don't explain, I haven't time for fairy tales.

I'll show you when I get back from work. I'm on lunch and havent time to waste until later.


I'm still waiting.

What do you think happens in Hell?

Nothing, as I don't believe that there is such a place as Hell?

Mark, none of the proverbs or bible quotations that you posted shows any evidence that Jesus would condone torturing an innocent suspect.

As usual, you can only make your arguments by misrepresenting the opinions of those you disagree with. I said that terrorists and enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield and in enemy territory, should be kept out of the US for interrogation.

Why, so we can torture them? Remember, torture is against the law, and we have tried and convicted people for the crime of water-boarding post WW2.


These men are not American citizens and they want to destroy America, so why should be bring them onto our soil and allow them to lawyer-up, tie up our court system and possibly go free on technicalities? That's not justice and there is no precedent for treating wartime POWs like American citizens, not even when they were American citizens.

Doesn't innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you? As I showed earlier, some of the incarcerated were turned in due to feuds between rival factions.


And the arguments for waterboarding have nothing to do with bloodlust or sadism. Again, you're making a straw man argument here. The enhanced interrogation methods only exist to withdraw information to aid on the battlefield and information necessary to prevent more 9/11s. Once we've extracted all the information we need from them, then they will get military tribunals, not criminal trials, and be executed or sent back to their countries of origin.

Enhanced interrogation is just another word for torture. It has everything to do with bloodlust and sadism. Remember, we the U.S.A. tried and convicted people for the crime of water-boarding post WW2. Are you ok with torturing innocent suspects that haven't been proven guilty of anything?


I guess I could take a cue from you and say that you must have been one of those people dancing in the streets and celebrating during 9/11, because you obviously care more about terrorists than you do about the safety of American citizens. Are you offended by that? Well, then maybe you should at least attempt to understand those with a differing point of view before passing judgment on all of us.

Show me where I have posted anything of the such. You can't. If you read my comments in this thread you will see that I have no problem punishing those found guilty of a crime. Your attempt is leaking water badly. No, I'm not offended at all because my comments prior to your comment show that I am in favor of punishing those found guilty of criminal offenses.

I did understand the difference. That is what made it so funny. :laugh:

I find it funnier that you couldn't provide anything to support your position or to refute mine. :laugh:


Just to make it clear, my responses are not meant to be rude. It's hard to show my dis-belief in less harsh words. I mean no offense and I hope none taken.


What a lot of balls, the whole reason you respond is simply to annoy people on here. if you really meant no offense you wouldnt speak at all. What you think a crudly little disclaimer is going to annull your intention...we arent all as stupid as you think Buzzard

Your ignorance on why I post is unfortunate. If you are so thin-skinned that you are constantly offended by my posts, I suggest then that you don't read them or respond to them. It would be easier than me trying to decipher some of what you say. I don't think anyone on here is stupid, though I don't think that you are the brightest bulb in the box either.

Sorry for the bump. I've been wanting to finish up the replies but haven't found the time lately.