Torture

[RobertUrbanek]

In his recent book tour, former Vice President Dick Cheney vigorously defended waterboarding and said it should be used again “if we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk.�

Waterboarding converted the uplifting ritual of baptism, immersion in water, into its opposite: a ritual of agony and terror. Just as John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus Christ, Dick Cheney, champion of the anti-baptism, may be preparing the way for the Antichrist.

[chris_brown207]

Why didn't you stay in for 20 years and retire? I was in the Air Force for 4 years, and looking back on it now, I wish I had stayed in for 20 years and retired at age 38 with a pension and a working life ahead of me.

I was at 11 years active duty (my college time in NROTC did not count towards retirement back then). I was getting burnt out. I had seen buddies doing multiple tours in the war zone, and had seen and heard first hand some of the inconsistencies from that administration about the reasoning for going in - and then the actual actions and priorities for how the war was carried out. I found myself getting more and more angry, and lashing out - so, like any relationship that turns sour, realized it was probably time to go.

I have become convinced that all American wars since World War II have been mostly unnecessary political adventures and have done America more harm than good. 8 years in Iraq and 10 years in Afghanistan? Unbelievable!

Agreed. I do not know what we will actually be able to look back in 10 years and see what was accomplished. I remember very distinctly being at EOD school in Eglin AFB when the President delivered his address and said were were going into Iraq. I remember taking his words about WMDs at face value, but I also remember distinctly questioning how much his conflicts of interest were affecting the decision (oil, the assassination attempt on his father, and the unfulfilled legacy of not overthrowing Saddam). Of course, in hindsight, we now know that the WMD program was almost completely dismantled - the only remains were skeletal amounts which hadn't yet been dealt with (and a miniscule fraction of the amount the US has remaining even to this day even though we have agreed to dispose of them years and years ago).

Incidentally, I was stationed at Mountain Home AFB south of Boise for about a year. I liked Boise very much.

John

We do training for some of the guys at Mountain Home. Good bunch of guys.

I believe Mountain Home AFB and the units stationed there are very different now than when I was there. I arrived there in July, 1951. The base had just been reopened after World War II and some of the tar-paper barracks were still filled with tumbleweeds, although the flightline was cleared and ready for operation.

I had received aircrew training on B-29 bombers in Texas, but switched to flying on C-119 cargo planes after arriving at Mountain Home. The crew accomodations on the C-119 were much more comfortable! I was assigned to a new unit, the 580th ARC Wing. We had twelve B-29 bombers, four C-119 cargo planes, and four SA-16 amphibians, a very strange mix for a very strange unit. Our Wing was commanded for some time by Col. John "Killer" Kane. He had received the Congressional Medal of Honor for leading the air raids on the Ploesti oil fields in World War II, but had also received much criticism for losing more than half his men in the raid, and it was "understood" that he would never rise above Colonel.
He was a good commander and took no bull from anyone. Later, after moving to Tripoli, I remember flying with him on board as "3rd Pilot" on a flight to Germany. A third pilot was a desk officer who was still on flying status and needed the flying time to qualify for flight pay. I remember him lounging in the co-pilot's seat smoking a cigar and chatting with the crew (including me, a mere Staff Sergeant!)

Those were good times!

Incidentally, what kind of training do you do at Mountain Home?
Are the tumbleweeds gone?

John

If you would like to learn more about what my company does, message me and I will talk more about it.

[East of Eden]

Having been in the military, and had buddies go through SERE training - I can tell you that the "torture" that is used in training is limited in nature. There is never a danger of permanent damage. The use of waterboarding in war is not limited - with recipients going unconscious at times, and I would not be surprised to find even dying during the application.

CIte? We waterboarded three people under supervision, and got valuable intelligence in return. IMHO these people are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

When even John S. McCain - who was an ACTUAL recipient of torture - say we shouldn't be torturing our enemies.... maybe we should listen.

If waterboarding was all McCain was subjected to, he would be in much better condition today. Christopher Hitchens voluntarily subjected himself to it.

You call it torture, I call it the first bath these vermin have had in years. I wouldn't care if we executed them, after them ceased to be useful.

I would much rather listen to advice of someone who has actually been a POW and was tortured then to someone who probably has never even served in the military (Cheney included).

Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and death. Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

As for citing sources as to the condition of prisoners after waterboarding techniques were applied - it would be next to impossible to find credible, and unbiased sources that detail the after effects on actual insurgents that the methods were applied to.

Heck, it wasn't even until years after the wars started that we found out there are secret prisons some of these people are taken to... You can't tell me that they were getting the "SERE" level of torture techniques applied to them.

I remember when I was in school back in the 1940s, we learned all about how wonderful and good and glorious America was, and how evil our enemies were.
What happened to the America we were so proud of back then?

You mean when FDR was executing Germans caught out of uniform within one week?

]Yes, I did my military time during the Korean War. When did you do yours, East of Eden?

I was not able to for physical reasons, but my son just graduated from Ft. Benning and is in Army Airborne school in Ft. Campbell, KY. He is scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan next November. My uncle was a Navy captain and carrier pilot, serving from WWII to Vietnam. He was second in command at Mayport Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, FL and commanding officer at Barber's Point NAS in Hawaii. A cousin was a Marine and another a Navy Lt. and pilot.

[East of Eden]

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Not sure what your point it, but Jesus Christ's offer must be accepted to be valid. Those that refuse it are still dead in their sins.

But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

The background to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, just like we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."

This is regarding how we handle insults, not directions to government police and military.

Nothing, so long as the separation of church and state remains. However, what is the proper position for a Christian to advocate to his government? Should it not be consistent with his faith?

And yet the left goes nuts when Christians work to defeat gay marriage.

Yes, the torture and injustice we imagine that the almighty provides is orders of magnitude worse than what we can achieve in reality.

God is a gentleman, He won't force people to spend eternity with Him. Those who reject Him will get their wish, but they vastly underestimate what that entails. Hell was made for the devil and his angels, IMHO men who end up there will be the special object of demonic rage because although they can't retaliate against God, they will be able to retaliate against the next closest thing: men who are made in His image. God sent His son to die on the cross to prevent us from ending up there, what more do you want Him to do? Force you to believe? Just my opinions here.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

God sent His son to die on the cross to prevent us from ending up there, what more do you want Him to do? Force you to believe? Just my opinions here.

Hmmm.
If a man murdered his own son to cover up his own mistakes, how would he be treated in court today? Even if this story is treated as pure allegory, I am unable to detect any moral principle in it except that of an incompetent, sadistically evil God.

John

[McCulloch]

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Not sure what your point it, but Jesus Christ's offer must be accepted to be valid. Those that refuse it are still dead in their sins.

The point is that the offer of grace was said to have been made while we were still God's enemies.

You call it torture, I call it the first bath these vermin have had in years. I wouldn't care if we executed them, after them ceased to be useful.

But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

The background to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, just like we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."

This is regarding how we handle insults, not directions to government police and military.

This also applies to someone who sues you for your shirt or who forces you to go one mile? Sproul's analysis seems to me to be rationalization rather than applying the plain teaching of the passage.

Nothing, so long as the separation of church and state remains. However, what is the proper position for a Christian to advocate to his government? Should it not be consistent with his faith?

And yet the left goes nuts when Christians work to defeat gay marriage.

Is it consistent with the Christian faith to advocate by force of law the principles of your faith on those who do not believe as you do? We are discussing two somewhat unrelated things. On the one hand, the attitude that a Christian would advocate to his government regarding how criminals should be treated. On the other hand, the regulation of non-criminal behavior, prohibited by your religion but practiced by some who do not share your faith.

Yes, the torture and injustice we imagine that the almighty provides is orders of magnitude worse than what we can achieve in reality.

God is a gentleman, He won't force people to spend eternity with Him. Those who reject Him will get their wish, but they vastly underestimate what that entails. Hell was made for the devil and his angels, IMHO men who end up there will be the special object of demonic rage because although they can't retaliate against God, they will be able to retaliate against the next closest thing: men who are made in His image. God sent His son to die on the cross to prevent us from ending up there, what more do you want Him to do? Force you to believe? Just my opinions here.

The depiction of a god who has fixed a great chasm between those who are in agony in the flame and those who are in Abraham’s bosom is not a gentleman. Just my opinion, but a gentleman would not close the door for an eternity.

[East of Eden]

East of Eden wrote:

God sent His son to die on the cross to prevent us from ending up there, what more do you want Him to do? Force you to believe? Just my opinions here.

Hmmm.
If a man murdered his own son to cover up his own mistakes, how would he be treated in court today? Even if this story is treated as pure allegory, I am unable to detect any moral principle in it except that of an incompetent, sadistically evil God.

John

How is keeping you out of hell sadistic? Very strange. The Jews and Romans murdered Jesus, not God. What mistakes are you talking about?

[East of Eden]

The point is that the offer of grace was said to have been made while we were still God's enemies.

Yes, and that offer of salvation must be accepted to take affect. If God writes you a check, you still have to endorse it.

This also applies to someone who sues you for your shirt or who forces you to go one mile? Sproul's analysis seems to me to be rationalization rather than applying the plain teaching of the passage.

You need to look at the context. Do you really think Jesus would be against the police restraining a criminal?

Is it consistent with the Christian faith to advocate by force of law the principles of your faith on those who do not believe as you do?

So why push your pacifist interpretation of the 'turn the other cheek' passage on people who don't believe as you do?

We are discussing two somewhat unrelated things. On the one hand, the attitude that a Christian would advocate to his government regarding how criminals should be treated. On the other hand, the regulation of non-criminal behavior, prohibited by your religion but practiced by some who do not share your faith.

Homosexual activity was criminal behavior until recently, and may still be in some areas.

The depiction of a god who has fixed a great chasm between those who are in agony in the flame and those who are in Abraham’s bosom is not a gentleman. Just my opinion, but a gentleman would not close the door for an eternity.

The door is closed by those who reject His offer of salvation, not by God.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

The background to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, just like we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."

This is regarding how we handle insults, not directions to government police and military.

This also applies to someone who sues you for your shirt or who forces you to go one mile? Sproul's analysis seems to me to be rationalization rather than applying the plain teaching of the passage.

East of Eden made the same claims about this passage in another thread.* Interestingly enough he has chosen to repeat the claim here instead of defending his initial use of the claim from the challenges made against it there.

* see post 100 of "US Forces fighting Chrisitian Organisation in Uganda." I can't provide a direct link because I am using a proxy to view this site.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

God sent His son to die on the cross to prevent us from ending up there, what more do you want Him to do? Force you to believe? Just my opinions here.

Hmmm.
If a man murdered his own son to cover up his own mistakes, how would he be treated in court today? Even if this story is treated as pure allegory, I am unable to detect any moral principle in it except that of an incompetent, sadistically evil God.

John

How is keeping you out of hell sadistic? Very strange. The Jews and Romans murdered Jesus, not God. What mistakes are you talking about?

No doubt, as a non-believer I simply do not understand the logic and mental processes of Christians.
The Jews and Romans murdered Jesus? God in his full omniscient all-knowing foreknowledge planned and sent Jesus for the deliberate purpose of dying. The Jews and Romans were more powerful than God, so he could not prevent it? By what logic does sending Jesus to suffer and die somehow pardon all the "sinners" who God created with full omniscient foreknowledge that they would sin? This was all planned an eternity in advance as a dog-and-pony show for God's entertainment. By any just criminal law, Christians today who deny that obvious fact and attempt to shield God from guilt are accessories to murder.

Not to mention all the atrocities in the Old Testament either directly committed by God or ordered by him! Beginning with the malicious entrapment of Adam and Eve and the punishment of the entire human race for a trivial infraction deliberately planned and set up by God, then the murders of untold numbers of babies in the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the atrocities and war crimes committed by the Israelites at the direct order of God in the invasion of Canaan, the mass slaughter of its inhabitants, etc, etc, etc. Please don't get me started with the evil God of the Old Testament!

God loves me? I'll take my chances with Lucifer, who first saw and defied God's madness in heaven.

John

[East of Eden]

East of Eden wrote:

God sent His son to die on the cross to prevent us from ending up there, what more do you want Him to do? Force you to believe? Just my opinions here.

Hmmm.
If a man murdered his own son to cover up his own mistakes, how would he be treated in court today? Even if this story is treated as pure allegory, I am unable to detect any moral principle in it except that of an incompetent, sadistically evil God.

John

How is keeping you out of hell sadistic? Very strange. The Jews and Romans murdered Jesus, not God. What mistakes are you talking about?

No doubt, as a non-believer I simply do not understand the logic and mental processes of Christians.
The Jews and Romans murdered Jesus? God in his full omniscient all-knowing foreknowledge planned and sent Jesus for the deliberate purpose of dying. The Jews and Romans were more powerful than God, so he could not prevent it? By what logic does sending Jesus to suffer and die somehow pardon all the "sinners" who God created with full omniscient foreknowledge that they would sin? This was all planned an eternity in advance as a dog-and-pony show for God's entertainment. By any just criminal law, Christians today who deny that obvious fact and attempt to shield God from guilt are accessories to murder.

Not to mention all the atrocities in the Old Testament either directly committed by God or ordered by him! Beginning with the malicious entrapment of Adam and Eve and the punishment of the entire human race for a trivial infraction deliberately planned and set up by God, then the murders of untold numbers of babies in the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the atrocities and war crimes committed by the Israelites at the direct order of God in the invasion of Canaan, the mass slaughter of its inhabitants, etc, etc, etc. Please don't get me started with the evil God of the Old Testament!

God loves me? I'll take my chances with Lucifer, who first saw and defied God's madness in heaven.

John

OK, I'll be interested in seeing how that ends up for you.