OT: Who is accountable for Army's descent into torture?
magilla
*********************
Indeed, of the 98 deaths documented in "Command's Responsibility,"
more than two-thirds were in U.S. custody in places other than Abu
Ghraib. Four years since the first known death, only 12 detainee deaths
have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. For the
torture-related deaths - cases where people were suffocated, beaten to
death, or, as in at least one case, effectively crucified - the highest
sentence anyone has received is five months in jail. Critically, no
officer above the rank of major has been charged in any detainee death.
The system of military justice is supposed to reflect and give force
to America's values, even in wartime. The uninvestigated, unpunished
homicides committed by U.S. personnel against prisoners says a good
deal about what has changed in today's military. It suggests that a
new "anything goes" ethic has replaced the older, morally driven, Army
"values" ethic. In the new ethic, the constraints of law can be set
aside whenever expediency or whim demand. Because there is no
top-driven command accountability for senior officers, there are no
operational boundaries at the bottom of the chain of command. Even if
you get caught, if you have enough rank, it won't matter.
************************
From:
Noone Inparticular
nmp wrote:
> magilla wrote:
>
> >>From the article:
> > *********************
> > Indeed, of the 98 deaths documented in "Command's Responsibility,"
> > more than two-thirds were in U.S. custody in places other than Abu
> > Ghraib. Four years since the first known death, only 12 detainee deaths
> > have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. For the
> > torture-related deaths - cases where people were suffocated, beaten to
> > death, or, as in at least one case, effectively crucified - the highest
> > sentence anyone has received is five months in jail. Critically, no
> > officer above the rank of major has been charged in any detainee death.
> >
> > The system of military justice is supposed to reflect and give force
> > to America's values, even in wartime.
>
You're being ironic....right?
>
> (from the point of view of a cynic, which I am not - most of the time)
Bobby D. Bryant
> magilla wrote:
>
>>>From the article:
>> *********************
>> Indeed, of the 98 deaths documented in "Command's Responsibility,"
>> more than two-thirds were in U.S. custody in places other than Abu
>> Ghraib. Four years since the first known death, only 12 detainee deaths
>> have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. For the
>> torture-related deaths - cases where people were suffocated, beaten to
>> death, or, as in at least one case, effectively crucified - the highest
>> sentence anyone has received is five months in jail. Critically, no
>> officer above the rank of major has been charged in any detainee death.
>>
>> The system of military justice is supposed to reflect and give force
>> to America's values, even in wartime.
>
> And it seems like it is doing a wonderful job, too...
>
> (from the point of view of a cynic, which I am not - most of the time)
There is indeed a discouraging lack of volume to the public outcry.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Geoff
news:1141754726.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Or sarcastic?
Mitch...@aol.com
magilla wrote:
> >From the article:
> *********************
> Indeed, of the 98 deaths documented in "Command's Responsibility,"
> more than two-thirds were in U.S. custody in places other than Abu
> Ghraib. Four years since the first known death, only 12 detainee deaths
> have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. For the
> torture-related deaths - cases where people were suffocated, beaten to
> death, or, as in at least one case, effectively crucified - the highest
> sentence anyone has received is five months in jail. Critically, no
> officer above the rank of major has been charged in any detainee death.
>
> The system of military justice is supposed to reflect and give force
> to America's values, even in wartime.
Well, GW Bush's values but not the average American's values.
Enkidu
news:1MmdnYC2jvueQpDZ...@comcast.com:
Or, sadly, he's being honest. Not my values, but they seem to be the
values of the President and his party.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Hey, just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
-- Homer Simpson
Dan Luke
<Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
I wonder.
Perhaps I am unduly influenced by the benighted cultural circumstances
in which I live, but I have detected exactly zero concern among my
fellow Americans over reports of torture by U. S. soldiers. In fact,
the only time I've heard it mentioned, the comment was to the effect
that the media were traitors for exposing such things.
--
Dan
"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."
--Wm. F. Buckley
John Wilkins
primary indicators of a morally bankrupt government and possibly society that
historians refer to for the next few centuries. You know, like we do for
fascist nations of the past century.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
Matt Silberstein
And it is probably due to my enlightened cultural circumstances, but
that and other horrors of this war are frequently discussed.
>And if we ever see the fall of American dominance, this will be one of the
>primary indicators of a morally bankrupt government and possibly society that
>historians refer to for the next few centuries. You know, like we do for
>fascist nations of the past century.
I really want to get offended by that remark. I can't because it is
all too terribly likely to be accurate, but I want to.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
John Wilkins
liberals (and leftwing fascistic resisters like in Yugoslavia) who are not
covered by the attributes of their "nation". Nations don't have characters,
but institutions like governments, parties, and other organisations
(administrations) do.
The America I know and love (and it is not hard for me to say that there are
aspects of the US I do love) is not the America that condones torture. But you
now have (if not before) a military culture that is entirely contrary to the
principles of rule of law and democracy, aided and encouraged by a government
that is likewise. It seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong
with American democratic structures that permits this sort of behaviour
without public scrutiny. If you want a simple answer, it is in the fact that
Americans are not required to vote as a civic duty. There are many other
things (the failure of American education) that contribute, but if you want a
democracy in which governments are held accountable, you better make sure that
they are so held.
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
...
> The America I know and love (and it is not hard for me to say that there are
> aspects of the US I do love) is not the America that condones torture. But
> you now have (if not before) a military culture that is entirely contrary
> to the > principles of rule of law and democracy, aided and encouraged by a
> government that is likewise.
Actually, I think the military culture is nowhere _near_ as much to blame
as the current government/administration, and its "cultural"/ideological
roots. There was substantial dislike, and some resistance, to the blithe
disregard of supposed American values that was shoved at them -- and one
main reason that resistance was as "futile" as it proved in fact, was
the over-riding value in American military culture in favor of civilian
control of policy.
And no, I _don't_ think things would have been better here if there had
been a military coup in reaction to the horrors. But I _wish_ devoutly
that American had (it does not) the kind of "political conscience" in
its civil and military service that would lead to public, protesting
resignations when that "civilian policy making" is as wrong/evil as it
has proved to be in our current situation. UK, and I suspect the rest
of the Commonwealth has a bit of backbone in that regard that we are
sadly lacking here.
magilla
But most importantly, people have characters.
I for one am not offended by your remark. I reserve my feeling of
offense for the government officials who have brought us to this pass.
However, it would sadden me to no end if there was not something in
future histories that pointed out that we were not always like this.
There was a time- most recently, I think, 1940-1945- when the might of
America wasn't turned toward cowing the weak, but protecting them and
lifting them up. The reconstruction of Japan and the Marshall Plan are
two of the things I wish the USA to be remembered for.
However, this all depends on the failure of the US. I for one do not
plan on letting that happen without some sort of determined resistance.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes neccessary....".
>
> The America I know and love (and it is not hard for me to say that there are
> aspects of the US I do love) is not the America that condones torture. But you
> now have (if not before) a military culture that is entirely contrary to the
We had it before, under Nixon, and Johnson. It comes and goes,
unfortunately. I am not sure there's a way to keep it away permanently.
> principles of rule of law and democracy, aided and encouraged by a government
> that is likewise. It seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong
> with American democratic structures that permits this sort of behaviour
> without public scrutiny.
Here is where we disagree. We are talking about it, aren't we? The
government has resisted tooth and nail, yet the stories are coming out.
Damn, I have more and more respect- and gratitude- for the people who
passed the Freedom of Information Act over here. Is there a comparable
piece of legislation in the UK or Australia (I feel sure there must
be). Anyway, at least part of the story is surfacing. Slow, but it is
coming.
> If you want a simple answer, it is in the fact that
> Americans are not required to vote as a civic duty. There are many other
> things (the failure of American education) that contribute, but if you want a
> democracy in which governments are held accountable, you better make sure that
> they are so held.
I disagree here. We NEVER were required to vote. But it's only
recently, I think, that things have been this bad. No, voting isn't the
issue, nor is it education, since most people, I really believe, are
decent folk. No, the problem is money, pure and simple. The USA has too
damn much of it, and too damn many people want more of it, when they've
already got too damn much of it already. And to get it, they're willing
to damn themselves and too damn many other people.
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
> Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
Chris
And here when I saw you guys responding back and forth, I thought it
had to be a pun cascade. Damn you.
Ray Martinez
"Who is accountable for Army's descent into torture?"
The events of 9-11 ?
In lieu of the persons in question having jubilant glee over the
thought that airplanes were flown into buildings in Manhattan, this
fact makes everything that follows very reasonable. You must remember,
we are apes.
Ray
rupert....@gmail.com
Cite me an instance of a non-human ape practicing torture.
Your opinion that the expression of certain opinions justifies the
torture of the opinion holder is noted.
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
Suddenly, the typical Darwinian reply of pointing out that we are apes
is not applicable. We know the dominant breeding male among a group of
apes will viciously kill every young ape that he did not sire. If this
is not torture then I don't know what is.
There is no torture going on if the context of 911 is not forgotten.
Harsh treatment of POW's is deserved and comes with war. Concern over
these things shows how immoral the world has become. I am not impressed
with your pseudo-morality.
Ray
Ken Rode
Perhaps if you consulted a dictionary from time to time:
Main Entry: torture
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past
participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German
drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or
pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or
wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING
What certain members of the army has been doing corresponds to
definition #2, while whatever it is that non-human great apes might do
does not correspond to definition #2. What you do, Ray, corresponds to
definition #3.
> There is no torture going on if the context of 911 is not forgotten.
> Harsh treatment of POW's is deserved and comes with war. Concern over
> these things shows how immoral the world has become. I am not impressed
> with your pseudo-morality.
I can't quite believe what I've just read. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
are you saying that it is perfectly moral to treat POWs badly, even to
the point of torturing them? If there was ever any doubt, Ray, I have
serious doubts that you are any form of Christian whatsoever. I didn't
realize that your hatred of the world and of yourself was this bad. I'm
very sorry for that...
<newsgroups trimmed>
Marc
As an American expat now with 25 years down under behind me,
I must say I agree with you 100%.
In recent weeks, I have watched a couple of episodes of "West Wing"
and of "The Commander in Chief" (which just started here), and the
thing that keeps striking me is just how bad a president Bush is
in real life. I just cannot see him making informed decisions like
the hollywood scripts do for these shows, and he has ALWAYS
been such a poor speaker... maybe it was the alcohol, maybe
Yale has a lot to answer for... George Bush cannot read a passage
of prose without stopping at the wrong places and breaking up
phrases that should be held together. He seems to be able to
manage about six words - maybe even seven - of retention.
I've decided to watch those two shows - maybe even get some of
the earlier West Wing on DVD, because they strike me as what
we SHOULD have in the white house, as compared with what we have.
(signed) marc
.
John Wilkins
> In article <dulbkh$2lg3$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>> The America I know and love (and it is not hard for me to say that there are
>> aspects of the US I do love) is not the America that condones torture. But
>> you now have (if not before) a military culture that is entirely contrary
>> to the > principles of rule of law and democracy, aided and encouraged by a
>> government that is likewise.
>
> Actually, I think the military culture is nowhere _near_ as much to blame
> as the current government/administration, and its "cultural"/ideological
> roots. There was substantial dislike, and some resistance, to the blithe
> disregard of supposed American values that was shoved at them -- and one
> main reason that resistance was as "futile" as it proved in fact, was
> the over-riding value in American military culture in favor of civilian
> control of policy.
I don't think *all* the military share that culture. But clearly enough do
that this behavior is not being stopped.
>
> And no, I _don't_ think things would have been better here if there had
> been a military coup in reaction to the horrors. But I _wish_ devoutly
> that American had (it does not) the kind of "political conscience" in
> its civil and military service that would lead to public, protesting
> resignations when that "civilian policy making" is as wrong/evil as it
> has proved to be in our current situation. UK, and I suspect the rest
> of the Commonwealth has a bit of backbone in that regard that we are
> sadly lacking here.
>
Military coups rarely improve things. The Commonwealth has had its share of
those (a recent one being in Fiji, which has basically wrecked the body
politic). But I think that the politically-subordinate professionalism of
Commonwealth armed forces tends to be, at present and in some nations at any
rate, a brake on such abuses. It is a matter of degree.
Also, some Commonwealth armed forces are being corrupted by association with
American forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsehwere.
John Wilkins
We do have FOI, but that isn't where most of the leaks come in Australia.
Instead it comes from families of troops, the troops themselves, and the
civilian public service. And the public scrutiny is quite sporadic and recent,
isn't it? Did Abu Ghraib become a scandal because it was properly scrutinised
by Congress? Or because it got leaked into the papers?
>
>> If you want a simple answer, it is in the fact that
>> Americans are not required to vote as a civic duty. There are many other
>> things (the failure of American education) that contribute, but if you want a
>> democracy in which governments are held accountable, you better make sure that
>> they are so held.
>
> I disagree here. We NEVER were required to vote. But it's only
> recently, I think, that things have been this bad. No, voting isn't the
> issue, nor is it education, since most people, I really believe, are
> decent folk. No, the problem is money, pure and simple. The USA has too
> damn much of it, and too damn many people want more of it, when they've
> already got too damn much of it already. And to get it, they're willing
> to damn themselves and too damn many other people.
In nations where voting is compulsory, governments tend to be less extreme. At
least, that is the experience in Australia, where it is strictly enforced and
there are other safeguards in place against political corruption.
>
>> --
>> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
>> University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
>> Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
>
> Chris
>
> And here when I saw you guys responding back and forth, I thought it
> had to be a pun cascade. Damn you.
>
Forearmed is forwarned.
Ray Martinez
Ken:
You have revealed yourself a dingbat.
911 gives us the right to do as we please. Whatever treatment these
POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
Towers.
There is no torture. It is called justice in the theatre of war.
Atheist scum like you and the ACLU are without one drop of morality.
Your idiotic "sense" of right and wrong is criminal. Atheist belief
that I am not a Christian proves I am.
Education proves that morality does not come with it. Nazi Germany was
the most educated nation in history and they committed the Holocaust.
Atheists are known to be educated, yet how would one explain their view
of the Army ?
It is atheist European university elites who provide the moral
rationale for Muslim murdercide bombings. Whats the difference between
skin heads and European elites ? One has an education. They are so
happy someone else is killing Jews beside them.
We will kill and hurt whoever we want - 911 gives us the right. Your
kind will continue to do the same with words which empower Muslim thugs
you hypocrite.
Ray
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Bullshit - Pat Tillman was an atheist.
>
> It is atheist European university elites who provide the moral
> rationale for Muslim murdercide bombings. Whats the difference between
> skin heads and European elites ? One has an education. They are so
> happy someone else is killing Jews beside them.
>
> We will kill and hurt whoever we want - 911 gives us the right. Your
> kind will continue to do the same with words which empower Muslim thugs
> you hypocrite.
>
> Ray
>
--
Freeper:
"We need to change the law and make it legal to hunt liberals with dogs. "
Me:
I understand you are being flippant, but you are coming across as stupid.
Freeper:
I wasn't being flippant. I mean it.
AC
Perhaps Mohammed appeared before them in Cairo and told them to do it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Tom McDonald
Thousands, Ray; and more in the Pentagon.
You know, Ray, had you been born a few thousand miles to the east or
west, and kept your personal proclivities, *you* would have been one of
those expressing glee over the fall of the towers and the destruction
of part of the Pentagon. You would have done that, not because you were
born evil, but because you would have learned by heart the litany of
horrors perpetrated on your people, your fellow Muslims, and the poor
of the earth, by the Great Satan--the United States of America.
You would have been glad that someone finally stood up to the US and
said, 'You shall reap what you have sown.' You would have been in the
streets, perhaps with your Kalashnikov firing into the sky, chanting
'Death to America.' You would have thought that, while it would be
better to kill American soldiers, the suffering you and others you
cared about gave you the *right* to do as you pleased.
But you were born here. You weren't raised Muslim, but some form of
Christian. The people killed on that day were overwhelmingly
English-speaking Americans. So you applaud the dehumanizing and killing
of people whom it is our sacred duty, both by international law (that
*we* were instrumental in forging), and more importantly by our
national soul, to hold safe and treat fairly. You would hand the
terrorists a victory that they could never win on their own. You would
have us become them.
You may not understand this. More than likely, you will explain to me
how I am an atheist Darwinist of whom nothing more than foolishness
could be expected. You will be wrong. It is your soul in the hazard,
Ray. I pray you turn to the God you say you follow, and turn from this
evil.
<snip>
> Atheist belief
> that I am not a Christian proves I am.
Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord'... I am a Christian, Ray. I say you
are a Christian, as you have said that you are. I say you are a poor
Christian, and need desperately to turn from your wickedness and live.
I pray you can loose the chains of hatred that you have allowed
yourself to be bound with, and find the freedom of God.
<snip>
> We will kill and hurt whoever we want - 911 gives us the right. Your
> kind will continue to do the same with words which empower Muslim thugs
> you hypocrite.
Ray, I am an enemy of the terrorists who want to destroy my nation, and
my way of life. I respect the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and
coastguardsmen who are taking the fight to the enemy. I have a weapon,
and am completely prepared to use it if terrorists bring the war to me.
I am so much an enemy of those terrorists that I am not willing to hand
them an easy victory. I won't hand them the soul of our nation by
condoning torture, for any purpose. I won't let them gloat over us
trading our rights for an illusory security, but will fight to return
us to the honor and power in the service of human rights and freedoms
and responsibilities that I believe is our destiny. I won't allow other
Americans, twisted by hatred or pain or politics, to throw away
everything that makes this nation precious to me and my family.
And that is America talking.
Bobby D. Bryant
> 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
According to what law, or what system of ethics?
Bobby D. Bryant
> The America I know and love (and it is not hard for me to say that
> there are aspects of the US I do love) is not the America that
> condones torture. But you now have (if not before) a military
> culture that is entirely contrary to the principles of rule of law
> and democracy, aided and encouraged by a government that is
> likewise. It seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong
> with American democratic structures that permits this sort of
> behaviour without public scrutiny. If you want a simple answer, it
> is in the fact that Americans are not required to vote as a civic
> duty. There are many other things (the failure of American
> education) that contribute, but if you want a democracy in which
> governments are held accountable, you better make sure that they are
> so held.
Basically, the USA isn't mature enough to operate as a democracy any
more than Iraq or the Palestinian Authority is.
You not only need traditions of civic responsibility and the rule of
law, you need people who care about more than "who's going to do what
for me". So long as we keep voting for whoever promises the best
tax cuts and "get tough on X" stance, there's nothing to slow the
slide into fascism.
Michael Siemon
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
...
> > 911 gives us the right to do as we please. Whatever treatment these
> > POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
> > hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
> > Towers.
>
> Thousands, Ray; and more in the Pentagon.
Tom, I understand your rhetorical thrust, but I think you are (in
aid of that) doing a substantial mischaracterization of Muslims,
at least those I have known. But let me try to recast some part of
what you want to get across to Ray.
Somewhere over a thousand American soldiers have died in Iraq, plus
"off-the-books" mercenaries we can cynically avoid counting. And
many more thousands of Iraqis have also died -- despite Iraq having
_nothing_ to do with the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks. Any of the Iraqi
prisoners we have killed, maimed, or merely totally humiliated are
hapless victims of an incredibly stupid bit of misdirection and
spin, all in aid of off-the-wall fantasizing by a bunch of morons
operating without any kind of check on their stupidities. Large
numbers of Afghanis are also suffering for no very good reason,
though Taliban complicity with al-Qaida gives some _small_ trace
of justification for retaliation against _them_ (a tiny minority
of Afghanis, most of whom pursue age-old tribal vendettas and
agendas without much if any reference to Taliban politics or any
bin Laden connection. And with little or no respect for American
sensitivities in what they continue to do today in Afghanistan.)
We have incarcerated, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo,
and in scattered "secret" prisons around the world, untold numbers
(because this administration will never admit _anything_, so the
numbers may never be known) of folks dragged in for little or no
reason other than suspicions that could be no more than ancient
hatreds by some bozo who had the ear of an ignorant American in
a position of power. And there is an ABSOLUTE refusal to allow
the slightest trace of due process to even begin to sort out the
mess this stupidity has created. Because we have an administration
that cannot even imagine that it could possibly make a mistake about
anything at all -- despite all evidence of total fuck up in every
thing they do. In everything they have _ever_ done, except for
shoving money at cronies, and sucking it up for themselves.
We have decide that torture is fine, as long as _we_ do it, and as
long as (mostly) the victims don't die from it. And of course no
one can review this to check and maybe vainly, after the fact, hope
to make redress of mistakes. (After all, this administration CANNOT
make mistakes, right?)
We have Americans running around _eagerly_, _happily_ even, giving
up every trace of what the Bill of Rights is supposed to be about,
every thing that the Revolution was fought for, every smidgeon of
universal humanity, in order to pursue "vengeance" against a not
even identified enemy. There are a bunch of rather nasty criminals
out there, operating from megalomaniac/paranoid "religious" dogmas
(of which we have too many here in the USA, already, dammit), but
we are NOT led, by a cool and competent administration, in the long
struggle to deal with these criminals. Instead, we are egged into
a "war" with no identifiable enemy, no criteria for victory, and --
to the delight of the political manipulators, therefore -- no way
to say that the war is _ever_ going to be over, and hence our
fucking "leaders" think they can do ANYTHING they want, with NO
limits or checks on their moronic destruction of the nation I love.
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
>
> According to what law, or what system of ethics?
>
John Wilkins
tradition of republicanism (the real one, not the name-only brand*), and that
has mostly seen you through what would otherwise have led to fascism. But the
number of republicans per capita has dropped down to the minimum critical
mass. Much more of a slide and you will go there definitely, and then be
replaced by an equally strident alternative (which may or may not be a social
democrat style socialism). It's as if real democracy is an unstable equilibrium.
* Like "democrat", "liberal", and "conservative", "republican" has been
devalued by marketing.
Dan Luke
"John Wilkins" wrote:
There is a popular American tv series called "24" in which the hero is a
government counter-terrorist agent. In a recent episode, this agent
shot an innocent woman in the leg in an attempt to force her husband to
reveal information. Torture is a well used tool in his bag of tricks,
and, apparently, by the moral code of U. S. popular entertainment at
least, is acceptable behavior for good guys fighting terrorism.
--
Dan
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
- George W. Bush
Bobby D. Bryant
> There is a popular American tv series called "24" in which the hero
> is a government counter-terrorist agent. In a recent episode, this
> agent shot an innocent woman in the leg in an attempt to force her
> husband to reveal information. Torture is a well used tool in his
> bag of tricks, and, apparently, by the moral code of U. S. popular
> entertainment at least, is acceptable behavior for good guys
> fighting terrorism.
Also, in all the law enforcement shows now in vogue, hardly an episode
goes by without a warrantless search. Of course, it always turns up
evidence proving the property owner's guilt, so that must make it OK.
Marc
Having just watched a half hour of "Cops", I must say
I always like the line "we're just going to handcuff you for
your own protection".... as if!
(note also that I liked "24" but my wife gave up after
the second series)
(signed) marc
Tom McDonald
Michael Siemon wrote:
> In article <1141796012.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> ...
>
> > > 911 gives us the right to do as we please. Whatever treatment these
> > > POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
> > > hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
> > > Towers.
> >
> > Thousands, Ray; and more in the Pentagon.
>
> Tom, I understand your rhetorical thrust, but I think you are (in
> aid of that) doing a substantial mischaracterization of Muslims,
> at least those I have known.
If you took what I wrote as an attack on Islam, or Muslims as a whole,
I apologize for not being clearer. What I wrote above was intended to
correct one of Ray's mistakes, nothing more.
To be clear: I believe that the terrorists who flew planes into
buildings, and the ones who wanted to but were prevented, represent
Islam to the same extent that Ray represents Christianity. In both
cases, there is a very small group of core of zealots, embedded within
a far larger group of people who share their feelings, but not their
methods; all subsumed within a billion or two co-religionists who are
aghast at what these zealots say and do.
I respect Islam, and Muslims generally. What I wrote was in no way
intended to slam the religion or the vast majority of its adherents.
When I wrote 'terrorists' I meant to refer to the vanishingly small
percentage of Muslims (and perhaps even others) who have declared war
on my country.
As to the rest of what you wrote, I am also in full agreement.
<snip>
Ken Rode
This is as close to the definition of "amoral" as I've ever seen you write.
> Whatever treatment these
> POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
> hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
> Towers.
>
> There is no torture. It is called justice in the theatre of war.
Sounds like you've got your newspeak in place.
> Atheist scum like you and the ACLU are without one drop of morality.
> Your idiotic "sense" of right and wrong is criminal. Atheist belief
> that I am not a Christian proves I am.
Your statement below ("We will kill and hurt whoever we want") is
criminal, Ray.
It must be so easy for you to be a Christian, mustn't it, Ray? The Bible
is full of all of these examples of Christ doing and saying things, and
he does this to highlight the fact that nobody else can possibly live up
to his standard. And if you can't live up to that standard, well then,
there's little point in even trying, eh, Ray?
Your mind is capable of producing a circular argument so small and tight
that its a wonder that your brain doesn't implode.
> Education proves that morality does not come with it. Nazi Germany was
> the most educated nation in history and they committed the Holocaust.
> Atheists are known to be educated, yet how would one explain their view
> of the Army ?
>
> It is atheist European university elites who provide the moral
> rationale for Muslim murdercide bombings. Whats the difference between
> skin heads and European elites ? One has an education. They are so
> happy someone else is killing Jews beside them.
>
> We will kill and hurt whoever we want - 911 gives us the right. Your
> kind will continue to do the same with words which empower Muslim thugs
> you hypocrite.
Ray, you are an amoral child. You operate without the need for a
functional brain, reacting emotionally instead of thinking your way
through problems.
> Ray
>
SeppoP
What is the difference between "Muslim thugs" (religious fanatics professing to be adherents of Islam) and religious
fanatics (professing to be christians) like you?
(other than the fact that those religious fanatics in Afghanistan were more easily targeted with JDAM's
than the religious fanatics in the US.. You *are* kissing cousins, after all).
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Dan Luke
"Ray Martinez" wrote:
>
> 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
> Atheist scum like you and the ACLU are without one drop of morality.
Wow.
Dan Luke
"Marc" wrote:
> (note also that I liked "24"
Well, I was just channel surfing and happened to land there for a
minute...yeah, that's it.
Robert Weldon
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141788037.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
That is not torture. And do you have any cites on this, I have never heard
of this in apes. I know dominant lions will kill cubs when they take over a
pride, but this is to get the females to go into heat.
>
> There is no torture going on if the context of 911 is not forgotten.
> Harsh treatment of POW's is deserved and comes with war. Concern over
> these things shows how immoral the world has become. I am not impressed
> with your pseudo-morality.
>
> Ray
No, concern over these things is a very good indicator of how moral most
people are. It's people like you that are showing immoral tendancies,
strange, coming from one who *claims* to be a christian.
I am not impressed with your grasp of reality, or sanity.
Robert Weldon
>
> Ken Rode wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>magilla wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>From the article:
>> >>>>*********************
It is statements like the above that make me glad that you and your type are
not in a position of power. Atheism has nothing to do with this, and the
ACLU is not atheist. Your actions suggest you are not a christian, not
atheist belief. You are a seriously deranged, morally degenerate, dangerous
fundoid loon.
magilla
I believe chimps do this, but not bonobos (or humans). And it isn't
torture.
> >
> > There is no torture going on if the context of 911 is not forgotten.
> > Harsh treatment of POW's is deserved and comes with war. Concern over
> > these things shows how immoral the world has become. I am not impressed
> > with your pseudo-morality.
> >
> > Ray
>
> No, concern over these things is a very good indicator of how moral most
> people are. It's people like you that are showing immoral tendancies,
> strange, coming from one who *claims* to be a christian.
>
> I am not impressed with your grasp of reality, or sanity.
He's scary, it's true.
Chris
Ernest Major
<rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> writes
>> Suddenly, the typical Darwinian reply of pointing out that we are apes
>> is not applicable. We know the dominant breeding male among a group of
>> apes will viciously kill every young ape that he did not sire. If this
>> is not torture then I don't know what is.
>
>
>That is not torture. And do you have any cites on this, I have never
>heard of this in apes. I know dominant lions will kill cubs when they
>take over a pride, but this is to get the females to go into heat.
Infanticide turns up in a number of primate species, though I'm not sure
that there's a species in which it is as systematic as Ray claims. I'm
fairly sure that it's not universal. You can turn up some cites via
Google - or least I was able to last time this came up.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 03/03/2006
Mark Isaak
<rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote:
>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141792973.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>[...]
>> We will kill and hurt whoever we want - 911 gives us the right. Your
>> kind will continue to do the same with words which empower Muslim thugs
>> you hypocrite.
>>
>> Ray
>
>It is statements like the above that make me glad that you and your type are
>not in a position of power.
Um, people like Ray *are* in power, at least in the U.S. "We will
kill and hurt whoever we want" is a perfect description of Bush's war
on Iraq.
>Atheism has nothing to do with this, and the
>ACLU is not atheist. Your actions suggest you are not a christian, not
>atheist belief. You are a seriously deranged, morally degenerate, dangerous
>fundoid loon.
Ray is as far from being Christian as it is possible to get.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Michael Siemon
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Siemon wrote:
> > In article <1141796012.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > > 911 gives us the right to do as we please. Whatever treatment these
> > > > POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
> > > > hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
> > > > Towers.
> > >
> > > Thousands, Ray; and more in the Pentagon.
> >
> > Tom, I understand your rhetorical thrust, but I think you are (in
> > aid of that) doing a substantial mischaracterization of Muslims,
> > at least those I have known.
>
> If you took what I wrote as an attack on Islam, or Muslims as a whole,
> I apologize for not being clearer. What I wrote above was intended to
> correct one of Ray's mistakes, nothing more.
Thanks for clarifying that for me; I'm afraid I over-read what
you wrote.
rupert....@gmail.com
> is not applicable. We know the dominant breeding male among a group of
> apes will viciously kill every young ape that he did not sire. If this
> is not torture then I don't know what is.
Then you don't know much. Not every execution is torture. It may be
murder, and in humans we would deplore such behaviour, but the intent
is obviously to kill, rather than just to cause pain.
Humans are apes, but we are smart apes, and we are capable of
recognizing our common interest beyond our direct family (Bob Kolker
excepted). Some of us are actually able to recognize that we should not
cause unnecessary suffering to any sentient creature. Others believe we
were given dominion over the earth and all the creatures in it, and
that excuses all manner of bad behaviour.
You must really miss the Inquisition, huh?
Shane
Something tells me that Ray's magnum opus is not going well. Maybe
Ray's brief flirtation with actual evidence yesterday opened his eyes
to all the other evidence he was ignoring. Or am I being too fanciful.
Ray Martinez
Here we have a so called educated person winking at 911 from the
comfort of his non-existent utopianistic ideological fantasy world.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> You must really miss the Inquisition, huh?
>
> >
> > There is no torture going on if the context of 911 is not forgotten.
> > Harsh treatment of POW's is deserved and comes with war. Concern over
> > these things shows how immoral the world has become. I am not impressed
> > with your pseudo-morality.
> >
> > Ray
The atheist mass murder of hundreds of millions of persons in the 20th
century can never be whitewashed. Soviet Union, China, Thailand,
Vietnam, East Bloc nations = what atheists did to stay in power =
murder christians.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Tom McDonald wrote:
> Michael Siemon wrote:
> > In article <1141796012.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > > 911 gives us the right to do as we please. Whatever treatment these
> > > > POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
> > > > hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
> > > > Towers.
> > >
> > > Thousands, Ray; and more in the Pentagon.
> >
> > Tom, I understand your rhetorical thrust, but I think you are (in
> > aid of that) doing a substantial mischaracterization of Muslims,
> > at least those I have known.
>
> If you took what I wrote as an attack on Islam, or Muslims as a whole,
> I apologize for not being clearer. What I wrote above was intended to
> correct one of Ray's mistakes, nothing more.
>
> To be clear: I believe that the terrorists who flew planes into
> buildings, and the ones who wanted to but were prevented, represent
> Islam to the same extent that Ray represents Christianity.
The evil hate of typical atheism equating 911 cowards with anyone who
disagrees = could one expect an atheist, who happens to own a cross,
say anything else ?
Tom is not mentally unstable - just plain evil. Anyone who would rob
God of Creator credit via apes = their 911 comment above is explained.
Ray
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
<...>
> Ken:
>
> You have revealed yourself a dingbat.
>
> 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
What kind of idiot you must be to even suggest that?
> Whatever treatment these
> POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
> hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
> Towers.
>
> There is no torture. It is called justice in the theatre of war.
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's now painfully obvious
you're as clueless about the military as you are about science. You
insult every person serving honorably by suggesting they all fall into
your perverted definition of right and wrong.
> Atheist scum like you and the ACLU are without one drop of morality.
> Your idiotic "sense" of right and wrong is criminal.
This from someone who advocates torture of human beings? Hypocrite.
> Atheist belief
> that I am not a Christian proves I am.
Your own words above prove that you are anything but a Christian.
> Atheists are known to be educated, yet how would one explain their view
> of the Army ?
It's something you're incapable of recognizing: morals.
I've read enough hate mongering for one day. Ray, you are disgusting.
Marc
When you die, your life will be over. Only then will you find out
that there is no afterlife and you had no soul that can live on, except
you'll be dead and not aware that you will now know this, ape.
The bad news - no heaven, the good news - no hell. Life will just
be "over" for your particular physical being, ape. The progeny that
you have contributed to the production of may carry your genes
along and what you have written here on usenet may last for some
time to be seen by others in the future who will wonder at just how
stupid a smart ape like you could be.
What is it like when you are asleep, between dreams? Get used to it.
(signed) marc
.
VoiceOfReason
Shane wrote:
<...>
> Something tells me that Ray's magnum opus is not going well. Maybe
> Ray's brief flirtation with actual evidence yesterday opened his eyes
> to all the other evidence he was ignoring. Or am I being too fanciful.
He's having a hard time figuring out how Atlantis fits in to Genesis.
Ray Martinez
Defense of 911 Muslim murder/hate by a christian-hating atheist.
> > Whatever treatment these
> > POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
> > hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
> > Towers.
> >
> > There is no torture. It is called justice in the theatre of war.
>
> Sounds like you've got your newspeak in place.
>
> > Atheist scum like you and the ACLU are without one drop of morality.
> > Your idiotic "sense" of right and wrong is criminal. Atheist belief
> > that I am not a Christian proves I am.
>
> Your statement below ("We will kill and hurt whoever we want") is
> criminal, Ray.
>
Decent people know what a nut your kind are, Ken. Killing people who
ram airplanes into buildings is moral, right, and necessary. Your
comment is ad hoc/hate of Creationist no matter what, since you know
what I say is self-evidently true.
> It must be so easy for you to be a Christian, mustn't it, Ray? The Bible
> is full of all of these examples of Christ doing and saying things, and
> he does this to highlight the fact that nobody else can possibly live up
> to his standard. And if you can't live up to that standard, well then,
> there's little point in even trying, eh, Ray?
>
> Your mind is capable of producing a circular argument so small and tight
> that its a wonder that your brain doesn't implode.
>
> > Education proves that morality does not come with it. Nazi Germany was
> > the most educated nation in history and they committed the Holocaust.
> > Atheists are known to be educated, yet how would one explain their view
> > of the Army ?
> >
> > It is atheist European university elites who provide the moral
> > rationale for Muslim murdercide bombings. Whats the difference between
> > skin heads and European elites ? One has an education. They are so
> > happy someone else is killing Jews beside them.
> >
> > We will kill and hurt whoever we want - 911 gives us the right. Your
> > kind will continue to do the same with words which empower Muslim thugs
> > you hypocrite.
>
> Ray, you are an amoral child. You operate without the need for a
> functional brain, reacting emotionally instead of thinking your way
> through problems.
>
> > Ray
> >
Your comment is easily explained when one remembers an atheist wrote
it.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist
Ray Martinez
VoiceOfReason wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > Ken:
> >
> > You have revealed yourself a dingbat.
> >
> > 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
>
> What kind of idiot you must be to even suggest that?
>
What kind of person would dismiss the severity of 911 ?
Answer: a lunatic atheist military hating ACLU moron grinding his hate
America axe at the expense of 911 victims.
> > Whatever treatment these
> > POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
> > hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
> > Towers.
> >
> > There is no torture. It is called justice in the theatre of war.
>
> You have no idea what you're talking about. It's now painfully obvious
> you're as clueless about the military as you are about science. You
> insult every person serving honorably by suggesting they all fall into
> your perverted definition of right and wrong.
>
An atheist defending 911 evil for his Democratic Party/Darwinistic
agenda.
> > Atheist scum like you and the ACLU are without one drop of morality.
> > Your idiotic "sense" of right and wrong is criminal.
>
> This from someone who advocates torture of human beings? Hypocrite.
>
Punishing 911 cohorts is our right. You are an empty headed enraged
lunatic.
> > Atheist belief
> > that I am not a Christian proves I am.
>
> Your own words above prove that you are anything but a Christian.
>
> > Atheists are known to be educated, yet how would one explain their view
> > of the Army ?
>
> It's something you're incapable of recognizing: morals.
>
> I've read enough hate mongering for one day. Ray, you are disgusting.
Hate-card = atheist way admitting they must attempt to poison the well
due to the inability to refute or argue anything logical.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> To be clear: I believe that the terrorists who flew planes into
>> buildings, and the ones who wanted to but were prevented, represent
>> Islam to the same extent that Ray represents Christianity.
>
> The evil hate of typical atheism equating 911 cowards with anyone who
> disagrees
Ray, he's not equating "anyone who disagrees" with the Islamic millitants,
he's equating you, and your expressions of hate.
>= could one expect an atheist, who happens to own a cross,
> say anything else ?
Tom is not an atheist, and no amount of name calling makes him one. You
don't get to decide what other people beleive.
>
> Tom is not mentally unstable - just plain evil.
Tom is neither, but it appears you are projecting yourself on others again.
> Anyone who would rob
> God of Creator credit via apes = their 911 comment above is explained.
When did Tom ever "rob God of Creation credit"? Why can't God have used
natural processes to create? Aren't apes part of God's creation as well?
We can tell that Ray is just lashing out because he has been hit by Tom's
perception.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Ray, 911 was a tragedy, but it does not give anyone to "right" to do
anything one wants. Seeking revenge is something that Jesus specifically
spoke against in the Bible.
It's interesting to see how you can ignore these specific and direct
instructions from Jesus (i.e. turn the other cheek), but you make up
tortured constructions from a flawed reading of Romans.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>
> Ken Rode wrote:
snipping
>> > Ken:
>> >
>> > You have revealed yourself a dingbat.
>> >
>> > 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
>>
>> This is as close to the definition of "amoral" as I've ever seen you
>> write.
>>
>
> Defense of 911 Muslim murder/hate by a christian-hating atheist.
Ken was not defending the murderers who acted on 9-11. Nor had Ken shown
any sign of being "christian hating". He is pointing out that your
statement is not only immoral, it's amoral.
snipping
>> Your statement below ("We will kill and hurt whoever we want") is
>> criminal, Ray.
>>
>
> Decent people know what a nut your kind are, Ken.
Ray, you are not "decent people", and the rage you are displaying indicates
that more clearly than anyone else could.
> Killing people who
> ram airplanes into buildings is moral, right, and necessary.
The ones who ran the airplanes into the buildings are already dead.
Killing others for revenge is not moral, right, or necessary.
>Your
> comment is ad hoc/hate of Creationist no matter what, since you know
> what I say is self-evidently true.
Ray, what you say is not true, or self evident. It doesn't take an atheist
to see that.
snip
>> Ray, you are an amoral child. You operate without the need for a
>> functional brain, reacting emotionally instead of thinking your way
>> through problems.
>>
>> > Ray
>> >
>
> Your comment is easily explained when one remembers an atheist wrote
> it.
What does it matter if Ken is, or is not an atheist? I'm not an atheist,
and I agree with him.
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist
But alas, not a follower of Christ.
DJT
>
Dana Tweedy
>
>
>>
>> You must really miss the Inquisition, huh?
>>
>> >
>> > There is no torture going on if the context of 911 is not forgotten.
>> > Harsh treatment of POW's is deserved and comes with war. Concern over
>> > these things shows how immoral the world has become. I am not impressed
>> > with your pseudo-morality.
>> >
>> > Ray
>
> The atheist mass murder of hundreds of millions of persons in the 20th
> century can never be whitewashed.
No one "whitewashes" the killing of these people, but to call them "atheist"
is overstating the point. The people were killed for a number of reasons,
being in the way, opposing someone in power, not holding the right political
beliefs, etc. Few, if any of them were killed for not being atheist.
> Soviet Union, China, Thailand,
> Vietnam, East Bloc nations = what atheists did to stay in power
Again atheism was not the reason they were in power, or stayed in power.
=
> murder christians.
The majority of those murdered were not christians, nor were they murdered
for being christians.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>
> Suddenly, the typical Darwinian reply of pointing out that we are apes
> is not applicable. We know the dominant breeding male among a group of
> apes will viciously kill every young ape that he did not sire. If this
> is not torture then I don't know what is.
Ray, what species of "ape" does this? I've never heard of any ape species
in which the dominant male will kill any offspring not his own. I've heard
of this behavior among lions, but not apes. According to Wikipedia,
Silverback male Gorillas will adopt orphaned young, and treat young gorillas
with tenderness.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Gorilla_culture
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/behavior/Spring2003/Taft/Mating%20System.html
Chimps live in heirachial bands, but don't have harems and dominant males
like Gorillas do.
http://www.scz.org/animals/c/chimp.html
Orangs don't form pair bonds, and rarely interact, except to mate. Male
Orangs don't normally kill the young.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2003/Beaghan/Mating.htm
Gibbons form pair bonds, and the females tend to be more agressive than the
males.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/eppolito/matingsystem.html
Perhaps you can present some evidence to support this assertion?
DJT
Dan Luke
"Ray Martinez" wrote:
>
> What kind of person would dismiss the severity of 911 ?
>
> Answer: a lunatic atheist military hating ACLU moron grinding his hate
> America axe at the expense of 911 victims.
O-M-G!
"Ray Martinez" is really Ann Coulter's sock puppet!
It all makes sense now...well actually, no, it doesn't, but at least I
know where it's coming from.
John Wilkins
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141864659....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
>>>> According to what law, or what system of ethics?
>>>>
>>> Macht gibt's Recht.
>> comfort of his non-existent utopianistic ideological fantasy world.
Do you think? Or perhaps I was just mocking the "ethical foundation" that some
in the US are using to justify the use of torture and other barbarities.
Which, by the way, is the "ethical foundation" of Nazism.
>
> Ray, 911 was a tragedy, but it does not give anyone to "right" to do
> anything one wants. Seeking revenge is something that Jesus specifically
> spoke against in the Bible.
>
> It's interesting to see how you can ignore these specific and direct
> instructions from Jesus (i.e. turn the other cheek), but you make up
> tortured constructions from a flawed reading of Romans.
A Christian might have such a problem. Ray has no such problem at all.
Tom McDonald
Dan Luke wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" wrote:
>
> >
> > What kind of person would dismiss the severity of 911 ?
> >
> > Answer: a lunatic atheist military hating ACLU moron grinding his hate
> > America axe at the expense of 911 victims.
>
> O-M-G!
>
> "Ray Martinez" is really Ann Coulter's sock puppet!
I think this is unnecessarily perjorative. I mean, one is a very
attractive, sexually desireable hottie, and the other is a pundit on
Fox.
<snip>
Ken Rode
> Ken Rode wrote:
>
<snip>
>>>911 gives us the right to do as we please.
>>
>>This is as close to the definition of "amoral" as I've ever seen you write.
>>
>
>
> Defense of 911 Muslim murder/hate by a christian-hating atheist.
I have not defended the 9/11 Muslims, Ray. You insist on reading words
that were never written. Nor do I hate Christians. While it is true that
I find you to be a nasty, amoral squink, it isn't because of your
"Christianity" that this is so. Rather, it's because of your attitude.
And I don't hate even you, Ray -- I pity you.
>>>Whatever treatment these
>>>POW's receive does not compare to their glee over the fact that
>>>hundreds of innocent persons suffered agonizing death in the Twin
>>>Towers.
I missed commenting on this previously...
The POWs are primarily from the Iraqi conflict, are they not? I
understood that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 events. Why is it,
then, that you believe that torturing one group of people for the crimes
of a different group is in any way reasonable?
>>>There is no torture. It is called justice in the theatre of war.
>>
>>Sounds like you've got your newspeak in place.
>>
>>
>>>Atheist scum like you and the ACLU are without one drop of morality.
>>>Your idiotic "sense" of right and wrong is criminal. Atheist belief
>>>that I am not a Christian proves I am.
>>
>>Your statement below ("We will kill and hurt whoever we want") is
>>criminal, Ray.
>>
>
>
> Decent people know what a nut your kind are, Ken. Killing people who
> ram airplanes into buildings is moral, right, and necessary. Your
> comment is ad hoc/hate of Creationist no matter what, since you know
> what I say is self-evidently true.
As already pointed out by Dana, the people who rammed the airplanes into
the buildings on 9/11 are already dead, so it isn't necessary to kill
them. There are still a few people out there who coordinated the
planning for those events, and these people are being hunted down and
tried. Forgive me if I decline to accept that your bloodlust dictates
what should happen to these people when they are apprehended.
Again, I don't hate Creationists. You are a nasty, amoral squink, it is
true, but that isn't because you are a Creationist. It is a genuine pity
that you prefer revenge to justice.
>>It must be so easy for you to be a Christian, mustn't it, Ray? The Bible
>>is full of all of these examples of Christ doing and saying things, and
>>he does this to highlight the fact that nobody else can possibly live up
>>to his standard. And if you can't live up to that standard, well then,
>>there's little point in even trying, eh, Ray?
Nothing to say to this, Ray? I suspect that I hit the nail on the head.
Certainly you've already made comments to this effect regarding the
Sermon on the Mount.
>>Your mind is capable of producing a circular argument so small and tight
>>that its a wonder that your brain doesn't implode.
>>
>>
>>>Education proves that morality does not come with it. Nazi Germany was
>>>the most educated nation in history and they committed the Holocaust.
>>>Atheists are known to be educated, yet how would one explain their view
>>>of the Army ?
>>>
>>>It is atheist European university elites who provide the moral
>>>rationale for Muslim murdercide bombings. Whats the difference between
>>>skin heads and European elites ? One has an education. They are so
>>>happy someone else is killing Jews beside them.
>>>
>>>We will kill and hurt whoever we want - 911 gives us the right. Your
>>>kind will continue to do the same with words which empower Muslim thugs
>>>you hypocrite.
>>
>>Ray, you are an amoral child. You operate without the need for a
>>functional brain, reacting emotionally instead of thinking your way
>>through problems.
>>
>>
>>>Ray
>>>
>
>
> Your comment is easily explained when one remembers an atheist wrote
> it.
This tune is getting old, Ray. Please make an effort to join the real
world sometime soon.
Marc
Ken Rode wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
This should be in the circular argument category:
........... SNiP
> Your mind is capable of producing a circular argument so small and tight
> that its a wonder that your brain doesn't implode.
...........SNiP
(signed) marc
rupert....@gmail.com
Change of subject (away from infanticide in apes) = inability to
refute.
Oh dear. I appear to have turned into Ray.
>
> Ray
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > Ken:
> > >
> > > You have revealed yourself a dingbat.
> > >
> > > 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
> >
> > What kind of idiot you must be to even suggest that?
> >
>
> What kind of person would dismiss the severity of 911 ?
I lost friends in the Pentagon, you steaming pile of shit.
> Answer: a lunatic atheist military hating ACLU moron grinding his hate
> America axe at the expense of 911 victims.
Try "a veteran who hates the way you make all Americans look bad."
I'd continue proving what a worthless excuse for a human you are, but
frankly, you're not worth the keystrokes.
Scott Draper
morally driven, Army "values" ethic.>>
That's silly.
The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that putting just about anyone
in charge of prisoners had the tendency to lead to abuse. See
Takes quite a bit of effort to make sure this sort of thing doesn't
happen, and our Army screwed up.
Anyway, I have trouble envisioning that any group of people whose
purpose is to methodically slaughter other human beings can be
fundamentally "morally driven."
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Who is accountable for Army's descent into torture?"
>
>The events of 9-11 ?
What happened on the 9th November?
>
>In lieu of the persons in question having jubilant glee over the
>thought that airplanes were flown into buildings in Manhattan, this
>fact makes everything that follows very reasonable. You must remember,
>we are apes.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Robert J. Kolker
>>From the article:
> *********************
> Indeed, of the 98 deaths documented in "Command's Responsibility,"
> more than two-thirds were in U.S. custody in places other than Abu
> Ghraib. Four years since the first known death, only 12 detainee deaths
> have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. For the
> torture-related deaths - cases where people were suffocated, beaten to
> death, or, as in at least one case, effectively crucified - the highest
> sentence anyone has received is five months in jail. Critically, no
> officer above the rank of major has been charged in any detainee death.
>
> The system of military justice is supposed to reflect and give force
> to America's values, even in wartime. The uninvestigated, unpunished
> homicides committed by U.S. personnel against prisoners says a good
> deal about what has changed in today's military. It suggests that a
> new "anything goes" ethic has replaced the older, morally driven, Army
> "values" ethic. In the new ethic, the constraints of law can be set
> aside whenever expediency or whim demand. Because there is no
> top-driven command accountability for senior officers, there are no
> operational boundaries at the bottom of the chain of command. Even if
> you get caught, if you have enough rank, it won't matter.
> ************************
> From:
The person responsible is Usama bin Laden and his fanatics who wrecked
the WTC on 9/11.
I would point out that in the Pacific Island campaigns there were
attrocities and brutality on both sides. When U.S. Marines and Infantry
saw how the Jap bastards mutilated their buddies they were less than
inclined to take prisoners or treat them according to the Geneva
Convention which the Jap bastards never observed anyway. On the beaches
of Normandy, U.S. troops shot Germans who had their hands in the air.
After seeing half a load of landing GI's gunned down as they poured out
of the Higgins boats, there is little inclination to be nice. In a war,
shit happens and it flows downhill.
The U.S Military in very hot and contested wars has a long history of
appropriate brutality. Do unto them, as they do unto you, but most
importantly, win the God damned war.
I also point out that Allied bombing raids killed between three quarters
of a million and a million civillians in both the Eurpean and Pacific
theatres of WW2.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Ray, 911 was a tragedy, but it does not give anyone to "right" to do
> anything one wants. Seeking revenge is something that Jesus specifically
> spoke against in the Bible.
Yes it does. Fuck the bible. We were done dirt on 9/11 and it is time
for some get even. Do unto others, at least as badly as they do unto you.
If thine enemy smite thee on they cheek tear his head off and shit down
his neck. Then burn his property, kill his friends and kill his family
at least unto the third order of consanguinity.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Do you think? Or perhaps I was just mocking the "ethical foundation" that some
> in the US are using to justify the use of torture and other barbarities.
> Which, by the way, is the "ethical foundation" of Nazism.
The difference between us 'murkins and the Nazis is that we won! In a
trial by combat God favors the party that wins.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Ray, what species of "ape" does this? I've never heard of any ape species
> in which the dominant male will kill any offspring not his own. I've heard
> of this behavior among lions, but not apes. According to Wikipedia,
> Silverback male Gorillas will adopt orphaned young, and treat young gorillas
> with tenderness.
The Gorillas are becoming an endangered species. Humans, who are not
nearly so nice are stealing their habitats and grinding up their livers
as sex potions. Gorillas are loosers.
Here is the bottom line. Man is the Baddest, Smartest Ape in the Monkey
House. Get used to it.
Bob Kolker
Therion Ware
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 04:48:55 -0500 in alt.atheism, Robert J. Kolker
("Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ray, what species of "ape" does this? I've never heard of any ape species
>> in which the dominant male will kill any offspring not his own. I've heard
>> of this behavior among lions, but not apes. According to Wikipedia,
>> Silverback male Gorillas will adopt orphaned young, and treat young gorillas
>> with tenderness.
>
>The Gorillas are becoming an endangered species. Humans, who are not
>nearly so nice are stealing their habitats and grinding up their livers
>as sex potions. Gorillas are loosers.
Yeah, And they also have really small dicks. There's an essay about
this somewhere on the 'net, and the implications for Faye Wray and
King Kong...
>Here is the bottom line. Man is the Baddest, Smartest Ape in the Monkey
>House. Get used to it.
>
>Bob Kolker
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. www.video2cd.co.uk. Your 8mm films on DVD.
Help An Imaginary Being Today. Visit www.saecb.com .
Ernest Major
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>> > 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
>>
>> This is as close to the definition of "amoral" as I've ever seen you write.
>>
>
>Defense of 911 Muslim murder/hate by a christian-hating atheist.
Exodus 20:16, or is that another bit of the Bible that you reject?
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 03/03/2006
Ray Martinez
Bob:
Dana is ignorant about the Bible and quote mining according to the
needs of his subjective viewpoint and inability to refute me.
Jesus's comments were not intended for national relationships - only
personal.
Dana is enraged and his rant was ad hoc - intended just for me. Anyone
who would not advocate the killing of 911 supporters is a lunatic
minority. We elected Bush for this very reason. The President is in
charge of making sure OUR way of life is maintained and not given away
via some idiotic Biblical scrambling of Jesus's words.
Exodus says the Lord is a man of war.
Dana and the remainder of the "love 911 murderers" sect show their
hatred of Christian and Jewish America has no bounds = ACLU.
Dana does not believe what he wrote - he simply has no answer to the
logical and decent desire of the majority to kill and hurt Muslim
cowards. Defending 911 shows how low secular can go to pursue their
anti-Christian/Jewish agenda.
While we differ greatly about origins and God, we both know 911 is
about Muslim hate and secular-atheist whitewashing/rationalizations.
Ray
Ye Old One
Actually, it was 11/09/2001.
>
>I would point out that in the Pacific Island campaigns there were
>attrocities and brutality on both sides. When U.S. Marines and Infantry
>saw how the Jap bastards mutilated their buddies they were less than
>inclined to take prisoners or treat them according to the Geneva
>Convention which the Jap bastards never observed anyway. On the beaches
>of Normandy, U.S. troops shot Germans who had their hands in the air.
>After seeing half a load of landing GI's gunned down as they poured out
>of the Higgins boats, there is little inclination to be nice. In a war,
>shit happens and it flows downhill.
I tend to agree. If you are at war you cannot expect anyone to play by
the rules - in fact it is totally alien to the idea of war to have any
rules.
>
>The U.S Military in very hot and contested wars has a long history of
>appropriate brutality. Do unto them, as they do unto you, but most
>importantly, win the God damned war.
That way you get to write the history.
>
>I also point out that Allied bombing raids killed between three quarters
>of a million and a million civillians in both the Eurpean and Pacific
>theatres of WW2.
And of course, in Europe, it was the Germans that started bombing
civillian targets.
--
Bob.
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> > Ken:
>> >
>> > You have revealed yourself a dingbat.
>> >
>> > 911 gives us the right to do as we please.
>>
>> What kind of idiot you must be to even suggest that?
>
>What kind of person would dismiss the severity of 911 ?
>
>Answer: a lunatic atheist military hating ACLU moron grinding his hate
>America axe at the expense of 911 victims.
Don't forget anti-Christmas. Since 2001, Christmas has killed more
Americans than terrorists have [*]. Since Christmas is deadlier than
terrorism, dismissing terrorism makes Christmas seem less important.
I'm sure Ray would not want to minimize the holy import of one of the
deadliest days of the year.
[*] Phillips, D. P. et al., 2004. Cardiac Mortality Is Higher Around
Christmas and New Year’s Than at Any Other Time. _Circulation_ 110:
3781.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/110/25/3781
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Dana Tweedy
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:47ac1lF...@individual.net...
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ray, what species of "ape" does this? I've never heard of any ape
>> species
>> in which the dominant male will kill any offspring not his own. I've
>> heard
>> of this behavior among lions, but not apes. According to Wikipedia,
>> Silverback male Gorillas will adopt orphaned young, and treat young
>> gorillas
>> with tenderness.
>
> The Gorillas are becoming an endangered species. Humans, who are not
> nearly so nice are stealing their habitats and grinding up their livers
> as sex potions. Gorillas are loosers.
"Boy, we sure showed those animals who had the guns" (Old SNL Sketch)
>
> Here is the bottom line. Man is the Baddest, Smartest Ape in the Monkey
> House. Get used to it.
Perhaps, but if you found yourself in a battle of strength between a gorilla
and yourself, I'd bet on the gorilla.
DJT
David Ewan Kahana
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ray, 911 was a tragedy, but it does not give anyone to "right" to do
> > > anything one wants. Seeking revenge is something that Jesus specifically
> > > spoke against in the Bible.
> >
> > Yes it does. Fuck the bible. We were done dirt on 9/11 and it is time
> > for some get even. Do unto others, at least as badly as they do unto you.
> >
> > If thine enemy smite thee on they cheek tear his head off and shit down
> > his neck. Then burn his property, kill his friends and kill his family
> > at least unto the third order of consanguinity.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
> Bob:
>
>
> Exodus says the Lord is a man of war.
>
Exodus 34.(5-7)
`And HaShem descended in the cloud, and stood with
him there, and proclaimed the name of HaShem. And
HaShem passed by before him, and proclaimed:
'The HaShem, HaShem, G-d, merciful and gracious,
long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;
keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation,
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and
that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon
the children's children, unto the third and unto the
fourth generation.'
On the other hand:
Isaiah 55.(6-9)
`Seek ye HaShem while He may be found, call ye upon
Him while He is near; Let the wicked forsake his way,
and the man of iniquity his thoughts; and let him return
unto HaShem, and He will have compassion upon him,
and to our G-d, for He will abundantly pardon. For My
thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways
My ways, saith HaShem. For as the heavens are higher
than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways,
and My thoughts than your thoughts.'
My opinion: to hell with revenge; to hell with what
it says in Exodus and Isaiah. Leaders should have
cool heads, and act in the national interest on the
basis of solid facts.
They should not have hot heads, and act based on
purely emotional reasons.
Bismarck, on the whole, left behind a monstrous
legacy, and he was an authoritarian son of a bitch.
But about Realpolitik he was right:
`Politics is the art of the possible.'
The very negative outcome which appears to be taking
shape in Iraq was entirely predictable on the basis of
both demography and history. The connection of Saddam
Hussein to the events of September 11 was non-existent.
The threat of nuclear terrorism from Iraq was non-existent,
and as it emerges, so was the threat of chemical terrorism.
If the administration had rational aims in this war, they
have not made it clear what they were. The aim of `bringing
democracy' to Arab lands which is emphasized, now that
the country is well into the mire is no doubt admirable
enough in the abstract. But I would refer again to Bismarck's
quotation.
The torture of detainees is abhorrent, serves no purpose,
and the blame for it lies on the civilian administration,
in particular on the executive branch.
David
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> Bob:
>
> Dana is ignorant about the Bible
Actually, Ray, I'm better informed about the Bible than you are.
> and quote mining according to the
> needs of his subjective viewpoint and inability to refute me.
Are you claiming that the words of Jesus are a "subjective viewpoint"? Ray,
note, I've refuted everything you have said since you first started posting
here.
Also, it's interesting that when one does not give a bible reference, Ray
claims that the statement is "sourceless". When I do give a Bible
reference, it's now 'quote mining'. Another instance of Ray's inability to
remain constant.
>
> Jesus's comments were not intended for national relationships - only
> personal.
Jesus didn't say that. Can you provide a reference for where Jesus said
they were "not intended for national relationships"?
>
> Dana is enraged and his rant was ad hoc - intended just for me.
Wrong on all counts.
> Anyone
> who would not advocate the killing of 911 supporters is a lunatic
> minority.
Jesus is in the "lunatic minority"? Also, didn't you say that the
majority is always wrong?
> We elected Bush for this very reason.
Because the voters in Florida didn't know how to use a ballot?
> The President is in
> charge of making sure OUR way of life is maintained and not given away
> via some idiotic Biblical scrambling of Jesus's words.
Yeah, why listen to the word of Jesus? Who was he anyway?
>
> Exodus says the Lord is a man of war.
That's not what Jesus says.
Matthew 5:9
"Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God."
>
> Dana and the remainder of the "love 911 murderers" sect show their
> hatred of Christian and Jewish America has no bounds = ACLU.
How is following the words of Jesus showing "hatred of Christians and Jewish
America"?
Are these not the words of Christ?
Matthew 5:38-39
38 "You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth. 39 But I tell you, don't resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if
anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Matthew 5:43-48
43 "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate
your enemy. 44 But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who
persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. For He
causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what
reward will you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if
you greet only your brothers, what are you doing out of the ordinary? Don't
even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly
Father is perfect.
>
> Dana does not believe what he wrote
Wrong again. I deeply believe in what I write. Ray may not believe in
the words of Jesus, but I do.
> - he simply has no answer to the
> logical and decent desire of the majority to kill and hurt Muslim
> cowards.
Again, Ray don't pretend to be part of either the logical, or decent
population. Again, didn't you say that the majority is always wrong?
> Defending 911 shows how low secular can go to pursue their
> anti-Christian/Jewish agenda.
When have I ever defended 9-11? What I was speaking out against was blind
hatred and seeking revenge, something that Jesus specifically spoke about.
>
> While we differ greatly about origins and God, we both know 911 is
> about Muslim hate and secular-atheist whitewashing/rationalizations.
The attacks of 9-11 owed more to fundamentalist religious training, and
hatred of the influence of western culture, than "Muslim" anything. There
was no "secular-atheist whitewashing or rationalization involved. In any
case, I'm not atheist, and I don't rationalize the events. What happened
was a tragedy, and an act of agression. However it does not follow that
the US is allowed to do whatever it wants, or engage in torture, or random
murder.
Two wrongs simply do not make a right.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> DANA writes:
> The ones who ran the airplanes into the buildings are already dead.
> Killing others for revenge is not moral, right, or necessary.
>
The exact sentiment and nonsense that got Bush reelected and will get
another Republican elected in the next election.
Ray
Ray Martinez
The lengths a person will go to defend Muslim murder.
Decent and moral persons, whether atheist or theist, will continue to
hunt down and kill and hurt 911 supporters.
The replies in this thread will only help a Republican get elected -
again, despite all their shortcomings. Who is going to trust a Hillary
Clinton with 911 fanatics roaming the world in safety via
pseudo-rationale artists providing them comfort with their amoral
"revenge is anti-Christian" atheist nonsense ?
Ray
Ray Martinez
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141932551.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> snipping
>
> > Bob:
> >
> > Dana is ignorant about the Bible
>
> Actually, Ray, I'm better informed about the Bible than you are.
Persons who believe the Bible and Evolution are not in conflict via a
hidden definition contrary to the understood meaning of both reveals
deception/presence/person controlled by Satan.
In addition, common sense says if a person wants accurate information
about the Bible they should not listen to a Darwinist like yourself -
with all of your known needs and selective acceptance of what qualifies
as evidence.
>
> > and quote mining according to the
> > needs of his subjective viewpoint and inability to refute me.
>
> Are you claiming that the words of Jesus are a "subjective viewpoint"? Ray,
> note, I've refuted everything you have said since you first started posting
> here.
>
Could one expect a Darwinist to say anything more ridiculous ?
Nobody has refuted everything another person has said. Because this
poster thinks he has = good indication of his grasp on reality.
> Also, it's interesting that when one does not give a bible reference, Ray
> claims that the statement is "sourceless". When I do give a Bible
> reference, it's now 'quote mining'. Another instance of Ray's inability to
> remain constant.
>
> >
> > Jesus's comments were not intended for national relationships - only
> > personal.
>
> Jesus didn't say that. Can you provide a reference for where Jesus said
> they were "not intended for national relationships"?
>
Attempt to defend the use of Christ's words to turn the cheek to 911
murder. Anyone who would ask such a question is declaring how
dangerously stupid they are. So far this poster is consistently
deranged.
> >
> > Dana is enraged and his rant was ad hoc - intended just for me.
>
> Wrong on all counts.
>
> > Anyone
> > who would not advocate the killing of 911 supporters is a lunatic
> > minority.
>
> Jesus is in the "lunatic minority"? Also, didn't you say that the
> majority is always wrong?
>
> > We elected Bush for this very reason.
>
> Because the voters in Florida didn't know how to use a ballot?
>
Two times is a row ?
> > The President is in
> > charge of making sure OUR way of life is maintained and not given away
> > via some idiotic Biblical scrambling of Jesus's words.
>
> Yeah, why listen to the word of Jesus? Who was he anyway?
>
This is typical secular use of Christ: idiotic "peace at any cost"
agenda. Jesus said "I came to bring a sword - not peace."
"Love your enemies" = context of neighbor - not national relations.
Larger context of attempting to say: Only He can love His enemies,
attempting to get across that we cannot love our enemies. All Bible
scholars know this - it is basic theology.
Again, if you want accurate information about the Bible do not seek out
a Darwinist who thinks on-the-spot-Googling = way evidence is produced
= attitude about Bible of not deserving study = Darwinists have no
Divinity credentials because evidence is their enemy. Darwinists NEED
physical evidence they can manipulate. Textual evidence is much harder,
but TEists will simply assert it does not mean what it says challenging
you to call them a liar.
All polls say they are liars, while they ignore and act like this
evidence is not evidence = the Darwinian way.
> >
> > Exodus says the Lord is a man of war.
>
> That's not what Jesus says.
>
> Matthew 5:9
> "Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God."
> >
> > Dana and the remainder of the "love 911 murderers" sect show their
> > hatred of Christian and Jewish America has no bounds = ACLU.
>
> How is following the words of Jesus showing "hatred of Christians and Jewish
> America"?
> Are these not the words of Christ?
>
> Matthew 5:38-39
> 38 "You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
> tooth. 39 But I tell you, don't resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if
> anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
>
> Matthew 5:43-48
> 43 "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate
> your enemy. 44 But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who
> persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. For He
> causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
> righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what
> reward will you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if
> you greet only your brothers, what are you doing out of the ordinary? Don't
> even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly
> Father is perfect.
>
Continued attempt to smear Christ's words while defending 911 evil =
best argument to vote Republican.
> >
> > Dana does not believe what he wrote
>
> Wrong again. I deeply believe in what I write. Ray may not believe in
> the words of Jesus, but I do.
>
> > - he simply has no answer to the
> > logical and decent desire of the majority to kill and hurt Muslim
> > cowards.
>
> Again, Ray don't pretend to be part of either the logical, or decent
> population. Again, didn't you say that the majority is always wrong?
>
IN the Bible.
> > Defending 911 shows how low secular can go to pursue their
> > anti-Christian/Jewish agenda.
>
> When have I ever defended 9-11? What I was speaking out against was blind
> hatred and seeking revenge, something that Jesus specifically spoke about.
>
Every post in this thread.
Now you lie about what anyone can read. Please do not be offended.
Anyone who would assert that we should not kill 911 supporters suddenly
"forgetting" this fact = Republican victory in next election.
> >
> > While we differ greatly about origins and God, we both know 911 is
> > about Muslim hate and secular-atheist whitewashing/rationalizations.
>
> The attacks of 9-11 owed more to fundamentalist religious training, and
> hatred of the influence of western culture, than "Muslim" anything. There
> was no "secular-atheist whitewashing or rationalization involved. In any
> case, I'm not atheist, and I don't rationalize the events. What happened
> was a tragedy, and an act of agression. However it does not follow that
> the US is allowed to do whatever it wants, or engage in torture, or random
> murder.
>
> Two wrongs simply do not make a right.
>
> DJT
Defending 911 supporters while trashing the Army = liberal ACLU
"morality". You are scary Dana, my girlfriend read what you wrote and
before she knew anything about you she said, "I bet he claims to be a
Christian."
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Ray, at what time did you decide to totally abandon the teachings of Christ?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141932551.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> snipping
>>
>> > Bob:
>> >
>> > Dana is ignorant about the Bible
>>
>> Actually, Ray, I'm better informed about the Bible than you are.
>
> Persons who believe the Bible and Evolution are not in conflict via a
> hidden definition contrary to the understood meaning of both reveals
> deception/presence/person controlled by Satan.
An unsupported assertion, at best, and it doesn't address my point. I'm
better informed about the Bible than you are. I don't propose any "hidden
definition", that is contrary to both.
>
> In addition, common sense says if a person wants accurate information
> about the Bible they should not listen to a Darwinist like yourself -
Again, an unsupported assertion that does not address my point.
> with all of your known needs and selective acceptance of what qualifies
> as evidence.
Ray, you are projecting again. I have not "selective" qualification as to
what is evidence.
>
>>
>> > and quote mining according to the
>> > needs of his subjective viewpoint and inability to refute me.
>>
>> Are you claiming that the words of Jesus are a "subjective viewpoint"?
>> Ray,
>> note, I've refuted everything you have said since you first started
>> posting
>> here.
>>
>
> Could one expect a Darwinist to say anything more ridiculous ?
One could expect someone to say anything. Moreover, what I've said is the
plain truth. Everything you have presented, I've successfully refuted.
>
> Nobody has refuted everything another person has said. Because this
> poster thinks he has = good indication of his grasp on reality.
Nevertheless, nothing you have presented I have been unable to refute.
>
>
>> Also, it's interesting that when one does not give a bible reference,
>> Ray
>> claims that the statement is "sourceless". When I do give a Bible
>> reference, it's now 'quote mining'. Another instance of Ray's inability
>> to
>> remain constant.
No comment, Ray?
>>
>> >
>> > Jesus's comments were not intended for national relationships - only
>> > personal.
>>
>> Jesus didn't say that. Can you provide a reference for where Jesus said
>> they were "not intended for national relationships"?
>>
>
> Attempt to defend the use of Christ's words to turn the cheek to 911
> murder.
You aren't addressing the quesiton, Ray. All you are doing is making
assertions.
> Anyone who would ask such a question is declaring how
> dangerously stupid they are. So far this poster is consistently
> deranged.
Another example of Ray's inablity to refute me, so he resorts to insults.
Where is that reference, Ray or are you making another sourceless claim?
>
>> >
>> > Dana is enraged and his rant was ad hoc - intended just for me.
>>
>> Wrong on all counts.
>>
>> > Anyone
>> > who would not advocate the killing of 911 supporters is a lunatic
>> > minority.
>>
>> Jesus is in the "lunatic minority"? Also, didn't you say that the
>> majority is always wrong?
Hello, Ray!! You seem to have ignored this.......
>>
>> > We elected Bush for this very reason.
>>
>> Because the voters in Florida didn't know how to use a ballot?
>>
>
> Two times is a row ?
Bush was not elected the first time, but that's another matter.
>
>> > The President is in
>> > charge of making sure OUR way of life is maintained and not given away
>> > via some idiotic Biblical scrambling of Jesus's words.
>>
>> Yeah, why listen to the word of Jesus? Who was he anyway?
>>
>
> This is typical secular use of Christ: idiotic "peace at any cost"
> agenda. Jesus said "I came to bring a sword - not peace."
Now you are taking Jesus out of context.
>
> "Love your enemies" = context of neighbor - not national relations.
I asked above for some support for this claim. You gave none.
> Larger context of attempting to say: Only He can love His enemies,
> attempting to get across that we cannot love our enemies. All Bible
> scholars know this - it is basic theology.
A rather sweeping claim. What support do you have that "All Bible scholars"
know this, or it's "basic theology"?
>
> Again, if you want accurate information about the Bible do not seek out
> a Darwinist who thinks on-the-spot-Googling = way evidence is produced
> = attitude about Bible of not deserving study = Darwinists have no
> Divinity credentials because evidence is their enemy.
Then why do you refuse to discuss the evidence? I've been trying to talk
to you about KNM WT 15000 for months, and you keep running away from that
piece of evidence.
> Darwinists NEED
> physical evidence they can manipulate.
What 'manipulation' does KNM WT 15000 need?
> Textual evidence is much harder,
Because "textual evidence" is simply interpetation of a religious writing.
There is no physical evidence to support it.
> but TEists will simply assert it does not mean what it says challenging
> you to call them a liar.
Ray, as I've pointed out numerous times now, I, and other theistic
evolutionists do not say "it does not mean what it says". What I am saying
is it doesn't mean what YOU think it does. The Bible is not wrong, it's
your interpetation of the Bible that's in error.
>
> All polls say they are liars,
What "polls" say that?
> while they ignore and act like this
> evidence is not evidence = the Darwinian way.
Textual evidence is not physical evidence, and cannot be treated the same
way.
Again, where have I "defened" the actions on 9-11. I am talking about not
acting out of hatred and revenge. Jesus specifically states we are to love
our neighbors, and to turn the other cheek, not seek revenge. By the way,
I am a member of the Republican party.
>
>
>> >
>> > Dana does not believe what he wrote
>>
>> Wrong again. I deeply believe in what I write. Ray may not believe
>> in
>> the words of Jesus, but I do.
>>
>> > - he simply has no answer to the
>> > logical and decent desire of the majority to kill and hurt Muslim
>> > cowards.
>>
>> Again, Ray don't pretend to be part of either the logical, or decent
>> population. Again, didn't you say that the majority is always wrong?
>>
>
> IN the Bible.
Ray, you have attempted to use this claim on events outside the Bible
before. Why is this "bibilical typology" now not applicable?
>
>> > Defending 911 shows how low secular can go to pursue their
>> > anti-Christian/Jewish agenda.
>>
>> When have I ever defended 9-11? What I was speaking out against was
>> blind
>> hatred and seeking revenge, something that Jesus specifically spoke
>> about.
>>
>
> Every post in this thread.
Ray, you are quite aware that I have not once defended the actions of the
terrorists on 9-11. You are speaking falsely.
>
> Now you lie about what anyone can read.
Ray, look at the words. You will see that you are lying, not me.
> Please do not be offended.
> Anyone who would assert that we should not kill 911 supporters suddenly
> "forgetting" this fact = Republican victory in next election.
Ray, the Bible specifically speaks out against hatred, revenge, and murder.
I am pointing out that your bloodthirsty rage goes against what the Bible
says. I have not said that the terrorists who planned 9-11 were right, or
proper. I did say the ones who flew the jets are already dead, and seeking
revenge against them is pointless.
>
>> >
>> > While we differ greatly about origins and God, we both know 911 is
>> > about Muslim hate and secular-atheist whitewashing/rationalizations.
>>
>> The attacks of 9-11 owed more to fundamentalist religious training, and
>> hatred of the influence of western culture, than "Muslim" anything.
>> There
>> was no "secular-atheist whitewashing or rationalization involved. In
>> any
>> case, I'm not atheist, and I don't rationalize the events. What
>> happened
>> was a tragedy, and an act of agression. However it does not follow that
>> the US is allowed to do whatever it wants, or engage in torture, or
>> random
>> murder.
>>
>> Two wrongs simply do not make a right.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Defending 911 supporters while trashing the Army
I have not done either. What I am opposing the the idea that the US is
justified in acting as terrorists when engaging in actions against
terrorists.
>= liberal ACLU
> "morality". You are scary Dana, my girlfriend read what you wrote and
> before she knew anything about you she said, "I bet he claims to be a
> Christian."
I don't know which is more unbelieveable, Ray's claims to be a Christian, or
that he claims to have a girlfriend. In any case, for you and your
likely imaginary girlfriend, I am a Christian, whether or not you like it.
DJT
John Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?
Ernest Major
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:47ac1lF...@individual.net...
>>> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ray, what species of "ape" does this? I've never heard of any ape
>>>> species
>>>> in which the dominant male will kill any offspring not his own. I've
>>>> heard
>>>> of this behavior among lions, but not apes. According to Wikipedia,
>>>> Silverback male Gorillas will adopt orphaned young, and treat young
>>>> gorillas
>>>> with tenderness.
>>> The Gorillas are becoming an endangered species. Humans, who are not
>>> nearly so nice are stealing their habitats and grinding up their livers
>>> as sex potions. Gorillas are loosers.
>>
>> "Boy, we sure showed those animals who had the guns" (Old SNL Sketch)
>>
>>> Here is the bottom line. Man is the Baddest, Smartest Ape in the Monkey
>>> House. Get used to it.
>>
>> Perhaps, but if you found yourself in a battle of strength between a gorilla
>> and yourself, I'd bet on the gorilla.
>>
>> DJT
>>
>Any ape, really. We seem to be the weakest apes of all.
>
John Wilkins
Scale it up and see...
Walter Bushell
The potatoes are piled up to the throne of God, Comrade.
Great! <Pause> "Hey, Comrade there isn't any God."
"There aren't any potatoes, either"
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
David Ewan Kahana
> In article <47ac4hF...@individual.net>,
> "Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Do you think? Or perhaps I was just mocking the "ethical foundation" that
> > > some
> > > in the US are using to justify the use of torture and other barbarities.
> > > Which, by the way, is the "ethical foundation" of Nazism.
> >
> > The difference between us 'murkins and the Nazis is that we won! In a
> > trial by combat God favors the party that wins.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
> The potatoes are piled up to the throne of God, Comrade.
>
> Great! <Pause> "Hey, Comrade there isn't any God."
>
> "There aren't any potatoes, either"
>
"What was the nationality of Adam and Eve?"
"Russian of course. Why else would they think they're in
Paradise when they were homeless, naked, and just had
one apple for both of them?"
David
magilla
There has long been a distinction between actions committed "in the
heat" and those perpetrated on defenseless POWs. While this is a fairly
recent convention, it nonetheless holds for the actions of the US since
the Civil War, at least. During that war, both sides had pretty
horrible POW camps (look up Andersonville) but in fact they did the
best they could. The Germans in World War II are said (read "The Great
Escape" and "Escape from Colditz") to have been pretty decent, at least
toward RAF and USAAC officers, until the strategic bombing started.
Even then, prisoners were not routinely tortured or shot out of hand-
it was more a matter of reduced rations (there was little enough food
for German civilians by then) and loss of priveleges. The US and
Canadian POW camps were said to accord even better treatment.
> >
> >The U.S Military in very hot and contested wars has a long history of
> >appropriate brutality. Do unto them, as they do unto you, but most
> >importantly, win the God damned war.
>
> That way you get to write the history.
I am perplexed by the phrase "appropriate brutality". The Phoenix
Operation in Vietnam was pretty brutal- was that appropriate? It sure
didn't win the war. I would go so far as to say that brutality tends to
backfire. The chief of operations for the CIA in Vietnam during the war
is on record as saying the brutal practices of the South yielded little
if any decent intelligence. But decent treatment, medical care, and
good food got plenty of info. Ever heard the phrase "You catch more
flies with honey than vinegar"?
In fact, in recent history, the whole idea has been to reduce the
brutality of war. Hence, the virtual elimination of weapons designed to
maim rather than kill outright.
Chris
neutr...@gmail.com
And if their friends and family operate under the same rules, we will
finally have peace on this planet. The peace of the unburried dead.
Matt Silberstein
<chris.li...@gmail.com> in
<1141956893....@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
>There has long been a distinction between actions committed "in the
>heat" and those perpetrated on defenseless POWs. While this is a fairly
>recent convention, it nonetheless holds for the actions of the US since
>the Civil War, at least. During that war, both sides had pretty
>horrible POW camps (look up Andersonville) but in fact they did the
>best they could. The Germans in World War II are said (read "The Great
>Escape" and "Escape from Colditz") to have been pretty decent, at least
>toward RAF and USAAC officers, until the strategic bombing started.
>Even then, prisoners were not routinely tortured or shot out of hand-
>it was more a matter of reduced rations (there was little enough food
>for German civilians by then) and loss of priveleges. The US and
>Canadian POW camps were said to accord even better treatment.
>
The WWII situation is well explained by reciprocal altruism. U.S.
fliers were well taken care of by German fliers and visa versa. But
both sides dealt very harshly with those out of uniform. And I know
that Americans shot German POWs.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
magilla
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2006 18:14:54 -0800, in talk.origins , "magilla"
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> in
> <1141956893....@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >There has long been a distinction between actions committed "in the
> >heat" and those perpetrated on defenseless POWs. While this is a fairly
> >recent convention, it nonetheless holds for the actions of the US since
> >the Civil War, at least. During that war, both sides had pretty
> >horrible POW camps (look up Andersonville) but in fact they did the
> >best they could. The Germans in World War II are said (read "The Great
> >Escape" and "Escape from Colditz") to have been pretty decent, at least
> >toward RAF and USAAC officers, until the strategic bombing started.
> >Even then, prisoners were not routinely tortured or shot out of hand-
> >it was more a matter of reduced rations (there was little enough food
> >for German civilians by then) and loss of priveleges. The US and
> >Canadian POW camps were said to accord even better treatment.
> >
> The WWII situation is well explained by reciprocal altruism. U.S.
> fliers were well taken care of by German fliers and visa versa. But
> both sides dealt very harshly with those out of uniform. And I know
> that Americans shot German POWs.
The Company Commander in Band of Brothers (Captain Spiers, a real
person) was widely known to have murdered a dozen or so German POWs. He
was an excellent CO, also. In another sequence, three GIs are detached
to capture a Nazu war criminal in the hills outside the town where they
are camped. They catch him, he admits to the crimes, and one guy shoots
him. (BoB is all true, and quite gripping if you have not read the
book. I recommend it.) The two mindsets are not always incompatible.
But a person who kills for pleasure- as too many war criminals do,
apparently- is too likely to become fixed on the killing rather than
the winning.
Walter Bushell
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Decent people know what a nut your kind are, Ken. Killing people who
> ram airplanes into buildings is moral, right, and necessary. Your
> comment is ad hoc/hate of Creationist no matter what, since you know
> what I say is self-evidently true.
But it was a military target. The CIA had offices there. It wasn't wise
of them to cause so much collateral damage however.
stoney
D. Bryant) wrote in alt.atheism
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> magilla wrote:
>>
>>>>From the article:
>>> *********************
>>> Indeed, of the 98 deaths documented in "Command's Responsibility,"
>>> more than two-thirds were in U.S. custody in places other than Abu
>>> Ghraib. Four years since the first known death, only 12 detainee deaths
>>> have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. For the
>>> torture-related deaths - cases where people were suffocated, beaten to
>>> death, or, as in at least one case, effectively crucified - the highest
>>> sentence anyone has received is five months in jail. Critically, no
>>> officer above the rank of major has been charged in any detainee death.
>>>
>>> The system of military justice is supposed to reflect and give force
>>> to America's values, even in wartime.
>>
>> And it seems like it is doing a wonderful job, too...
>>
>> (from the point of view of a cynic, which I am not - most of the time)
>
>There is indeed a discouraging lack of volume to the public outcry.
Suppressed, and/or fear of Shrub's goons.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>Dan Luke wrote:
>> <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> magilla wrote:
>>>> >From the article:
>>>> *********************
>>>> Indeed, of the 98 deaths documented in "Command's Responsibility,"
>>>> more than two-thirds were in U.S. custody in places other than Abu
>>>> Ghraib. Four years since the first known death, only 12 detainee
>>>> deaths
>>>> have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. For
>>>> the
>>>> torture-related deaths - cases where people were suffocated, beaten
>>>> to
>>>> death, or, as in at least one case, effectively crucified - the
>>>> highest
>>>> sentence anyone has received is five months in jail. Critically, no
>>>> officer above the rank of major has been charged in any detainee
>>>> death.
>>>>
>>>> The system of military justice is supposed to reflect and give
>>>> force
>>>> to America's values, even in wartime.
>>> Well, GW Bush's values but not the average American's values.
>>
>> I wonder.
>>
>> Perhaps I am unduly influenced by the benighted cultural circumstances
>> in which I live, but I have detected exactly zero concern among my
>> fellow Americans over reports of torture by U. S. soldiers. In fact,
>> the only time I've heard it mentioned, the comment was to the effect
>> that the media were traitors for exposing such things.
>>
>And if we ever see the fall of American dominance, this will be one of the
>primary indicators of a morally bankrupt government and possibly society that
>historians refer to for the next few centuries. You know, like we do for
>fascist nations of the past century.
America's done and has been in 'free fall' for some years now.
Shrub's merely 'fired the JATO's on the process.'
stoney
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>And it is probably due to my enlightened cultural circumstances, but
>that and other horrors of this war are frequently discussed.
>
>>And if we ever see the fall of American dominance, this will be one of the
>>primary indicators of a morally bankrupt government and possibly society that
>>historians refer to for the next few centuries. You know, like we do for
>>fascist nations of the past century.
>
>I really want to get offended by that remark. I can't because it is
>all too terribly likely to be accurate, but I want to.
Sad agreement.
stoney
D. Bryant) wrote in alt.atheism
>On Wed, 08 Mar 2006, "Dan Luke" <c17...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> There is a popular American tv series called "24" in which the hero
>> is a government counter-terrorist agent. In a recent episode, this
>> agent shot an innocent woman in the leg in an attempt to force her
>> husband to reveal information. Torture is a well used tool in his
>> bag of tricks, and, apparently, by the moral code of U. S. popular
>> entertainment at least, is acceptable behavior for good guys
>> fighting terrorism.
>
>Also, in all the law enforcement shows now in vogue, hardly an episode
>goes by without a warrantless search. Of course, it always turns up
>evidence proving the property owner's guilt, so that must make it OK.
Of which how much was planted?
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
><<It suggests that a new "anything goes" ethic has replaced the older,
>morally driven, Army "values" ethic.>>
>
>That's silly.
>
>The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that putting just about anyone
>in charge of prisoners had the tendency to lead to abuse. See
>
>http://www.prisonexp.org/
>
>Takes quite a bit of effort to make sure this sort of thing doesn't
>happen, and our Army screwed up.
>
>Anyway, I have trouble envisioning that any group of people whose
>purpose is to methodically slaughter other human beings can be
>fundamentally "morally driven."
/cue Superstition.