Should We Water Board Terror Suspects To Save Lives?

But that's my point!! WE HAVEN'T UNLEASHED OUR FULL MIGHT! The rules of engagement has our soldiers so tied up its ridiculous! As a result, it's not over! And this type of enemy sees that as a weakness to exploit!

Yeah, why don't we just hijack passenger planes and fly them into their cities. That would "match their ferocity," real good, wouldn't it?

What makes us better is that we're not like them. We actually try to observe the rules of engagement, which is why hearing about things like torture should shock and offend us.
 
Celldog, you're a religious man, right?

If you believed you were fighting for God and America was invaded by an outside source...would torture or the number of troops really stop you? We can be as ferocious as we want...it won't matter. These people are fighting for their god. They have been raised their entire lives to believe this. A military isn't going to divert them.


The Bible does not teach against self-defense. If you actually studied it instead of quoting a few verses here or there for your argument, you'd know that. God even told the the Hebrews to go to war against some enemy nations to protect themselves.
 
So they couldn't just kill and cover up the murder of 4 unarmed civilians.

Is that supposed to change my mind or what
 
You talking 'bout Haditha? Look at the testimonies of people who were there.
 
Huh. That's funny that unarmed civilians were able to fire on them. :)
 
Rules of engagement got this soldiers squad killed. We are handicapping our soldiers.
This is an interview he did on the Glen Beck show...he was also on The Today Show with Matt Lauer.
_____________________________________________________________________


Well, I'm about to introduce you to a guy who has a new book out, it's called Lone Survivor. He was a Navy SEAL. He has a story that he's going to tell you here in the next few minutes that should shock, horrify,
and quite honestly just -- it should anger you. I have a very good friend who is in the middle of reading Lone Survivor, he called me up last night it was about 11 o'clock. And I've never heard him like this. He was angry. And he said, "Glenn, I can't believe these weasels in Washington." I'm going to let Marcus Luttrell tell you the story. He's on with us now. Marcus, how are you, sir?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir, how are you?
GLENN: Very good. You -- take us back to Afghanistan. You are a Navy SEAL. How long have you been a Navy SEAL before 9/11?
LUTTRELL: Almost ten years, sir.
GLENN: Ten years. And so you go over to Afghanistan, and what is your mission?

Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10
by Marcus Luttrell
LUTTRELL: This particular mission we were a four man sniper watch team sitting on a capture kill task to locate, monitor the activity of a high-ranking Taliban official with known ties to Osama bin Laden.
And we were also to pick up further on intelligence about him, coordinating and executing complex tasks against coalition forces in this particular area. It was a -- a remote area near the Paki border that didn't see much play from the US military, and that was our job, sir.
GLENN: Okay. And you go in, Marcus, and this is a very dangerous situation. How many -- how many are around you?
LUTTRELL: Intel were forwarded up to 200.
GLENN: So you're living in the midst of 200 Taliban that are looking to kill you, and there's only four of you, and you're pretty much alone?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
GLENN: Okay. What happens?
LUTTRELL: We were monitoring our target, didn't have a good visual on -- on -- on the initial site, so we relocated, got a better visual. Couple hours after that we -- came across a (unintelligible) compromise which means we were walked on by some civilians, some Afghani goat herders.
GLENN: Hang on. That means that they just happened upon you. They say you and you're like, oh, crap, now what do we do?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir. They were out walking the herd. They had about 75 or a hundred goats, when I say they walked on us, I was underneath a tree that had been cut down was burned out I was hiding underneath that with my rifle watching the target and he walked over the tree I was on. So when I heard him above me, when I turned my -- just kind of turned a little bit to look, he looked right down at me, and that's when the compromise took place.
GLENN: Okay. And this was a -- this is not a guy carrying a gun, this was not a member of the Taliban, or was it, or what did you think originally?
LUTTRELL: No, sir. He -- he had a -- an axe with him, a wood chopping axe. That's all he had with him. No firearm or anything like that. About three to five minutes later another man walked up the hill, one of my teammates, Matt Axelson, called over to me and said that there was two more coming up, another adult male and a -- about a 13 -- 13-year-old boy. So we took 'em off to the side, set him down on a tree, you know, started interrogating them, tried to give him some food, some water, they didn't want to have anything to do with that. They weren't answering any of our questions, either.
GLENN: You guys -- you speak the language?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir. And we also have equipment that allows us to communicate with them.
GLENN: Okay.
LUTTRELL: My lieutenant, the officer in charge, he came down from his position and did the best he could also to interrogate them, and -- and they just weren't -- they weren't having it. So --
GLENN: And what were you trying to get -- what kind of information were you trying to get?
LUTTRELL: Basically we were telling them that we were Americans and that they were in danger and asking if they had any -- any -- or knew of anywhere about his of any Taliban sites or cache sites or just basically what their general business was up there, and they weren't answering anything.
GLENN: Now, did you get the feeling at the time it was because they were a part of the Taliban, or friendly, or they were just afraid of you, or why --
LUTTRELL: My -- my feeling after dealing with a lot -- most of -- every operation we had been on, just you can tell when someone doesn't really care for you. And when you look at someone's eyes, whether they -- you know, they like you or they don't. And on top of which they weren't answering any of our questions. And even though the dialect might be a little different in certain areas, still -- you could still understand what we were saying, they weren't having anything to do with us. They were talking among themselves, obviously. We couldn't under -- we couldn't pick it up totally. So the decision was they weren't brandishing firearms, they were, you know, no immediate threat to us except for the fact that if we turned them loose, that, you know, they could obviously go get reinforcements to come back on top of us. We talked about, you know, tying them up and leaving them there, but again that would be just like killing them as well. They had all the goats with them and stuff like that. It's just -- that would have brought more people into our position, and like I said, our job, we were set in for 72 hours to overwatch this target, and with a compromise like that, we were just in a difficult situation. Also dealing with the terrain, there wasn't too many places that we could relocate and evaluate our target so the decision was made to turn 'em loose.
GLENN: Okay, so --
LUTTRELL: I mean we couldn't -- we couldn't --
GLENN: How far --
LUTTRELL: Because of the ROEs, rules of engagement, we have to -- placed upon us and stuff like that, you know, if we would have executed them, you know, we'd have wound up in prison. And it wasn't -- I'd rather -- you know, we'd rather take our -- the decision was to take our chances with -- in a gunfight than take our chances in the court system.
GLENN: And the reason why -- I mean the Taliban, they are actually now carrying mule packhorses and mules loaded with explosives, but our guys cannot stop them or can't shoot them because if they're not carrying a weapon, you can't shoot them, right?
LUTTRELL: Well, you can't even shoot them -- rules of engagement for conventional forces you're not even allowed to shoot 'em if they have a weapon on them. They have to be actively engaging you.
GLENN: Okay. So you guys talked about it and you decided we gotta let 'em go. And was it mainly because of the rules of engagement?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir.
GLENN: Okay.
LUTTRELL: And, you know, exactly. They -- like I said, they weren't carrying any firearms, and we couldn't keep 'em, you know?
GLENN: Right. And so you guys knew you'd go to prison, why? Because the bodies would be found and then --
LUTTRELL: Eventually the bodies would be found and their IO campaign is a lot better than ours. They support --
GLENN: The IO campaign, what is --
LUTTRELL: Their media campaign.
GLENN: Okay.
LUTTRELL: You know, so eventually it would have been traced back to us. Some -- you'd think it would be impossible but I've seen it happen.
GLENN: So, in other words, what you're saying is they would find the bodies, then they would contact the media, al-Jazeera, al-Jazeera would run how you executed a 13-year-old boy and two -- two other guys, and then it would be tracked back to you, and you would be tried in the media, you'd end up in prison?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir. That was -- that was the thing about it.
GLENN: Was this just a -- was this just a conversation you guys had? You actually took a vote, right?
LUTTRELL: We got together -- I mean that's one of the unique things about the SEAL team, obviously the officer is overall command and control, I was the team leader and we had Danny and Matt, we were in a unique situation, we got together, and obviously two heads are better than one, three are better than two, so we talked about it and came to the decision that, you know, we aren't murderers, anything about the SEAL team that we don't know about we're not a defensive force, we're an offensive force. When we go in to -- you take the bad guys out to take the fighter -- or to, you know -- to engage, but in this certain situation, it was just unique, that's all I could say. You know, I racked my brain a hundred million times, you know, if we made the right call or not, but we made the call --
GLENN: Okay.
LUTTRELL: -- depending on the rules that we implemented on them.
GLENN: Okay. So now you let them go. How far away are you from your Taliban target?
LUTTRELL: Maybe a little under a click.
GLENN: I don't --
LUTTRELL: Maybe under a mile. A mile.
GLENN: Okay. So you're -- you're a mile away from your target, you let them go. What do you tell them when they let you go, and what is their expression on your face when you say, see you guys later?
LUTTRELL: We turned 'em loose, and they -- they took out. They -- I mean they didn't stick around. And those -- you know, they ask any people, they can move through those mountains quick. It took them about five minutes to walk up a cliff that it took our team to walk up, it took us about 30 to 45 minutes. You know. Because once we turned them loose after about ten minutes I sit there and watched them walk away, and they never looked back. The kid did a couple times and then they were gone. They just disappeared, and then we relocated.
GLENN: Okay. Then what happened?
LUTTRELL: About 45 minutes later, about a hundred-plus Taliban militia showed up over the top of our ridge. And my ROT, Michael Murphy, was the first one to -- to spot the -- the combatants. I was on the initial -- we were set up like a triangle on the side of this cliff, so much so we had to dig out the ground below us. We were just basically standing up leaning backwards against a cliff. That's how steep it was, kind of give you an idea. And we actually had an advantage on our target. I had just passed the -- the monitoring equipment down to Matt and pulled my hat down over my eyes. And then I get a whisper from Mikey to -- when I pull my hat up, I look down and, you know, his eyes were as big as sand dollars and he was just like, you know, it's time to get it on. So I rolled over and the first person I saw was a -- was a guy with two RPGs on his back and an AK, and there was a huge pine -- or a huge tree about 20 meters in front of me, and that's what I focused my rifle on, my radical, you know, my snipe -- my scope, and I see a head pop out and the muzzle of an AK. I turned around and looked at Mikey and I was like, it's time to get it on. And then all of the you can just see them flooding the top part of the -- the ridge, and then they were coming down our side.
Turned back around, the guy had moved back around the tree. You could hear them yelling. We didn't have an idea of how many there were but just looking at what we were dealing with on top of the ridge was -- was -- I mean it was a multitude of them, sir. Took the first shot at the guy behind the tree. I dumped him, and then that's what, you know, they opened up on us. We were in a -- a tree bed, which provided some cover. Axelson, Matt flanked to the left, Danny was on the radio calling in for reinforcements and also covering our right side and then Mikey, our OIC, he was hanging out in between everybody running back -- because you couldn't hear anything, there was so much gunfire, trying to figure out what was going on, getting information from Mikey. He was like locating up -- talking up my position, telling me to, you know, basically to get it on, because we were getting overrun. And then Axe was flanked out so far that he was covering our left side that Mikey had a long stretch to get -- to get to. Once we started getting overrun, I mean every time we'd -- we'd take somebody down, sir, somebody would fill their position. And they had every one of our -- you know, every angle covered that it was -- it was impossible to take everybody out.
GLENN: All right. We're going to -- I'm going to stop you here for just a second because I have to take a break.

What a load of tripe. It doesn't help matters none that - not only does this guy (the NAVY guy) sound like an idiot - the guy interviewing him is Glenn Beck, a guy I don't hold in anywhere near high regard.

Water boarding? Torture? C'mon. Are you people actually condoning this stuff? What's bloody well wrong with you people? Jesus.
 
Huh. That's funny that unarmed civilians were able to fire on them. :)

You didn't read the post. Some goat-herders came upon the position of the SEALs. Due to the rules of engagement, the SEALs could not just shoot the civilians, so they had to let them go. Then about half an hour later, the Taliban attacked their position.
 
Things like that have happened in any war. I've read stories like that about Vietnam. Just because we have rules doesn't mean the enemy always will. But to not have any kind of rules of engagement, I think we'd have a lot more Blackwaters than an end to terrorism.
 
The Bible does not teach against self-defense. If you actually studied it instead of quoting a few verses here or there for your argument, you'd know that. God even told the the Hebrews to go to war against some enemy nations to protect themselves.

- - - and rape their women, kill their children...etc. Savage, tribal stuff. Sorry, dude. It WASN'T to protect themselves. Heh. But, whatever thrills ya.
 
wed have alot of renegade soldiers out there acting like monsters. its a pony show to make us look like the good guys , thats the objective.
 
You didn't read the post. Some goat-herders came upon the position of the SEALs. Due to the rules of engagement, the SEALs could not just shoot the civilians, so they had to let them go. Then about half an hour later, the Taliban attacked their position.
Yeah, I did. They fired on the Taliban and the Taliban returned fire.
 
im sure civilians will always be more than willing to give up your position , they are out there in a community with no real protection ,its best for them to cooperate with the thugs to keep themself afloat..while they hope that someday we get the job done. never put too much faith in the civilians.
 
Yeah, I did. They fired on the Taliban and the Taliban returned fire.

You said they were unarmed, when in fact they were. The Taliban initially shot was carrying an AK and two RPG's. You are a legal combatant according to the ROE, Geneva Convention and Law of Armed Conflict. Are you honestly enough of an idiot to suggest these four SEALS sit back and do nothing in the hopes the friendly Taliban will leave them alone?

There isn't a person on this damn board that has any idea if water boarding or other torture techniques are effective or not because none of us have ever experienced it or seen it. For the most part we hear about the failures of the gov't or the military to prevent something but we/you have NO idea how many incidents have been prevented because good intel was obtained.

The view from that extremely high horse you're sitting on must be spectacular...be careful or you'll get a nosebleed. :whatever:
 
The Bible does not teach against self-defense. If you actually studied it instead of quoting a few verses here or there for your argument, you'd know that. God even told the the Hebrews to go to war against some enemy nations to protect themselves.

...what? I didn't say it did. I'm not talking about scripture. I am asking you if you would kill for God. And if so would you let the size or brutality of an army stop you? Did you even read my post?
 
You people are funny.........


ALL RESEARCH????? ALL??? You do realize you just said "ALL"...right??

That's just a flat out lie. There are many instances where it's saved lived. So what would you do to get info about an imminent attack???
Ask them to reflect upon their own humanity? :yay: :whatever: Or would you simply do nothing and let millions die?

I want you to name an example of a terrorist attack in the US or and attack on US interests in the world in which " millions" died.

I DARE YOU!

you know what that is? a " flat out lie".
and also, since " there are many instances" in which it " saved lived" ( lives?) I'd like for you to name 10 instances.
thank you.
 
Does Torture Work?Seymour Hersh evades the question.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004, at 5:01 PM ET
Seymour Hersh's new book, Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, reveals our most intrepid investigative reporter working near the top of his game. Basically a compilation of the pieces that Hersh wrote for The New Yorker over the past few years—expanded, updated, and re-edited, in some cases significantly so—the book holds up as a cohesive tale and a searing indictment of the Bush administration: its chicanery with intelligence in the months leading up to the Iraq war, its inadequate planning for the war's aftermath, and its muffing of all the wars—in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader war against terrorism—ever since.
There is, however, one gnawing equivocation in Hersh's otherwise forthright account. It comes in the first section, called "Torture at Abu Ghraib," which takes up over 70 pages of this 370-page book. Hersh blew the lid off the Abu Ghraib scandal last spring—the photographs, the Taguba report, the cover-ups, the links up the chain of command (which, in his book, he extends all the way up to the Oval Office). But he has always skirted a vital question: Does torture work?
Hersh is not alone in his evasiveness. Liberals have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective, that it doesn't yield useful information, that a tortured detainee will tell his inquisitors whatever they want to hear. This is an appealing argument. If it's true, we don't have to wrestle with any moral or legal dilemmas. If torture simply doesn't work, all those difficult questions are moot.

But it is, in fact, very likely that, under some circumstances, with some detainees, torture does produce, in the parlance of the trade, "actionable intelligence." Torture to produce a confession ("Yes, I am a terrorist") almost certainly is useless; at some point of pain, many people would confess to anything. But torture to elicit specific information (Who told you to do this? Where did the meeting take place? Who else is in your cell? What are they planning to blow up tomorrow?) sometimes will do—clearly, has done—the job. If it hasn't, many times over the centuries, then why do so many regimes engage in it? Some no doubt do it for the kicks, but they're not all purely sadists.

I do not mean to advocate torture. I mean only to suggest that it's time to start wrestling with those moral and legal dilemmas, to face them straightforwardly. If al-Qaida strikes the United States again, our leaders—whoever they are—will be tempted to resort to torture as a method of getting vital intelligence quickly, and we or they or someone should have mapped out crucial distinctions ahead of time: What is acceptable, what isn't; who should engage in it, who shouldn't; for what purposes is it legitimate, for what purposes isn't it; or whether we should decide, after an honest appraisal of its costs and benefits, that the whole business of torture—however you define it—is irredeemably beyond the pale.
It should be noted that the torture at Abu Ghraib appears to be utterly unjustified by any standards. Hersh clearly shows—and the Schlesinger report has confirmed—that the vast majority of the inmates at Abu Ghraib were common criminals or total innocents rounded up in random sweeps who were subjected to no screening before their horrendous ordeals began.
But what about the inmates elsewhere, many of whom really were, and are, al-Qaida operatives? Hersh refers to a highly classified "special-access program"—approved by President Bush and carried out by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—that involved, as he puts it, "snatching or strong-arming suspected terrorists and questioning them in secret prison facilities in Singapore, Thailand, and Pakistan, among other sites." What about the torture—presumably there's torture of one sort or another—that went on there? For the moment, forget about whether such techniques are proper. That's a separate though no less important matter, to be dealt with after this question is answered: Did they produce useful intelligence?
At one point, Hersh suggests that they did. He writes that, early on in the Iraqi insurgency, detainees weren't giving their American interrogators any substantive information. Hersh quotes a "former intelligence official" on what Stephen Cambone, the assistant secretary of defense in charge of the operation, did in response in mid-2003:
Cambone says, I've got to crack this thing and I'm tired of working through the normal chain of command. I've got this apparatus set up—the black special-access program—and I'm going in hot. So he pulls the switch, and the electricity begins flowing last summer. And it's working. We're getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world. We're getting good stuff.

Hey you! reality getting you down?
apply the "Celldog Method" and no amount of facts will get in the way of a good time :up:

first, always start the post with a smiley face, people will think that
it's good news regardless of the content.


:yay:

see? isn't that a better way to start off anything?
now everyone's happy.
proceed to post an article, but make sure not read it, now, this is crucial, if you even read it a little bit it might get in the way of your wild claims.
now, make the outrageous claim, make sure to use all caps and bold
something like:

LUNG CANCER IS ACTUALLY NOT AS BAD AS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT!!!!!

or

LUNG CANCER NOT AS BAD AS HOLLYWOOD ELITE WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE!!!!!

now, post the article, but you're not done YET, you need to selectively bold out words that at least APPEAR positive then add a little comment regardless of context, remember "( )" is your best friend . make sure and never answer if you're later questioned upon sources or content of the article you posted:



Lung cancer is the malignant transformation and expansion of lung tissue, and is the most lethal of all cancers worldwide, responsible for up to 3 million deaths annually. Although lung cancer was previously an illness ( hmmmm, previously eh! guess all the liberal doctors were wrong on that one :whatever:) that predominantly affected males, the incidence in women has been increasing in the last few decades, which has been attributed to the rising ratio of female to male smokers. Currently, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women, overshadowing breast( rising ratio of female breast, you can't beat that Democrats!!!! ) cancer, ovarian cancer and uterine cancers combined.[1] However, it is of note that there are certain types of lung cancers that appear in otherwise healthy ( certain types of lung cancer appear healthy? I guess Al Gore was wrong about that too:cwink:) patients who have never smoked.
Current research indicates that the factor with the greatest impact on risk of lung cancer is long-term exposure to inhaled carcinogens. The most common means of such exposure is tobacco smoke.
Treatment and prognosis depend upon the histological type of cancer, the stage (degree of spread), and the patient's performance status. Treatments (patients who have never smoked depend upon treatments? HMMMM I guess that's the cost of universal health care and scaremongering by the dems :oldrazz:)and include surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy.


see? now no measure of facts and figures will ever stop you from holding on to your ill conceived notions of the world.
and when you reach our lord's Christian heaven ( for christians ONLY) tell'em Celldog sent ya. :up:
:o

only a " true american" endorses torture.
but hey, they are not " human" like us, right mein fuhrer?
 
Just a quick litte thing I heard tonight, after World War 2 the Allies were deciding what to do with the Nazis after they (the Allies) discovered the inhuman actions the Nazis committed in the Holocaust. Churchill wanted to forego a trial and just hang them. Stalin wanted trials to take place and then hang them. The U.S. wanted fair trials under the rule of law to take place. The Allies agreed and then the Nuremburg trials took place.

Now some in the U.S. want to forego the rule of law when dealing with suspected terrorists.

Sad thing is, now days with all the sympathetic fake liberals out there "fair trial" isn't really fair when it comes to actual justice. I was surprised Saddam got hung, that lawyer was trying to get people to sympathise with someone who had all facts against him prooving all his crimes. Lawyer was still trying to get him off.
 
I want you to name an example of a terrorist attack in the US or and attack on US interests in the world in which " millions" died.

I DARE YOU!

you know what that is? a " flat out lie".
and also, since " there are many instances" in which it " saved lived" ( lives?) I'd like for you to name 10 instances.
thank you.


uHH....WHAT NUMBER IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU THEN??? :dry:
 
I just need to say, if it weren't so frightening it'd be hilarious....I see this s*** all the time.



[*]I say the Christian God is a sadistic barbarian, warlike and bloodthirsty.


[*]That was only in the Old Testament. That was a different time. Jesus came to fulfill the Law. We don't KILL disobedient children, Homos and Witches anymore...'cause Jesus taught us to love our enemies, and not to resist an evil man.


[*]Jesus was a pacifist and said "He who lives by the sword will die by it and if a man STRIKES you, turn your cheek and let him strike the other." He would Never. Never. NEVER go to WAR. N.E.V.E.R., no matter what.


[*]Bullhonkey, God always went to war and commanded his people to slaughter neighbors in self defense!

*****All Examples From THE OLD TESTAMENT, BEFORE JESUS CAME*****​





Slim, you can't have it both ways. You're....there's no other way to say it. You are stupid, and evil. You're a human joke. The world will be such a better place when you're gone.
 
I just need to say, if it weren't so frightening it'd be hilarious....I see this s*** all the time.


[*]I say the Christian God is a sadistic barbarian, warlike and bloodthirsty.

[*]That was only in the Old Testament. That was a different time. Jesus came to fulfill the Law. We don't KILL disobedient children, Homos and Witches anymore...'cause Jesus taught us to love our enemies, and not to resist an evil man.

[*]Jesus was a pacifist and said "He who lives by the sword will die by it and if a man STRIKES you, turn your cheek and let him strike the other." He would Never. Never. NEVER go to WAR. N.E.V.E.R., no matter what.

[*]Bullhonkey, God always went to war and commanded his people to slaughter neighbors in self defense!

*****All Examples From THE OLD TESTAMENT, BEFORE JESUS CAME*****





Slim, you can't have it both ways. You're....there's no other way to say it. You are stupid, and evil. You're a human joke. The world will be such a better place when you're gone.


That's ****ed up!:dry:
 
uHH....WHAT NUMBER IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU THEN??? :dry:


LOL again

I ( "I" meaning me, mr sparkle) want you ( "you" meaning Celldog) to name an example of a terrorist attack in the US or and attack on US interests in the world in which " millions" died.(get it?, now I'd like you to answer)

:cwink:
 
I just need to say, if it weren't so frightening it'd be hilarious....I see this s*** all the time.


[*]I say the Christian God is a sadistic barbarian, warlike and bloodthirsty.

[*]That was only in the Old Testament. That was a different time. Jesus came to fulfill the Law. We don't KILL disobedient children, Homos and Witches anymore...'cause Jesus taught us to love our enemies, and not to resist an evil man.

[*]Jesus was a pacifist and said "He who lives by the sword will die by it and if a man STRIKES you, turn your cheek and let him strike the other." He would Never. Never. NEVER go to WAR. N.E.V.E.R., no matter what.

[*]Bullhonkey, God always went to war and commanded his people to slaughter neighbors in self defense!

*****All Examples From THE OLD TESTAMENT, BEFORE JESUS CAME*****





Slim, you can't have it both ways. You're....there's no other way to say it. You are stupid, and evil. You're a human joke. The world will be such a better place when you're gone.



oooooooooh....look at all the big font and pretty colors!! :yay:

Being the Bible Scholar that you are, you'd know that Jesus is the same God of the Old Testament. You'd also know that His sacrifice only cancelled the ceremonial laws and civil laws.


Though we maintain that perfect peace will come on the earth only through God's direct intervention, scripture is very clear about our responsibility to introduce peace to this world. God is the God of peace (Rom 15:23; 1 Th 5:23; Heb 13:20), we have peace with God through Jesus (Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1) and he has called us to live in peace (1 Co 7:15; 2 Co 13:11). In his discussion about not paying back evil for evil and the taking of vengeance, Paul says, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" (Rom 12:18; also Heb 12:14). If there is something we can do to avoid arguments or violence with others, then we are to do so.
This does not mean, however, that we are to consistently allow evil people to do whatever they want, simply to "keep the peace." For example, Proverbs 25:26 describes a righteous man who gives way to the wicked as a polluted well. If we are aware of someone's evil intentions that will bring harm to others, we certainly would not seek peace by giving in to their demands. For example, you do not turn your child over to a child molester just to "keep peace."
Similarly, some Christians feel that the western world should not disarm because this would allow totalitarian countries to take over and destroy the lives of millions. This is an issue of self defense, rather than an issue of faith alone. Because some individuals, groups or nations are clearly bent on dominating and abusing others, maintaining the peace at times may be impossible without a strong defense.

So "peace" cannot always be the Christian's response, due to the evil intent of others. For example, the term "tough love" has become a popular description of our responses to another's sin. In scripture, we see that Paul did not allow the immoral brother to continue influencing the Corinthians, though they may have felt it would keep the peace to allow him to remain. Instead, Paul said to expel him (1 Cor. 5:13). To another church, Paul instructed that if a person refuses to work, he should not receive the community's support: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:10). And if someone did not obey Paul's instructions, the church was not to associate with him to make him feel ashamed (2 Th. 3:14). The apostle John wrote that we are to refuse to welcome a brother who is teaching a different Christ (2 John 9-10). These are corrective actions intended to eventually restore the peace between spiritual brothers, but the short term effect to is disturb the peace. Jesus himself, who brought us peace with God, stated "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Mt 10:34). He then shows that the gospel will sever some relationships and create enemies within a person's own household. Yes, God is the God of peace and we are to live at peace to the extent possible, but as long as we live in a sin-dominated world that is hostile to our God and his kingdom, we will not always have peace. It is clear from these scriptures that our actions must occasionally and briefly disturb the peace so that long-term peace can be restored.
The New Testament is clearly a handbook for the individual, not a dissertation on the operation of government. As Americans, we recognize that a primary duty of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the populace. Likewise, God protects us so we don't have to protect ourselves; and he does a much better job of it. It appears this is a case of God requiring individuals to have very different responses than governments or even groups.
As with all systems of law, we see that a spiritual law may be superseded by another under certain conditions. In the natural realm, we understand that the law of aerodynamic lift can supersede the law of gravity under certain conditions, allowing an airplane to fly. I suggest we must see the law of peace superseded under certain conditions by other spiritual laws. Thus it occasionally is necessary for us act in self-sacrificing love, for example, even using non-peaceful means, to protect a principle or another person.

I think many people mistakenly believe that peace overrides all other factors, that we must do anything necessary to maintain peace. But that is not so; Jesus and the apostles certainly didn't do that. The New Testament clearly states that love overrides all other factors, but it does not say that about peace.
One of the biggest arguments against Christians defending themselves is that we are called to live in peace. It is clear from the scriptures and principles we have just examined that peace will not and cannot be the overriding issue in all situations. There are times when a Christian must knowingly and deliberately break the peace to achieve a higher good. This in no way condones anarchy or a hostile nature. But God's kingdom and his righteousness (his work and his character; Mt 6:33) must be our highest priority, and this sometimes requires us to respond non-peacefully to a sinful world. Peace is not always possible
 
LOL again

I ( "I" meaning me, mr sparkle) want you ( "you" meaning Celldog) to name an example of a terrorist attack in the US or and attack on US interests in the world in which " millions" died.(get it?, now I'd like you to answer)

:cwink:

Millions could be at risk one day. You deny that? You don't think we should do everything possible to get that info?

And I want YOU (Mr. Speckle) to understand that I could care less about what you want me to do.

Especially since this a hypothetical.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"