Impeaching Bush?

[dt3]

there is some amount of pain in most all death, what im talking about it a slow, torturous, agonizing pain, that lasts for months and months, not a few minutes

And the whole time you're in captivity, knowing your head is gonna be cut off. That's not torture?

and i dont care how long a person has been brain washed, a true heart lives in all, as god does. to think otherwise would go against my whole belief structure (the belief that god is everywhere). god can do anything, im sure, including making the blind see again.

You can't use something that can't be proven (god) to make a valid point. You can believe it if you want, but you can't apply it to everyone else.

but they do not see u as a civilian trying to rebuild a country. they see you as a threat. once they find u less a threat, and more someone who agrees with some things they say, change can happen.

Nick Berg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That guy was a civilian. He was trying to rebuile Iraq. He wasn't a threat to anyone.

again, we all have more similarities then differences. find a translator if you dont already know arabic, and find good metaphors. everyone knows what its like to feel a cool breeze on a scorching day, from there, relate it to things that we all bond on. there are commonalities in all, we just have to find the heart and mind to express them. in fear and pain, many cant do this, but to think of the pain or revenge, and they get past the thought of finding common ground and friendship, because loved ones have been lost in the process. but to move forward, the feelings of hatred or distance ideals, need to be set aside for a greater good that can last forever.

Again, you're assuming these people will sit down and have a rational discussion. Not gonna happen.

 

[GraceAbounds]

your right, he said he came to divide, but the one who comes after him comes to unite. im pretty sure thats in there, isnt it? and i like the parts i say, because they are in the correct context of the conversation. but your right, i have to re-read it because i seemed to miss the part about acting violently to your enemies. i thought i read, "love your enemies", but it must have been talking about tough love huh? like killing them out of love? that makes sense right? lol, no, not really. but if you can recite some parts about leaders doing what followers shouldnt do, id be all for it. the only part i can remember jesus saying to not do what he did, was when he said not to follow him down the road of being the sacrificial lamb, (and like you said, the perpetrators, or enemies, were not satan, but a lamb with evil in their hearts, turning them to wolves, aka, there are no wolves or satan people, just pure lambs involved in evil.).
im pretty sure, also, that we are to answer and bow to no one, but god itself. god does not put his judgement in the hands of politicians, are u kidding me? i bow to love, and if love asks to kill my enemies, then love has gone back on the word it teaches.
Love is gospel and law, that is the balance to be looked on. love always makes a balance of itself, because all things lead to love in the end, not just a balance of love and hate in the end, or does heaven have hate too, to balance things out there?
I still dont understand how some people can hear someone talk bad about bush, and think they are bandwagon people, or a million flies to shit, as u say. this is rediculous, ive always been on the short end of popular opinion, especially within christian circles, because in one way, shape, or form, they all let violence into their teachings, to which, i dont understand why. is it because faulty believers just cant think of a better way of getting the job done? or a lack of faith that god can wave his hand and get things done, without people waving their gun?
I hope this is the last time i hear "stop agreeing with the anti bush people, because its not that i hate bush, its that i know love, and i dont bow to those who dont follow it every step of the way, i dont care who or what they are.
And have u ever thought he doesnt change his ground, because during his presidency, the term "flip flopper" was a big issue, and for him to have the balls and strong "character" to admit faults in his convictions or attemps is no longger an option for him, because then he really would be an outsider amongst those closest to him, which he does not want to do, because family means a lot to him, more then doing what is right sometimes.

You understand not a word I am saying and are being sarcastic. So I will respectfully agree to disagree with you and step out of conversation with you. I will not argue over the Word of God with you.

 

[GraceAbounds]

im pretty sure jesus was supposed to be a sign that no more death was going to be brought down from god on its people, that was the new covenent i believe,lol. hence, a new testement.
a realist? we're talking about putting our faith in something that travels on the breeze and in our bones, and you want to talk about reality? the fact that god performs miracles in ways that seem unreal, or go against "natures laws" (walking on water, bringing back the dead), should show that a true believer isnt what this world would call a realist,lol. i think they call them looney. but to me, god is a "real idealist", because it is in a pure idea that greatness appears, especially the ideas that seem extreamly far fetched, because its those kind of things that require the most faith to perform.
He didnt just preach to believers by the way. thats why he extended the teaching of god from the jews to gentiles alike. he asked non believers to have dinner with him, then his disciples would question him as to why he would invite such people, and it was because the shephard always goes for the lost sheep, not the ones in the fold already.
no, he did not just hug everyone, like a uniter would (like the one who was to follow him, not like a divider, which jesus has done a good job of doing, as we can see with all his different opinioned followers,lol), but when he rebuked, he didnt hurt anyone either. the only time he showed any acts of violence was when he turned over a money table in gods house, that hardly gives credence to war,lol. do you think you have enough faith to go over seas and encounter "legion" (for there are many, u read the bible, u know that part right?), and pursuade the demons within to leave and run into the sea? or do you think you'd have to kill him, and all his evil memebers?
All i know is I "plucked" love out of the bible, and thats all that matters. all it takes is a bit of thinking and character to follow love wherever it leads, even if it leads to certain death, because death cannot steal my soul, but to act out of love could.

Your sarcasm does not show love.

I have said nothing disrespectful or sarcastic to you here. I understand what you are saying and I have tried to add to what you are saying. I agree with you that love is what is most important, but I believe that you are missing other parts of reality, yes reality of God's Word. I am not saying this so that I can be right and you can be wrong. I am not saying this to justify hurting someone or to promote violence. If you think that is what I am saying, like I said, you understand not what I am saying.

I ask that you step back in humble prayer and seek God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit before you sarcastically attack me again.

 

[NightWarrior]

Why are we even bringing religion into the mix of this discussion? It makes me kind of queasy. As Donnie has mentioned, when you are dealing with someone who cares nothing of the God you people worship, and kill in the name of their God (which I know is not true of their Religion, but what they have interpreted) then we are fighting a losing battle in trying to reason with people like this. We then have to resort to other means, which is a use of force. The US is not a perfect country by any means, but yet here we are, perched high above everyone else expected to save humanity. Well guess what? In order to do that, people are going to have to die and be sacrificed. Is it right? Who knows. You speak of God and his beliefs and whatever, yet the Bible is so flawed it is not even funny. But I'm not here to argue the existence of the truths or myths of God, I am here to argue that torture is an effective means of gathering information. If you think we have time to "befriend" every captive and spend hours being their little buddy, your mistaken and another 9/11 incident will no doubt unfold sooner rather than later. I'm done with this topic because you've brought Religion into the discussion which is as flawed as a crappy diamond.

 

[All Else Failed]

Ugh, I give up on you people. Support torture, support a treasonous president, support the patriot act....I don't care anymore.

 

[IntruderLS1]

The way I see it, there's one flaw in your argument and post that makes it fail, and I will try to tell you what it is and why. With the common practices in Guantanamo bay, what you should really expect from a prisoner out of an interrogation is everything but the Truth. Everyone of us would say they murdered Jesus Himself if we were put to psychological and physical torture like the one those people have to endure. Then it's when your argument about torture saving lives becomes absolutely wrong. Any conffession obtained via torture is not valid in any way, never.
I don't want to say how bad torture is, don't think it's necessary as many before me have stated it already. You speak in your posts about you (or us, if I may include my country) being the good ones, needing to be strong against the bad ones, and I wouldn't disagree... I am a bit exceptical about what makes us good though. I don't know who gave us or the US the moral power to actually say what is right and what is wrong, but even if we were, aren't we supposed to set an example? why would we violate human rights when we say we are deffending them? that is just too contradictory for me...

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. Torture is indeed barbaric, and when an innocent is taken up in it, barbarism transforms into tragedy. Lives have no doubt been destroyed by 'small' mistakes.

When I speak of good vs. evil, I do not imagine national lines on a map. I am referencing civilized culture which has a respect for both law, and human dignity.

I disagree with you that information gathered under duress is never reliable. If this were the case, torture would be a practice that would not have survived through the ages. I'm not defending it, merely pointing out a statistical reality.

No individual has the authority to grant any nation or group the "moral power to say what is right and wrong." Things that I consider to be good are common in men and women around the world. We as a society of humans must make a collective decision to stand opposed to what we collectively consider to be evil.

The atrocities committed in Iraq by the enemy are legion. They don't get news coverage because the vile nature is too graphic to put on TV screens or in newspapers. Families burned alive. Children raped and mutilated in front of parents. Religious leaders tortured (in the classic sense) and murdered for not supporting the rebellion.

Every individual must make a choice on which side of the line they will stand. I call this side "good" and the other side I call "evil." You may call them whatever you like.

The stand against our interrogation methods is enlightened. One day, the world will be ready to be a place where these methods will be universally called obsolete. As I have said before however, ... sadly... today is not that day.

 

[All Else Failed]

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. Torture is indeed barbaric, and when an innocent is taken up in it, barbarism transforms into tragedy. Lives have no doubt been destroyed by 'small' mistakes.

When I speak of good vs. evil, I do not imagine national lines on a map. I am referencing civilized culture which has a respect for both law, and human dignity.

I disagree with you that information gathered under duress is never reliable. If this were the case, torture would be a practice that would not have survived through the ages. I'm not defending it, merely pointing out a statistical reality.

No individual has the authority to grant any nation or group the "moral power to say what is right and wrong." Things that I consider to be good are common in men and women around the world. We as a society of humans must make a collective decision to stand opposed to what we collectively consider to be evil.

The atrocities committed in Iraq by the enemy are legion. They don't get news coverage because the vile nature is too graphic to put on TV screens or in newspapers. Families burned alive. Children raped and mutilated in front of parents. Religious leaders tortured (in the classic sense) and murdered for not supporting the rebellion.

Every individual must make a choice on which side of the line they will stand. I call this side "good" and the other side I call "evil." You may call them whatever you like.

The stand against our interrogation methods is enlightened. One day, the world will be ready to be a place where these methods will be universally called obsolete. As I have said before however, ... sadly... today is not that day.

With all due respect, I think you are fooling yourself if you think the torturer is torturing someone just for the information. Other motives and reasons lie behind torture.


I am a rabid human rights advocate. NO ONE should ever be tortured. Torture *is* obsolete. Just watch the documentary ghosts of guantanamo. Numerous people in those interviews who were actually there and participated in these type of things said that they KNEW most of them were innocent people, who had no information what so ever, but were tortured anyways. Also, in the video, they all agree that the torture techniques used didn't get any relevant information from the detainees at all. Just ask John McCain if torture is reliable. He gave his torturers the names of a football team when they tortured him.

Torture is an obsolete, barbaric, unethical, inhumane, illegal practice that should have NO PLACE in a so called "free democracy" 's intelligence gathering procedures.

 

[Maritxu]

I was also kidding about the spelling

I said, they caught the guy during the botched ransom exchange, how could he be innocent? I didn't leave this to interpretation. Now tell me how you feel.

Boo hoo, I feel for the "innocent" people at Guantomono Bay. Sometimes the sacrifice of a few outweighs the sacrifice of many, IMHO. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. 9/11 happened because we have been all too slack on who comes and goes in this country. I for one say to close the door to ALL Middle Easterners. Stay on your own continent. Then there will be no "racial" profiling. Its about time America starts to pick and choose who can come here or not.

If he is def. guilty and there is no question about it, then it's when human rights and morals come. Torture is against human rights and having a good or worse reason doesn't make it good or better. If I am deffending what is good in the world I can't go around doing the opposite of what I preach. Besides, toruture has proven itself to be a bad method, innocents admit things they didn't do and those who are guilty lie. There are other more moral ways to get information and even when less violent, they work better.
And what you say about the middle Easterns comming to America, I think it's unfair to say that just because they come from a place like that, a hard working family doesn't deserve a chance. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

 

[Maritxu]

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. Torture is indeed barbaric, and when an innocent is taken up in it, barbarism transforms into tragedy. Lives have no doubt been destroyed by 'small' mistakes.

When I speak of good vs. evil, I do not imagine national lines on a map. I am referencing civilized culture which has a respect for both law, and human dignity.

I disagree with you that information gathered under duress is never reliable. If this were the case, torture would be a practice that would not have survived through the ages. I'm not defending it, merely pointing out a statistical reality.

No individual has the authority to grant any nation or group the "moral power to say what is right and wrong." Things that I consider to be good are common in men and women around the world. We as a society of humans must make a collective decision to stand opposed to what we collectively consider to be evil.

The atrocities committed in Iraq by the enemy are legion. They don't get news coverage because the vile nature is too graphic to put on TV screens or in newspapers. Families burned alive. Children raped and mutilated in front of parents. Religious leaders tortured (in the classic sense) and murdered for not supporting the rebellion.

Every individual must make a choice on which side of the line they will stand. I call this side "good" and the other side I call "evil." You may call them whatever you like.

The stand against our interrogation methods is enlightened. One day, the world will be ready to be a place where these methods will be universally called obsolete. As I have said before however, ... sadly... today is not that day.

I think you should read this I could get you more info if you wanted to
APA 2006 Press Release: American Psychological Association Reaffirms Unequivocal Position Against Torture and Abuse
psychology and torture

 

[IntruderLS1]

With all due respect, I think you are fooling yourself if you think the torturer is torturing someone just for the information. Other motives and reasons lie behind torture.


I am a rabid human rights advocate. NO ONE should ever be tortured. Torture *is* obsolete. Just watch the documentary ghosts of guantanamo. Numerous people in those interviews who were actually there and participated in these type of things said that they KNEW most of them were innocent people, who had no information what so ever, but were tortured anyways. Also, in the video, they all agree that the torture techniques used didn't get any relevant information from the detainees at all. Just ask John McCain if torture is reliable. He gave his torturers the names of a football team when they tortured him.

Torture is an obsolete, barbaric, unethical, inhumane, illegal practice that should have NO PLACE in a so called "free democracy" 's intelligence gathering procedures.

What reason beyond the gathering of time sensitive information does a nation sanction torture?

I find it interesting that you believe every word spoken by the prisoners in Cuba. They are media savants these guys... I'm not saying they are ALL right or wrong, but I assure you they are going to paint as terrible a picture as they can when given the opportunity.

Torture is barbaric and inhumane. No arguments whatsoever. I have been very clear that I find it personally offensive. It's silly for us to argue about it. In reality, we are in about 99% agreement. That 1% is the idea that A) The torture these guys were subjected to isn't even real torture, and B) on occasion, becoming a barbarian is the only way to extract time sensitive information out of a barbarian.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I think you should read this I could get you more info if you wanted to
APA 2006 Press Release: American Psychological Association Reaffirms Unequivocal Position Against Torture and Abuse
psychology and torture

I read your link. It was a sort of mission statement of the APA in their stand against the use of trained psychologists in the process of torture. I view this as a mirror of the Hypocratic (spelling I'm sure is wrong) oath. A trained psychologist would be abusing their power if they were to assist in damaging an individuals Psyche.

They offered no scientific data, nor did they even suggest that the practice does not yield the results the interrogator is looking for.

... I feel like I'm getting myself painted into a corner here of defending this idea. It would be a gross overstatement to suggest that I agree and or approve of this on a large scale.

I do however believe that there are going to be times when it is justifiable for the greater good, and I feel that the word 'torture' barely meets the technical requirements to use in the way we interrogate.

I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

 

[Maritxu]

I read your link. It was a sort of mission statement of the APA in their stand against the use of trained psychologists in the process of torture. I view this as a mirror of the Hypocratic (spelling I'm sure is wrong) oath. A trained psychologist would be abusing their power if they were to assist in damaging an individuals Psyche.

They offered no scientific data, nor did they even suggest that the practice does not yield the results the interrogator is looking for.

... I feel like I'm getting myself painted into a corner here of defending this idea. It would be a gross overstatement to suggest that I agree and or approve of this on a large scale.

I do however believe that there are going to be times when it is justifiable for the greater good, and I feel that the word 'torture' barely meets the technical requirements to use in the way we interrogate.

I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

I know, I studied criminal psychology and read a lot about turture, thought I could find something about it but that's all I found in a short period of time while getting ready for work, sorry, I will try to find something better.
I know what you mean, I don't share your point of view but I understand it and respect it. I just tend to base my morals in human rights and most of the times I don't share the opinion that the end justifies the means (can you say that in English?)

 

[Maritxu]

Also I didn't want to give you links to anti-Bush websites or AI, lol. Didn't want it to seem biased, but there are plenty of articles by psychologists in those.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Well then, as a trained professional in this field I must yield to your training and opinion. I am very curious how a technique that is not reliable has lasted for so many years....?? I may have to go on a little homework search here. Have any of your teachers or textbooks discussed this disparity?

You said "ends justifies the means" in perfect English. This is a difficult place for me because I tend to agree with you. In fact, I almost always agree with you. But I feel that the world has dictated to us that we must on occasion make exception.

I don't like it, but I see it as necessary.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Also I didn't want to give you links to anti-Bush websites or AI, lol. Didn't want it to seem biased, but there are plenty of articles by psychologists in those.

LOL You show wisdom in your restraint. You must be an excellent communicator.

Linking to sites implies agreement with sites. Many people don't understand that subtle truth.

 

[Maritxu]

Well then, as a trained professional in this field I must yield to your training and opinion. I am very curious how a technique that is not reliable has lasted for so many years....?? I may have to go on a little homework search here. Have any of your teachers or textbooks discussed this disparity?

You said "ends justifies the means" in perfect English. This is a difficult place for me because I tend to agree with you. In fact, I almost always agree with you. But I feel that the world has dictated to us that we must on occasion make exception.

I don't like it, but I see it as necessary.

We have discussed it, yes, and I read a few books on interrogation methods that were very interesting. They showed how even without torture, some interrogations are not valid because they can even get to generate false memories in a witness. Very interesting topic actually.
I don't know why people have used it throught history, I guess it can get you to get some true sometimes, and the rest of the times, it was used to let the anger go on another human being... I have visited several inquisition museums, and I swear, I would have said I raped virgin Mary if they would have even threat me once, lol. Also very interesting topic.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I don't suppose you can recommend any books on the subject that are written in English by chance? If not, that's cool. I'll be able to find something somewhere.

One thing to consider though, is the fact that there is a massive difference in the torture of the Spanish Inquisition, and the ... "torture" of the detainees in Cuba. We don't gouge eyes, or pull testicles from bodies. We don't make them comfortable, but we don't lock 'em in an Iron Maiden either.

 

[Maritxu]

I don't suppose you can recommend any books on the subject that are written in English by chance? If not, that's cool. I'll be able to find something somewhere.

One thing to consider though, is the fact that there is a massive difference in the torture of the Spanish Inquisition, and the ... "torture" of the detainees in Cuba. We don't gouge eyes, or pull testicles from bodies. We don't make them comfortable, but we don't lock 'em in an Iron Maiden either.

Try to find anything on forensic psychology to find something about torture and if it works. Our porfessor published the book together with a lot of different experts and of course it's in Spanish. When I read about false memories and interrogation it was in this book (very good, btw) Amazon.com: The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers: Books: Daniel L. Schacter
I could try to find you some more info, even speak with my professor about it, if you want to know more. Also you should read Zimbardo's studies about role and it's effects on behavior. Could also explain why people torture.
And of course I know Guantanamo is not that bad, thank God, but psychological torture is even more worrying though, and that is practised over there too.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I will look into this further, and report my findings to you.

If you see your professor and are comfortable asking him for more material, I am very open to more exploration. I will caution you however that I do not do well with material I feel is trying to "make a believer" out of me. What I'm really looking for is a science book containing real data.

Too many books these days are very pretty opinion pieces, presented as fact that people run with as if it were iron clad.

 

[IntruderLS1]

PS: It's 4:00am here, so I'm logging. I'll talk to you again soon.