ABC News
CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described
Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death
By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO

Nov. 18, 2005 — - Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corrobrated by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General's report.

Other portions of their accounts echo the accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan.

"They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don't sleep. Don't lie on the floor," one prisoner said through a translator. The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said.

Contacted after the completion of the ABC News investigation, CIA officials would neither confirm nor deny the accounts. They simply declined to comment.

The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion.

However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.

When properly used, the techniques appear to be closely monitored and are signed off on in writing on a case-by-case, technique-by-technique basis, according to highly placed current and former intelligence officers involved in the program. In this way, they say, enhanced interrogations have been authorized for about a dozen high value al Qaeda targets -- Khalid Sheik Mohammed among them. According to the sources, all of these have confessed, none of them has died, and all of them remain incarcerated.

While some media accounts have described the locations where these detainees are located as a string of secret CIA prisons -- a gulag, as it were -- in fact, sources say, there are a very limited number of these locations in use at any time, and most often they consist of a secure building on an existing or former military base. In addition, they say, the prisoners usually are not scattered but travel together to these locations, so that information can be extracted from one and compared with others. Currently, it is believed that one or more former Soviet bloc air bases and military installations are the Eastern European location of the top suspects. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is among the suspects detained there, sources said.

The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners.

According to the sources, when an interrogator wishes to use a particular technique on a prisoner, the policy at the CIA is that each step of the interrogation process must be signed off at the highest level -- by the deputy director for operations for the CIA. A cable must be sent and a reply received each time a progressively harsher technique is used. The described oversight appears tough but critics say it could be tougher. In reality, sources said, there are few known instances when an approval has not been granted. Still, even the toughest critics of the techniques say they are relatively well monitored and limited in use.

Two sources also told ABC that the techniques -- authorized for use by only a handful of trained CIA officers -- have been misapplied in at least one instance.

The sources said that in that case a young, untrained junior officer caused the death of one detainee at a mud fort dubbed the "salt pit" that is used as a prison. They say the death occurred when the prisoner was left to stand naked throughout the harsh Afghanistan night after being doused with cold water. He died, they say, of hypothermia.

According to the sources, a second CIA detainee died in Iraq and a third detainee died following harsh interrogation by Department of Defense personnel and contractors in Iraq. CIA sources said that in the DOD case, the interrogation was harsh, but did not involve the CIA.

The Kabul fort has also been the subject of confusion. Several intelligence sources involved in both the enhanced interrogation program and the program to ship detainees back to their own country for interrogation -- a process described as rendition, say that the number of detainees in each program has been added together to suggest as many as 100 detainees are moved around the world from one secret CIA facility to another. In the rendition program, foreign nationals captured in the conflict zones are shipped back to their own countries on occasion for interrogation and prosecution.

There have been several dozen instances of rendition. There have been a little over a dozen authorized enhanced interrogations. As a result, the enhanced interrogation program has been described as one encompassing 100 or more prisoners. Multiple CIA sources told ABC that it is not. The renditions have also been described as illegal. They are not, our sources said, although they acknowledge the procedures are in an ethical gray area and are at times used for the convenience of extracting information under harsher conditions that the U.S. would allow.

ABC was told that several dozen renditions of this kind have occurred. Jordan is one country recently cited as an "emerging" center for renditions, according to published reports. The ABC sources said that rendition of this sort are legal and should not be confused with illegal "snatches" of targets off the streets of a home country by officers of yet another country. The United States is currently charged with such an illegal rendition in Italy. Israel and at least one European nation have also been accused of such renditions.

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

Lol.... If you think the CIA only use's these 'light' torture tactics, you're insane. Do you really think a hardened terrorist, a man willing to kill himself in order to kill others for an insane cause is going to break and spill his secrets because he is forced to listen to bad music? Or any of the other 'light' torture treatments talked about, sleeping with lights on, sitting in a warm room etc.

Lol.... If you think the CIA only use's these 'light' torture tactics, you're insane. Do you really think a hardened terrorist, a man willing to kill himself in order to kill others for an insane cause is going to break and spill his secrets because he is forced to listen to bad music? Or any of the other 'light' torture treatments talked about, sleeping with lights on, sitting in a warm room etc.


I don't know man....Eminem is pretty annoying.

Eminem is very annoying, i can't stnad him!!!

Lol.... If you think the CIA only use's these 'light' torture tactics, you're insane. Do you really think a hardened terrorist, a man willing to kill himself in order to kill others for an insane cause is going to break and spill his secrets because he is forced to listen to bad music? Or any of the other 'light' torture treatments talked about, sleeping with lights on, sitting in a warm room etc.

Let's examine what you just said.

"You're insane" (definitely an extreme accusation) if you think the CIA uses only 'light' torture tactics - implies that you know of other tactics being used and have such concrete exclusive evidence backing that up as to be absolute in nature.

You have no such evidence.

Your statement also implies that the methods described would even be considered torture - which I'm not prepared to accept. Everything listed would definitely disorient - but not mar or maim - the subject. Causing someone in captivity to fear for his life while not actually in imminent danger isn't torture by any definition. It's only psychological persuasion.

Every definition of torture in the dictionary repeatedly uses the phrase "severe mental or psychological pain." Nothing described in that article fits that definition.

You presume to know the mind of a terrorist. You have no idea how isolation and repetitive disorientation over a period of time will affect even the most 'hardened' individual.

I don't know man...the kids that listen to Eminem and try to look/act/be like him really cause me "severe psychological pain"

Let's examine what you just said.

"You're insane" (definitely an extreme accusation) if you think the CIA uses only 'light' torture tactics - implies that you know of other tactics being used and have such concrete exclusive evidence backing that up as to be absolute in nature.

You have no such evidence.

Your statement also implies that the methods described would even be considered torture - which I'm not prepared to accept. Everything listed would definitely disorient - but not mar or maim - the subject. Causing someone in captivity to fear for his life while not actually in imminent danger isn't torture by any definition. It's only psychological persuasion.

Every definition of torture in the dictionary repeatedly uses the phrase "severe mental or psychological pain." Nothing described in that article fits that definition.

You presume to know the mind of a terrorist. You have no idea how isolation and repetitive disorientation over a period of time will affect even the most 'hardened' individual.


Believe what you want to, but 'causing someone to fear for his life' is extreme psychological/mental pain.

Believe what you want to, but 'causing someone to fear for his life' is extreme psychological/mental pain.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! !!!!!

You're hilarious!

Beats having your head hacked off for the camera while some lunatic chants BS behind you.

I've got my own torture tactics for terroists, Celine Dieon at 150 db.:eek:

Believe what you want to, but 'causing someone to fear for his life' is extreme psychological/mental pain.
Maybe you could give them a footrub, make them some coffee, and turn their bed... I'm sure they'll be very cooperative after you do that.

Then after you give them a backrub, you can finish it by giving him a happy ending.

maybe we could use other investigative techniques...us the inventors of the spy novel and the P.I....maybe we could be more cunning and less brutish.

Maybe...just maybe we've got some of the wrong people, and when they say "I don't know anything" they don't actually know anything.

Maybe we shouldn't be holding prisoners for 3 years before 'finding' evidence against them that we can bring charges on.

maybe we could use other investigative techniques...us the inventors of the spy novel and the P.I....maybe we could be more cunning and less brutish.

Maybe...just maybe we've got some of the wrong people, and when they say "I don't know anything" they don't actually know anything.

Maybe we shouldn't be holding prisoners for 3 years before 'finding' evidence against them that we can bring charges on.

Maybe maybe maybe...:blah:

Aw, let's be nice to the prisoners and show them that we mean them no harm...in fact, let's give them some cash and set them outside on the front steps of our own government buildings with some explosives and tell them that they can express themselves freely in this country.

You Fiberals don't remember what FDR did during WWII? If this was FDR, every Arab taxi driver and 7/11 manager in the country would be interned in Utah right now, the media would be muzzled, and our entire military would be over in Iraq and Syria right now, locking down the countryside. We didn't pull out of Japan and Germany until...NEVER.

The problem with you FIBERALS is that you always focus on the supposed cruelty of our own people and NEVER on the cruelty of the terrorists, who blow up thousands of our own innocent civilians and those of other countries, and videotape themselves hacking off the heads of innocents. Where's your outrage about that?

No I remember what FDR did and I despise it. Being a third generation japanese man, my grandmother and father would both most likely have been interred.

The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism.

I had a lot of outrage about the tapes of the captives being beheaded. I had a lot of outrage when they flew jets in to three of our buildings. I would rather however not create more people willing to do those sort of things.

The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism.


And they will never see that Raven.............

I have read many times before and the article did point it out, if you torture a person enough they will admit to anything you ask of them. I'm sure we could get the righties/conservs in here to admit to being Osama's buttboy if we tortured them enough. So, the information obtained isn't very reliable. Gotta wonder, out of ten 'terrorist' they obtain, how many of those really have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or any extremist group.

No I remember what FDR did and I despise it. Being a third generation japanese man, my grandmother and father would both most likely have been interred.

The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism.

I had a lot of outrage about the tapes of the captives being beheaded. I had a lot of outrage when they flew jets in to three of our buildings. I would rather however not create more people willing to do those sort of things.

1. It's people like you and Senator Dick Turban (Durbin) who equate our own soldiers with terrorists that's an OUTRAGE.

2. It's sad that you are so naive as to think that the terrorists would somehow not attack us if we just left them alone. What a joke. You have zero understanding of the terrorist mindset. You and your pacifist friends think that if we could just convince the terrorists that we mean them no harm, they would somehow be less angry and wouldn't attack us. Laughable. Meanwhile they would be bombing our cities and taking over like they have in Spain and France. Funny how the countries that do what you suggest end up like that, while in America we haven't had ONE single attack on our soil since 9/11.

3. You're not telling the truth. First of all, how can you remember something that FDR did over 60 years ago?

4. Your words indicate this to me:

You express more outrage at Bush and our soldiers than you do the terrorists who murdered over three thousand of our own civilians. You see America as a greater evil. You see America as a greater enemy. You should just go join the terrorists if you're going to keep drinking the left kool-aid.

Did everyone else see the spin, twist, and lie tactic there? Do I have to point out just how F-ed up the response by fossten was or is it obvious enough?

The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism.



ever hear the term: fight fire with fire?

and oh yeah...were not going in there with dynamite strapped to our chests, and blowing ourselves up with complete disregard to all human life.

Did everyone else see the spin, twist, and lie tactic there? Do I have to point out just how F-ed up the response by fossten was or is it obvious enough?

Are you really surpized? It's simple, if you're against us, you must be a terrorist, only logical explanation in the Bush-ite mind.

ever hear the term: fight fire with fire?

and oh yeah...were not going in there with dynamite strapped to our chests, and blowing ourselves up with complete disregard to all human life.

No, we have the luxury of carpet bombing and entire area, regardless of who else we kill besides the intended targets. We have a thing called 'allowable civilian loss' (or something of that sort) to justify the attack. Regardless of what Rumsfeld said, the smart bombs don't always hit perfectly and the intel isn't always correct.

No, we have the luxury of carpet bombing and entire area, regardless of who else we kill besides the intended targets. We have a thing called 'allowable civilian loss' (or something of that sort) to justify the attack. Regardless of what Rumsfeld said, the smart bombs don't always hit perfectly and the intel isn't always correct.

And your point is...what exactly...?

And your point is...what exactly...?

1) RaVeneyes said: "The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism"

2) MrWilson said: ever hear the term: fight fire with fire?and oh yeah...were not going in there with dynamite strapped to our chests, and blowing ourselves up with complete disregard to all human life.

So, my point is..... When innocent people get killed and many do, that creates more hatred and breeds future terrorist.

1) RaVeneyes said: "The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism"

2) MrWilson said: ever hear the term: fight fire with fire?and oh yeah...were not going in there with dynamite strapped to our chests, and blowing ourselves up with complete disregard to all human life.

So, my point is..... When innocent people get killed and many do, that creates more hatred and breeds future terrorist.

There you go again, more concerned with the innocents that get killed BY us instead of caring about the innocent Americans that were killed by TERRORISTS.

If what you say is true, why aren't you hating terrorists right now? Hmmm?

You people are so pacifistic and naive that it'll take two or three more 9/11's before you finally get it. That's the trouble with liberals: They simply can't call anything evil - unless it's American in origin.

There you go again, more concerned with the innocents that get killed BY us instead of caring about the innocent Americans that were killed by TERRORISTS.

Actually, I am equally concerned over ANY innocent people that get killed, where you live or where you're from has no bearing on your innocence. 9/11 doesn't give us a free to kill anyone license, at least not to me, but by your comment you must think otherwise.

If what you say is true, why aren't you hating terrorists right now? Hmmm?.

Did I ever say I like terroist? I've said many times, ALL extremist are a threat. That or I must be a terrorist as you have implied in the past.

You people are so pacifistic and naive that it'll take two or three more 9/11's before you finally get it. That's the trouble with liberals: They simply can't call anything evil - unless it's American in origin.

Wow.. That was so intensely insiteful. Pacifist must hate America right?

Actually, I am equally concerned over ANY innocent people that get killed, doesn't matter where they live. 9/11 doesn't give us a free to kill anyone license, at least not to me, but you're comment you must think otherwise.?

9/11 DOES give us the right to defend ourselves in any way we see fit, even up to and including pre-emptive strikes on threatening countries.

I guess if somebody started beating up your wife in front of you, you'd say, "Well, that doesn't give me license to hurt him. Instead, I need to understand why he's having such a bad day. I need to try to compromise with him, show him that I mean him no harm. Maybe then he'll stop beating up my wife."



Did I ever say I like terroist? I've said many times, ALL extremist are a threat.
?

I dunno, you and Raveneyes spend so much time defending them and trying to protect their rights; if the shoe fits, wear it.

Personally, I don't think terrorists deserve even Geneva convention consideration. They are brutal maniacs who think that you and I deserve to die because we are Americans. They have murdered thousands of innocent people, and not in a "collateral" way, as you put it, but in a direct, intentional way. For that, they deserve to die.



Wow.. That was so intensely insiteful. Pacifist must hate America right?

Let me ask you something:

If a terrorist leader was captured and it was found that he had some information that a terrorist atomic bomb was going to be detonated in your neighborhood while your wife/kids/parents were home asleep one night, what lengths would you go to to get that information out of him?

You're either going to answer this straight up or try to wiggle out of it. My guess is you wiggle.

9/11 DOES give us the right to defend ourselves in any way we see fit, even up to and including pre-emptive strikes on threatening countries. .

I'm all for defending oneself from a threat, but killing people as a byproduct that have nothing to do with the said threat is wrong. I don't buy that 'you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs' bit. You wouldn't either if it was your 'eggs' being broken.


I guess if somebody started beating up your wife in front of you, you'd say, "Well, that doesn't give me license to hurt him. Instead, I need to understand why he's having such a bad day. I need to try to compromise with him, show him that I mean him no harm. Maybe then he'll stop beating up my wife.".

No, I'd kick the $%% out of anyone beating up my wife, what I wouldn't do is punch the kid that happend to be walking by during the fight because he happened to be there.

I dunno, you and Raveneyes spend so much time defending them and trying to protect their rights; if the shoe fits, wear it..

Yes, thats EXACTLY what we do, we defend terrorist. Man you're good!

Personally, I don't think terrorists deserve even Geneva convention consideration. They are brutal maniacs who think that you and I deserve to die because we are Americans. They have murdered thousands of innocent people, and not in a "collateral" way, as you put it, but in a direct, intentional way. For that, they deserve to die..

Yes, I agree, people that disregardly kill innocent people should die.

Let me ask you something:

If a terrorist leader was captured and it was found that he had some information that a terrorist atomic bomb was going to be detonated in your neighborhood while your wife/kids/parents were home asleep one night, what lengths would you go to to get that information out of him?

You're either going to answer this straight up or try to wiggle out of it. My guess is you wiggle.

I would wrench out his testicles with my bare hands to gain that factual information.

No, we have the luxury of carpet bombing and entire area, regardless of who else we kill besides the intended targets. We have a thing called 'allowable civilian loss' (or something of that sort) to justify the attack. Regardless of what Rumsfeld said, the smart bombs don't always hit perfectly and the intel isn't always correct.


first of all, we only carpet bomb strictly military targets, theres no more carpet bombing citys like back in the days of old (ww2)

theres one thing to accidentially kill a civi, but when they are the target, thats another.

I'm all for defending oneself from a threat, but killing people as a byproduct that have nothing to do with the said threat is wrong. I don't buy that 'you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs' bit. You wouldn't either if it was your 'eggs' being broken.


Baloney. You don't even understand your own analogy. You're not all for defending oneself from a threat, because you make up lousy excuses like "Oh, we can't attack them because we might accidentally kill somebody who's not fighting us!" BS. In Vietnam everybody was a suspected VC because they disguised themselves. Your tactic is to back off and chicken out because you are afraid to take a stand.


No, I'd kick the $%% out of anyone beating up my wife, what I wouldn't do is punch the kid that happend to be walking by during the fight because he happened to be there.

Again, you don't understand your own analogy. The 'kid' in your example that 'happened to be walking by' decides to start taunting your wife and threatens to join the fight, and you'd stand idly by? Pitiful.


I would wrench out his testicles with my bare hands to gain that factual information.

Why you torturing @#$%&*!

How can you live with yourself?

You are either for torture or against it. Make up your mind.

Baloney. You don't even understand your own analogy. You're not all for defending oneself from a threat, because you make up lousy excuses like "Oh, we can't attack them because we might accidentally kill somebody who's not fighting us!" BS. In Vietnam everybody was a suspected VC because they disguised themselves. Your tactic is to back off and chicken out because you are afraid to take a stand..

Lol.. You're right, lets stick to the good all 'KILL EM ALL, LET GOD SORT THEM OUT' way... It works so well. I gotta ask, why aren't you over there fighting the good fight? It's easy to say war is justified when you don't have to see/do the killing or put yourself or loved ones in harms way. Denial is good for the conscience huh?



Again, you don't understand your own analogy. The 'kid' in your example that 'happened to be walking by' decides to start taunting your wife and threatens to join the fight, and you'd stand idly by? Pitiful...

Lol, whats pitiful is how you took my analogy and reworded it and imposed your own ideas on my actions. Pitiful attempt dude.



Why you torturing @#$%&*!

How can you live with yourself?

You are either for torture or against it. Make up your mind.

I was responding to your hypothetical scenario where a known terrorist had information on a known bomb about to kill people. There's a difference in punishing a known murderer to save lives than torturing someone because you think they might know something. But you don't see that difference.

I was responding to your hypothetical scenario where a known terrorist had information on a known bomb about to kill people. There's a difference in punishing a known murderer to save lives than torturing someone because you think they might know something. But you don't see that difference.

Let's rephrase it so it's more to your liking:

Let me ask you something:
If a terrorist leader was captured and it was suspected that he had some information that a terrorist atomic bomb was going to be detonated in your neighborhood while your wife/kids/parents were home asleep one night, what lengths would you go to to get any potential information out of him?

You're either going to answer this straight up or try to wiggle out of it. My guess is you wiggle.

Let's rephrase it so it's more to your liking:

Well, I would evacuate the town and use sodium pentothal and or other tongue loosening drugs to try and gain that information. What I wouldn't do is beat the guy half to death to then realize that the bomb wasn't real.

Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)

The way I see it, you're both either going to answer straight up or try and wiggle out of it. Or possibly just dodge and not answer back.

Well, I would evacuate the town and use sodium pentothal and or other tongue loosening drugs to try and gain that information.
Actually using drugs isn't legal either. Nor is it always effective. And it certainly isn't fast.

And evacuating a town is slow and dangerous. How many people would die in the panic, traffic, and how many would be left behind. But, in the meantime, you coddle the terrorist.

Maybe you could give him a backrub, some hot co-co, and draw him a bath. Then he'll losen up, realize you aren't such a bad guy, and he'll tell you the truth.

What I wouldn't do is beat the guy half to death to then realize that the bomb wasn't real.
Yeah, why take that chance? You're only talking about the lives of your family, and other innocent people, why risk a guilty conscience.

Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)
I'll field it though.

First of all, you're implying that random peasant farmers are taken and tortured. You premise is wrong. We're talking about known Al-queda operatives, not some guy in town who might know something.

You're also operating under the mistaken impression that "torture" necessarily means cruel and phsyical means of abuse. According to the human rights groups playing Eminem and making someone sit in a cold room also constitutes torture.

And you also imply that he's "innocent" and not a terrorist who wishes to blow up innocent women and children standing in line to get a slice of pizza or riding a bus. If that terrorist had the opportunity, he'd lunge at you and kill you. Remember the CIA Mike Span during the Afghan War, he was attacked by these scum and they literal beat and bit him to death.

But, with that said, I would be completely comfortable with myself if I beat the crap out of a terrorist, even if he the threat turned out to be a bluff.


The way I see it, you're both either going to answer straight up or try and wiggle out of it. Or possibly just dodge and not answer back.
I doubt he'll do this. I know I didn't.

Actually, that's legal either. Nor is it always effective. And it certainly isn't fast.


Yeah, why take that chance?


I'll field it though.

First of all, you're implying that random peasant farmers are taken and tortured. You premise is wrong. We're talking about known Al-queda operatives, not some guy in town who might know something.

You're also operating under the mistaken impression that "torture" necessarily means cruel and phsyical means of abuse. According to the human rights groups playing Eminem and making someone sit in a cold room also constitutes torture.

And you also imply that he's "innocent" and not a terrorist who wishes to blow up innocent women and children standing in line to get a slice of pizza or riding a bus.

But, with that said, I would be completely comfortable with myself if I beat the crap out of a terrorist, even if he the threat turned out to be a bluff.



I doubt he'll do this. I know I didn't.

Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.... I asked you too answer a hypothetical scenario like Fossten asked me to answer and then you asked me to answer. I answered both of your questions straight to the point. I didn't 'field' it like you did. You're under the impression that only and just only terrorist are taken into custody. That is foolish to assume, I guess in America not a single innocent person has ever been falsely accused of a crime huh?

So, are you going to answer?

"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)"

So, are you going to answer?


I thought I answered that pretty clearly.

No. I wouldn't feel bad about it.

No wiggling there.

I thought I answered that pretty clearly.

No. I wouldn't feel bad about it.

No wiggling there.


No, you said you wouldn't feel bad about beating a known terrorist, that is not what I asked. So, the wiggleling is there...

Either answer straight up or just say you won't answer, no games. I didn't wiggle as Fossten presumed I would. (Fossten, I gladly await your reply also)

(Repeat 3)
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)"

Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.... I asked you too answer a hypothetical scenario like Fossten asked me to answer and then you asked me to answer. I answered both of your questions straight to the point. I didn't 'field' it like you did. You're under the impression that only and just only terrorist are taken into custody. That is foolish to assume, I guess in America not a single innocent person has ever been falsely accused of a crime huh?

It's foolish of you to assume that he's under that impression, since all Calabrio did was point out your faulty premise. His statement in no way indicates that he's under such a silly impression which, by the way, came from you.

So, are you going to answer?

"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)"

I've never tortured anybody, so I can't honestly tell you how I'd feel. However, I can tell you that I wouldn't regret for very long physically sweating a 'peasant' who lied about a bomb in order to scare everybody. That guy would deserve the beating he got. Furthermore, your silly little peasant example implies that he's some kind of average joe, which also implies that he would cave the instant he saw a beating coming, which would then not necessitate said beating.

I definitely would not go chickensh!t like you and back off from any future possible interrogations just because one guy didn't know the answers.

BTW, Calabrio's right: Sodium Pentathol and other truth drugs are considered torture, so you're still admitting the necessity of so-called torture.

Come on, dude, we stand with open arms to receive you. Admit the truth and join the proud defenders of our country! Be a real patriot.

It's foolish of you to assume that he's under that impression, since all Calabrio did was point out your faulty premise. His statement in no way indicates that he's under such a silly impression which, by the way, came from you.


I've never tortured anybody, so I can't honestly tell you how I'd feel. However, I can tell you that I wouldn't regret for very long physically sweating a 'peasant' who lied about a bomb in order to scare everybody. That guy would deserve the beating he got. Furthermore, your silly little peasant example implies that he's some kind of average joe, which also implies that he would cave the instant he saw a beating coming, which would then not necessitate said beating.

I definitely would not go chickensh!t like you and back off from any future possible interrogations just because one guy didn't know the answers.

BTW, Calabrio's right: Sodium Pentathol and other truth drugs are considered torture, so you're still admitting the necessity of so-called torture.

Come on, dude, we stand with open arms to receive you. Admit the truth and join the proud defenders of our country! Be a real patriot.

Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.. Cheap and lousy tactics, you asked me to answer straight up to the point and I did. I didn't interject my ideas into your hypothetical scenario nor did I in Calabrio's revision on it. So just say you don't want to answer and stop playing games, it gets old. (or answer)

By the way, in your 'sweating' and other human non torture tactics the bomb would detonate and kill the entire town before this non peasant terrorist broke down, unless your scenario calls for a bomb with a week or more timer? (lol). So in retrospect, both of our solutions would of failed to save lives. Except in my idea, the town would of been evacuated and possible no or the minimal lives would of been lost.

Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.. Cheap and lousy tactics, you asked me to answer straight up to the point and I did. I didn't interject my ideas into your hypothetical scenario nor did I in Calabrio's revision on it.


Actually, you did too revise and interject into it.

No, I'd kick the $%% out of anyone beating up my wife, what I wouldn't do is punch the kid that happend to be walking by during the fight because he happened to be there.


By the way, in your 'sweating' and other human non torture tactics the bomb would detonate and kill the entire town before this non peasant terrorist broke down, unless your scenario calls for a bomb with a week or more timer? (lol). So in retrospect, both of our solutions would of failed to save lives. Except in my idea, the town would of been evacuated and possible no or the minimal lives would of been lost.

Your story is getting more bizarre as you make it up. What a fantastic tale you're weaving. Interesting how the story grows as you try to wiggle out of it. One problem though: You just contradicted yourself, because in your scenario the peasant was making up the story about the bomb (it wasn't real). So how could it have detonated, either then or a week later? You're the one that said the bomb was an empty scare.

Actually, you did too revise and interject into it..

Dude, just say you don't want to give me a straight answer to a hypothetical question like I gave you, it's that easy. And the 'kid punching part' had nothing to do with the hypothetical scenario you dared me to answer straight up, it was an entirely different question.



Your story is getting more bizarre as you make it up. What a fantastic tale you're weaving. Interesting how the story grows as you try to wiggle out of it. One problem though: You just contradicted yourself, because in your scenario the peasant was making up the story about the bomb (it wasn't real). So how could it have detonated, either then or a week later? You're the one that said the bomb was an empty scare.

Go back and read, I never changed my question to you, it's there for all to see so saying I did won't make it happen. The peasant wasn't lying about the bomb, I never said he was. My point to reiterate yet again, how would you justify your actions when you tortured (or disoriented like you say) an innocent man? I'm sure you will say he couldn't be innocent because innocent people are never falsely accused, or something similar.

So, I will ask it one more time, not that you'll give me a straight answer, but...

(for the 4th time)
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ?"

I already gave you my answer. Just because you can't understand it or mischaracterized it doesn't matter to me.


I've never tortured anybody, so I can't honestly tell you how I'd feel. However, I can tell you that I wouldn't regret for very long physically sweating a 'peasant' who lied about a bomb in order to scare everybody. That guy would deserve the beating he got. Furthermore, your silly little peasant example implies that he's some kind of average joe, which also implies that he would cave the instant he saw a beating coming, which would then not necessitate said beating.

I definitely would not go chickensh!t like you and back off from any future possible interrogations just because one guy didn't know the answers.

See the bold part? That's the answer part to your questions. I even made it really big so you could see it this time.

You're just mad because I didn't give you the answer you wanted, so you're accusing me of wiggling, despite the clarity of my response.

But since you're going to accuse me of it no matter what, here's some additional cud for you to chew on:

Your scenario assumed that I had already been torturing somebody for days, which is a premise that isn't likely or even acceptable to me. You attempted to pigeonhole me in some straw man position without my consent, and only accused me of wiggling when I refused to be pigeonholed. A very poor and lousy tactic, and extremely transparent.

My scenario to you, on the other hand, involved the hypothetical actions of OTHER PEOPLE and asked WHAT YOU WOULD DO IN RESPONSE, leaving you open to choose your own actions, a situation you were unwilling to allow me to be in.

Deal with that. I'm done with this.

For the final time.

The scenerio was as stated: Terrorist leader has been captured and he is believed to have information regarding another attack. You torture him for information that he does not have. Do you feel bad about this.

No.
And to further make my point, shoot him afterwards and feed him to the pigs.

I already gave you my answer. Just because you can't understand it or mischaracterized it doesn't matter to me.



See the bold part? That's the answer part to your questions. I even made it really big so you could see it this time.

You're just mad because I didn't give you the answer you wanted, so you're accusing me of wiggling, despite the clarity of my response.

But since you're going to accuse me of it no matter what, here's some additional cud for you to chew on:

Your scenario assumed that I had already been torturing somebody for days, which is a premise that isn't likely or even acceptable to me. You attempted to pigeonhole me in some straw man position without my consent, and only accused me of wiggling when I refused to be pigeonholed. A very poor and lousy tactic, and extremely transparent.

My scenario to you, on the other hand, involved the hypothetical actions of OTHER PEOPLE and asked WHAT YOU WOULD DO IN RESPONSE, leaving you open to choose your own actions, a situation you were unwilling to allow me to be in.

Deal with that. I'm done with this.

For the final time.

No, you gave me an answer to a question you changed. All you did was answer your own question, not mine. Don't ask me to answer your questions when you are unwilling to answer mine. That is a cowardly action.

The scenerio was as stated: Terrorist leader has been captured and he is believed to have information regarding another attack. You torture him for information that he does not have. Do you feel bad about this.

No.
And to further make my point, shoot him afterwards and feed him to the pigs.

If your scenario is the same as my scenario to you, then I really do not know what to say. Here, I'll copy and paste my scenario for the 5th time that way you can compare word for word, action for action and hopefully see the difference, like Fossten you answered your own question, not mine.

What I said:
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ?"

What you said:
"The scenerio was as stated: Terrorist leader has been captured and he is believed to have information regarding another attack. You torture him for information that he does not have. Do you feel bad about this."

Do you see the difference?

If your scenario is the same as my scenario to you, then I really do not know what to say.
You're scenario isn't realistic.
Why don't I pose a hypothetic of pigs flying out your ass and taking over the world later on in the thread.

Here, I'll copy and paste my scenario for the 5th time that way you can compare word for word, action for action and hopefully see the difference, like Fossten you answered your own question, not mine.
That's because your question doesn't apply to the situation we're talking about. It's a hypothetical along the lines of "If you're driving across a one lane bridge and see a baby sitting in the middle of the road, do you hit the baby or drive off the bridge."

What I said:
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ?"

What you said:
"The scenerio was as stated: Terrorist leader has been captured and he is believed to have information regarding another attack. You torture him for information that he does not have. Do you feel bad about this."

Do you see the difference?

And apparently you don't see the evolution through the thread. It doesn't matter though.

You're scenario isn't realistic. Why would anyone take a peasant and expect him to have information. He would have to have aligned himself with terrorist factions inorder to be suspected. And if that's the case, I have no problem beating the crap out of him if it were to save my family or my country, or even you.

Would I feel bad if a person were picked up at random and beaten for no reason. Well, I guess. That'd be a pretty mindless thing to do. And it'd be a waste of time when there was a real terrorist out there who needed the crap beat out of him. But that's a pretty stupid scenario, and one that isn't based on any kind of real situation.

As I've stated repeatedly, you're state a false scenario, attempting to get a response that may sound good to you, but has nothing to do with the actual topic. You're just frustrated because no one is dumb enough not recognize it.

You're scenario isn't realistic.
Why don't I pose a hypothetic of pigs flying out your ass and taking over the world later on in the thread.


That's because your question doesn't apply to the situation we're talking about. It's a hypothetical along the lines of "If you're driving across a one lane bridge and see a baby sitting in the middle of the road, do you hit the baby or drive off the bridge."



And apparently you don't see the evolution through the thread. It doesn't matter though.

You're scenario isn't realistic. Why would anyone take a peasant and expect him to have information. He would have to have aligned himself with terrorist factions inorder to be suspected. And if that's the case, I have no problem beating the crap out of him if it were to save my family or my country, or even you.

Would I feel bad if a person were picked up at random and beaten for no reason. Well, I guess. That'd be a pretty mindless thing to do. And it'd be a waste of time when there was a real terrorist out there who needed the crap beat out of him. But that's a pretty stupid scenario, and one that isn't based on any kind of real situation.

As I've stated repeatedly, you're state a false scenario, attempting to get a response that may sound good to you, but has nothing to do with the actual topic. You're just frustrated because no one is dumb enough not recognize it.


You're right my scenario isn't realistic, NEVER in the history of the planet has an innocent man been falsely accused. It would be rediculous to assume that a non terrorist would be suspect of having ties to a terrorist group and be detainted and interrogated to see if these claims are true. (Sarcasm to clarify)

I am not frustrated, your actions are just sad and pitiful.

You're right my scenario isn't realistic, NEVER in the history of the planet has an innocent man been falsely accused. It would be rediculous to assume that a non terrorist would be suspect of having ties to a terrorist group and be detainted and interrogated to see if these claims are true. (Sarcasm to clarify)

I am not frustrated, your actions are just sad and pitiful.

No, you're debating skills are what is sad and pitiful.
When debating issues of policy, you don't discuss the exception to the rule.

Again, why would someone just grab a random goat herder off the street and invest that much time into obtaining information from him when there is a limited amount of time, and if there were no reason to suspect them.

If you were trying to argue that an innocent person might be detained and questioned, you would be advancing a plausible situation. And when he's determined to have been of no value, he'd be released.

But putting all your faith in an person who has no association with terrorist at a time of such risk is stupid. Why would some unaffiliated guy know the secret terrorist plans? YOUR PREMISE IS FLAWED. That's why I corrected it on the first page.

And to further elaborate. IF THERE WAS ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT "so-called" INNOCENT GUY KNEW, I would not regret it at all.

How many ways would you like us to answer your unrealistic scenario? We've covered the realistic bases, and your fanciful ones too now.

No, you're debating skills are what is sad and pitiful.
When debating issues of policy, you don't discuss the exception to the rule.

Again, why would someone just grab a random goat herder off the street and invest that much time into obtaining information from him when there is a limited amount of time, and if there were no reason to suspect them.

If you were trying to argue that an innocent person might be detained and questioned, you would be advancing a plausible situation. And when he's determined to have been of no value, he'd be released.

But putting all your faith in an person who has no association with terrorist at a time of such risk is stupid. Why would some unaffiliated guy know the secret terrorist plans? YOUR PREMISE IS FLAWED. That's why I corrected it on the first page.

And to further elaborate. IF THERE WAS ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT "so-called" INNOCENT GUY KNEW, I would not regret it at all.

How many ways would you like us to answer your unrealistic scenario? We've covered the realistic bases, and your fanciful ones too now.

Wow, I hope you feel better about yourself now after insulting me, I really don't mind, insults never bothered me. All you did was twist and turn until the thread went into the dumper, not the first time this has happened, oh well.

What I said:
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ?"


I am going to regret getting involved in this, but....

The justification for your actions, in your scenario, is EXACTLY the same as the opposite of your scenario...that he DID have knowledge and there WAS a bomb.

Justification is either present or it isn't. Justification cannot change based on the outcome, because you CANNOT KNOW, until you interrogate, whether there is a bomb and if your subject know's where it is. Your scenario presumes reasonable suspicion, without it there'd be no interrogation.

I presume, with your question, you are attempting to justify never allowing interrogation based on the fact you might sometime interrogate someone who didn't have information. In that scenario, we might just as well go ahead and surrender.

Oh wait, that's the Democrat plan.

You're right my scenario isn't realistic, NEVER in the history of the planet has an innocent man been falsely accused. It would be rediculous to assume that a non terrorist would be suspect of having ties to a terrorist group and be detainted and interrogated to see if these claims are true. (Sarcasm to clarify)

I am not frustrated, your actions are just sad and pitiful.

Sarcasm isn't just your best tactic, it's your sole recourse when you've been backed into a corner. That and denial. ("I AM NOT FRUSTRATED")

Face it: throughout this thread we've all answered your questions. You're mad because we elaborated on them and you couldn't archetype us with your pitiful straw man example which, as Calabrio so effectively points out, is completely unrealistic, considering neither one of us would ever be in the situation you've described.

You (OR ANY OF US), however, could be in the situation I described, and you don't have a good answer for that situation other than that torture in certain circumstances, while unpleasant and undesired, would be NECESSARY.

What this thread has done is devolve into a petty pissing match with you doing most of the spraying. If you don't like the direction it's going, try debating on a logical, reasonable level and cut the sophistry and sarcasm. Nobody's doing this but you.

Sarcasm isn't just your best tactic, it's your sole recourse when you've been backed into a corner. That and denial. ("I AM NOT FRUSTRATED")

Face it: throughout this thread we've all answered your questions. You're mad because we elaborated on them and you couldn't archetype us with your pitiful straw man example which, as Calabrio so effectively points out, is completely unrealistic, considering neither one of us would ever be in the situation you've described.

You (OR ANY OF US), however, could be in the situation I described, and you don't have a good answer for that situation other than that torture in certain circumstances, while unpleasant and undesired, would be NECESSARY.

What this thread has done is devolve into a petty pissing match with you doing most of the spraying. If you don't like the direction it's going, try debating on a logical, reasonable level and cut the sophistry and sarcasm. Nobody's doing this but you.


Sure, if it makes you feel better. You say I am upset because you elaborated on my question before answering it, so all you really did was answer your own question. If I had done the same and elaborated on yours, you would of called me on it and attacked. Would you of not?

And sarcasm is all I really have when dealing with people blind to their own hypocrisy.

I am going to regret getting involved in this, but....

The justification for your actions, in your scenario, is EXACTLY the same as the opposite of your scenario...that he DID have knowledge and there WAS a bomb.

Justification is either present or it isn't. Justification cannot change based on the outcome, because you CANNOT KNOW, until you interrogate, whether there is a bomb and if your subject know's where it is. Your scenario presumes reasonable suspicion, without it there'd be no interrogation.

I presume, with your question, you are attempting to justify never allowing interrogation based on the fact you might sometime interrogate someone who didn't have information. In that scenario, we might just as well go ahead and surrender.

Oh wait, that's the Democrat plan.

Just curious though when you said "Your scenario presumes reasonable suspicion, without it there'd be no interrogation."

Could it maybe be possible that a terrorist being interrogated would point the finger at an innocent man in order to save himself further punishment and to further derail the investigation? In that scenario, the innocent man would claim he knew nothing, while the interrogators would assume he did since he was implicated and further 'interrogate' him.

'Kill em all, let God sort em out' thats the Republican plan.

Just curious though when you said "Your scenario presumes reasonable suspicion, without it there'd be no interrogation."

Could it maybe be possible that a terrorist being interrogated would point the finger at an innocent man in order to save himself further punishment and to further derail the investigation? In that scenario, the innocent man would claim he knew nothing, while the interrogators would assume he did since he was implicated and further 'interrogate' him.

'Kill em all, let God sort em out' thats the Republican plan.

1. No, I read the suspicion into your scenario in order to establish a basis to conduct an interrogation to begin with. Without an underlying suspicion, why would we be interrogating? You miss the point, as you illustrate when you...

2. ...once again go off on yet another woulda coulda shoulda maybe hypothetical. SO WHAT? Some people lie when questioned. Some tell the truth. Is your answer never to question anyone????

3. No one was killed in this hypothetical scenario. In the real world, many innocents would die as a result of the waffling, indecision, and paralysis which would be the inevitable end result of your endless "what ifs."

Sure, if it makes you feel better. You say I am upset because you elaborated on my question before answering it, so all you really did was answer your own question. If I had done the same and elaborated on yours, you would of called me on it and attacked. Would you of not?

And sarcasm is all I really have when dealing with people blind to their own hypocrisy.

Once again you resort to ad hominem when confronted with the truth. As Spock would say, "That is not logical."

Once again you resort to ad hominem when confronted with the truth. As Spock would say, "That is not logical."

Once again, you wiggle out of answering my question, it was simple and straight to the point, it wasn't about a hypotheical scenario, didn't have any 'what if's' as someone else complained about. It was a simple question.

Once again, you wiggle out of answering my question, it was simple and straight to the point, it wasn't about a hypotheical scenario, didn't have any 'what if's' as someone else complained about. It was a simple question.

Sigh. Which one of your many questions do you want answered now?

Sigh. Which one of your many questions do you want answered now?


I did use a question mark and I did BOLD face it so the question would stand out. Sigh, sigh and sigh again. I underlined it this time.

If you don't want to answer my questions, just say so, but do not ask any of me like you do.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS
Sure, if it makes you feel better. You say I am upset because you elaborated on my question before answering it, so all you really did was answer your own question. If I had done the same and elaborated on yours, you would of called me on it and attacked. Would you of not?

I did use a question mark and I did BOLD face it so the question would stand out. Sigh, sigh and sigh again. I underlined it this time.

If you don't want to answer my questions, just say so, but do not ask any of me like you do.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS
Sure, if it makes you feel better. You say I am upset because you elaborated on my question before answering it, so all you really did was answer your own question. If I had done the same and elaborated on yours, you would of called me on it and attacked. Would you of not?

No.

No.

As many times as you have accused me and attacked me of misquoting you, misrepresenting you, twisting, bending, liberal tactic this or Democrat tactic that etc. etc. You answer with a 'No'.........

As many times as you have accused me and attacked me of misquoting you, misrepresenting you, twisting, bending, liberal tactic this or Democrat tactic that etc. etc. You answer with a 'No'.........

Correct. I don't need to stoop to that level to make my point.

Correct. I don't need to stoop to that level to make my point.

WTF? You answer 'no' that you wouldn't attack if I misquoted etc. etc. But the countless threads throughout this board of you accusing Raven, Barry, 97Silver, Mespock and myself of such acts pretty much say that you do mind and you do stoop to that level you speak of. I am not imaging those threads.

That's not even taking into consideration the blatant name calling you have used in the past.

WTF? You answer 'no' that you wouldn't attack if I misquoted etc. etc. You can't have it both ways, either you do or you don't and the countless threads throughout this board of you accusing Raven, Barry, 97Silver, Mespock and myself of such acts pretty much say that you do mind.

Also, I'm not exactly sure of what 'level' you are referring too, but you have misquoted people in the past and then used your version of what they said to attack them. Barry & Raven (especially) have called you on it many times as have a few others. That's not even taking into consideration the name calling you have used in the past.

You misunderstood my answer. I said "Correct." to the part where you said, "You answer with a NO..."

Now you've devolved this thread from a discussion on torture to a dissertation about me personally. When are you ever going to stop with the personal attacks and stick to the subject?

You misunderstood my answer. I said "Correct." to the part where you said, "You answer with a NO..."

Now you've devolved this thread from a discussion on torture to a dissertation about me personally. When are you ever going to stop with the personal attacks and stick to the subject?

I actually rewrote what I said while you were responding pretaining to the 'Correct' part.

This thread devolved a long long time ago, no loss there. Now you're crying 'personal attack' when it's obvious as the proof is in your own writing in those countless threads throughout the board I speak of. They are there, you wrote them, you attacked, I did not make them up myself. If you want to have a holier than thou attitude, go ahead. But your past actions speak for you.

"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people." George W. Bush

I actually rewrote what I said while you were responding pretaining to the 'Correct' part.

This thread devolved a long long time ago, no loss there. Now you're crying 'personal attack' when it's obvious as the proof is in your own writing in those countless threads throughout the board I speak of. They are there, you wrote them, you attacked, I did not make them up myself. If you want to have a holier than thou attitude, go ahead. But your past actions speak for you.

The logical flaw in your argument is that you assume that just because something may have happened occasionally in the past, that is predictive of the future with 100% certainty. I absolutely deny that.

I don't have to defend myself to you. You are harping and carping, and you have lost track of what this thread is about in your desperate need to pin some sort of label on me. Sorry, it won't work.

Back to topic. (Or are you scared to discuss torture?)

The logical flaw in your argument is that you assume that just because something may have happened occasionally in the past, that is predictive of the future with 100% certainty. I absolutely deny that.

I don't have to defend myself to you. You are harping and carping, and you have lost track of what this thread is about in your desperate need to pin some sort of label on me. Sorry, it won't work.

Back to topic. (Or are you scared to discuss torture?)

Lol.... I am not pinning anything on you, your actions and denial of doing such actions do it for you.

No, you have convinced me that torture is necessary. But I do doubt Jesus would approve, I don't think that was in his teachings.

Lol.... I am not pinning anything on you, your actions and denial of doing such actions do it for you.

No, you have convinced me that torture is necessary. But I do doubt Jesus would approve, I don't think that was in his teachings.

What do you care whether or not Jesus would approve? (not sarcastic, truly curious, ok?)

What do you care whether or not Jesus would approve? (not sarcastic, truly curious, ok?)

I do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, but that doesn't mean that his teachings of peace and tolerance are worthless in my mind.

But that statement was mainly directed at the people who do believe in Jesus and are pro-torture.

I do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, but that doesn't mean that his teachings of peace and tolerance are worthless in my mind.

But that statement was mainly directed at the people who do believe in Jesus and are pro-torture.

I see. But you don't think his teachings of repentance and judgment are worth anything. And you think he's a liar because he claimed to be God the Son, but you accept some of his teachings. What's wrong with this picture?

What about the time he went into the temple with a whip and drove out all the crooks? Was Jesus teaching peace and tolerance then?

What about the time he went into the temple with a whip and drove out all the crooks? Was Jesus teaching peace and tolerance then?

You are seriously sick man...

Jesus didn't hold down the money dealers and whip them...he used the whip to scare them.

What does that have to do with torture?

I see. But you don't think his teachings of repentance and judgment are worth anything. And you think he's a liar because he claimed to be God the Son, but you accept some of his teachings. What's wrong with this picture?

I sometimes agree with your view points, doesn't mean I automatically agree with ALL your view points. I don't think he is a liar, I have no idea what his true mindset was about being the son of God. If you believe in Christianity we are all Gods children technically. Nothing wrong in agreeing and disagreeing with someone, I'll give you an example; if Saddam had said "children need to respect their parents" would you disagree with it on the sole basis that you generally disagree with the rest of his thoughts/actions? No, you probably would not since you believe in 'honoring your parents'.

What about the time he went into the temple with a whip and drove out all the crooks? Was Jesus teaching peace and tolerance then?

I don't remember Jesus beating anyone with a whip, but I will take you on your word. I don't know what he was teaching except maybe 'don't be a criminal', which I agree with. I can assume the crooks were in fact crooks and needed to be driven out, I don't think someone accused them of being crooks and Jesus went in there swinging blindly.

:blah: personal attacks

Jesus didn't hold down the money dealers and whip them...he used the whip to scare them.

You have no information that backs up what you just said. You just misquoted me again. You said that I said He whipped the people, but my statement clearly does not claim that. Your attempts to paint Jesus as some sort of pacifistic pansy show how twisted your understanding of the Bible is. Your name-calling, in addition to being discredited, shows your anger, hatred, immaturity and lack of debating skills.

John 2:15 - And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

Matthew 21:12 - And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves...

Seems He got physical with them.


What does that have to do with torture?

Hey, I didn't bring up Jesus approving of torture, Deville did. Ask him.

Just shows you don't carefully read posts before you knee-jerkingly respond.

I don't remember Jesus beating anyone with a whip, but I will take you on your word. I don't know what he was teaching except maybe 'don't be a criminal', which I agree with. I can assume the crooks were in fact crooks and needed to be driven out, I don't think someone accused them of being crooks and Jesus went in there swinging blindly.

Matthew 21:12

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=21&verse=12&version=31&context=verse

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.


Mark 11:15

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=11&verse=15&version=31&context=verse

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,

Luke 19:45

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=19&verse=45&version=31&context=verse

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling.

You have no information that backs up what you just said. You just misquoted me again. You said that I said He whipped the people, but my statement clearly does not claim that. Your attempts to paint Jesus as some sort of pacifistic pansy show how twisted your understanding of the Bible is. Your name-calling, in addition to being discredited, shows your anger, hatred, immaturity and lack of debating skills.

Seems He got physical with them..

So did Jesus beat them or not? Your first satement says you didn't say he got physical, which is true, you didn't actually say so. But you then you say he did or it seems he did.

Hey, I didn't bring up Jesus approving of torture, Deville did. Ask him.

Just shows you don't carefully read posts before you knee-jerkingly respond.

I didn't say Jesus approved of torture. This is what I said.....

"No, you have convinced me that torture is necessary. But I do doubt Jesus would approve, I don't think that was in his teachings."

And this is how it was directed.....

"But that statement was mainly directed at the people who do believe in Jesus and are pro-torture."

You have no information that backs up what you just said. You just misquoted me again.

You are a liar and a snake and a stumbler

You said that I said He whipped the people

No I did not.
I said he didn't whip people. I'm saying he didn't torture anyone...which you in a round about way are inferring he did.

Your attempts to paint Jesus as some sort of pacifistic pansy show how twisted your understanding of the Bible is. Your name-calling, in addition to being discredited, shows your anger, hatred, immaturity and lack of debating skills.

Jesus was a pacifist, and being a pacifist doesn't make anyone a pansy.

I have no need of debating skills...I didn't call names...I said you're sick...it's an observation not name calling. Above? "You are a liar and a snake and a stumbler" That's name calling, and accurate name calling at that.

John 2:15 - And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

Matthew 21:12 - And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves...

Seems He got physical with them.


Getting physical with a table is not the same as attacking someone or torturing them. Jesus would not have approved of torture no matter what the ends.

Hey, I didn't bring up Jesus approving of torture, Deville did. Ask him.

Again you snake, you are trying to use Jesus' outburst at the temple as an example of his approval of torture, I'm not asking anyone...I'm calling you out for it

I sometimes agree with your view points, doesn't mean I automatically agree with ALL your view points. I don't think he is a liar, I have no idea what his true mindset was about being the son of God. If you believe in Christianity we are all Gods children technically.

John chapter 8 answers your misstatement. Jesus clearly states that those who do not love him are of the devil. It takes adoption into God's family to become one of His.

John 3:17-18 - "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."


You have no choice but to call Jesus a liar. He made a clear claim that he is God, and you don't believe that. Either he's lying or you are.


8:37
I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

8:38
I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

8:39
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

8:40
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

8:41
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

8:43
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

8:45
And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

8:46
Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

8:47
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

8:48
Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

8:49
Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

8:50
And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

8:51
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

8:52
Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

8:53
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

8:54
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

8:55
Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

8:57
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily[Truly], verily[Truly], I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

8:59
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them...

John chapter 8 answers your misstatement. Jesus clearly states ...

You can quote every passage of the Bible to me, but I will repeat myself, I do not believe the Bible is God's written word, I do not believe any religious text is Gods written word. They were all written by men and as such are subject to the ever abundant flaws of man. But that doesn't mean good teachings can't be learned from them.

You are a liar and a snake and a stumbler

OOO, you really got me with that name-calling. LOL I can't wait for Deville to respond to this, since he's always accusing me of name-calling and attacking. Where are you Deville? Hmmm? Better give Ravey a rabies shot, he's frothing at the mouth.






No I did not.
I said he didn't whip people. I'm saying he didn't torture anyone...which you in a round about way are inferring he did.

Wrong. You're lying now. I never said he whipped people, but you assumed I did and called me sick for it.


Jesus was a pacifist, and being a pacifist doesn't make anyone a pansy.

Wrong. On both counts.

I have no need of debating skills...

LOL it's a good thing...


Getting physical with a table is not the same as attacking someone or torturing them. Jesus would not have approved of torture no matter what the ends.

LOL your best scenario is that Jesus whipped a table? Hahahahahaha! Why would anyone whip a table? What did the table do wrong? Dude you are hilarious.



Again you snake, you are trying to use Jesus' outburst at the temple as an example of his approval of torture, I'm not asking anyone...I'm calling you out for it

Since when did you care about Jesus anyway? All you have ever done is mock when I talk about Him or the Bible. You are just mad because you know I told you the truth about hell. Get over it and stop whining and sniffling.

You can quote every passage of the Bible to me, but I will repeat myself, I do not believe the Bible is God's written word, I do not believe any religious text is Gods written word. They were all written by men and as such are subject to the ever abundant flaws of man. But that doesn't mean good teachings can't be learned from them.


I see. So you claim that they are flawed, but good teachings can still be learned from them. That sounds like you would believe anything you read, if it sounded like something that agreed with your philosophy. Everything else would be rejected as "flawed."

Do you believe there is a heaven and a hell?

You are just mad because you know I told you the truth about hell. Get over it and stop whining and sniffling.

[Edited: personal attack]

Go read the end of the other thread. You'll see that I have said what is true in the case of heaven/hell. [Edited: personal attack]

[Edited: personal attack]...

Go read the end of the other thread. You'll see that I have said what is true in the case of heaven/hell....[Edited: personal attack]

OH, I see, it's MY fault that you called me names! I MADE you do it. You just CAN'T HELP YOURSELF. Typical liberal tactic, blame somebody else instead of taking responsibility, while STILL insulting and name-calling. What a great guy.

Thank you for illustrating to ALL OF US the TRUE LIBERAL MINDSET. It's refreshing to see such honesty. Monstermark, DON'T EDIT THIS GUY. We all need to see what he really is.

'Sniffle'

OH, I see, it's MY fault that you called me names! I MADE you do it. You just CAN'T HELP YOURSELF. Typical liberal tactic, blame somebody else instead of taking responsibility, while STILL insulting and name-calling. What a great guy.

Thank you for illustrating to ALL OF US the TRUE LIBERAL MINDSET. It's refreshing to see such honesty.

'Sniffle'

No no, I'll take complete blame for it. I have a problem where I can't hold my opinions back, no matter how obvious the truth of a situation. It's sad really and I should work on that. I'm sorry for all the name calling fossten, I will allow your foot in mouth comments to support their own obvious brilliance from now on.

No no, I'll take complete blame for it. I have a problem where I can't hold my opinions back, no matter how obvious the truth of a situation. It's sad really and I should work on that. I'm sorry for all the name calling fossten, I will allow your foot in mouth comments to support their own obvious brilliance from now on.

LOL your "backtracking" has no weight since it is STILL laced with sarcastic insults.

This is such a great day. I had no idea it was so easy to frustrate you.

OOO, you really got me with that name-calling. LOL I can't wait for Deville to respond to this, since he's always accusing me of name-calling and attacking. Where are you Deville? Hmmm? Better give Ravey a rabies shot, he's frothing at the mouth..


I do not agree with Raven's name calling, do you see me cheering him on for it? But you have used the same tactics on him and others. So being a student of the Bible you should be aware of 'An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth'. You should also be aware of Jesus's own teaching 'He without sin shall cast the first stone.'

Wrong. You're lying now. I never said he whipped people, but you assumed I did and called me sick for it.
Wrong. On both counts..

I agree with you on this, you didn't actually say 'Jesus beat them'... But I asked you to clarify your contradiction in the previous thread. I cut.pasted it here, see below.

"So did Jesus beat them or not? Your first satement says you didn't say he got physical, which is true, you didn't actually say so. But you then you say he did or it seems he did."

LOL your best scenario is that Jesus whipped a table? Hahahahahaha! Why would anyone whip a table? What did the table do wrong? Dude you are hilarious.

Just as you never said Jesus actually whipped anyone, Raven never said Jesus whipped the table. Don't cry about being mis-quoted then turn around and do the same thing. The passage from the Bible says Jesus 'overthrew' the table.

"Originally Posted by raVeneyes
Getting physical with a table is not the same as attacking someone or torturing them. Jesus would not have approved of torture no matter what the ends."

LOL your "backtracking" has no weight since it is STILL laced with sarcastic insults.

You're right...I'm sorry...I'm sorry for saying I was sorry.

Shoot I did it again...I'm sorry..dang it, sorry...aww man...I can't help it...I apologize.

I agree with you on this, you didn't actually say 'Jesus beat them'... But I asked you to clarify your contradiction in the previous thread. I cut.pasted it here, see below.

"So did Jesus beat them or not? Your first satement says you didn't say he got physical, which is true, you didn't actually say so. But you then you say he did or it seems he did."

Obviously the Bible doesn't say. But I find it hard to believe that he fashioned a whip and then didn't use it. Personally, I think he did whip the people.

But you have a problem either way: If he only used it to scare people, how is that not "extreme psychological/mental pain" as you claim torture is?


Believe what you want to, but 'causing someone to fear for his life' is extreme psychological/mental pain.

Did you or did you not say that?
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=15223


Just as you never said Jesus actually whipped anyone, Raven never said Jesus whipped the table. Don't cry about being mis-quoted then turn around and do the same thing. The passage from the Bible says Jesus 'overthrew' the table.



"Originally Posted by raVeneyes
Getting physical with a table is not the same as attacking someone or torturing them. Jesus would not have approved of torture no matter what the ends."

Okay, he said Jesus got physical with a table. Again, I say, what did he use the whip for? Just holding it in his hands surely frightened somebody, and that falls under torture in your book.

Obviously the Bible doesn't say. But I find it hard to believe that he fashioned a whip and then didn't use it. Personally, I think he did whip the people.

But you have a problem either way: If he only used it to scare people, how is that not "extreme psychological/mental pain" as you claim torture is?

Did you or did you not say that?
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=15223.

I certainly did and that response from me was to your 'Making someone fear for their life is not torture'... Shaking a whip at someone is not making them fear for their life, my grandma would shake a huge wooden spoon at me when I was six so I would stop trying to eat sweets before dinner. I didn't fear for my life though. If you want to believe Jesus used physical harm, go ahead, but his 'turn the other cheek' teaching contradicts that.

Okay, he said Jesus got physical with a table. Again, I say, what did he use the whip for? Just holding it in his hands surely frightened somebody, and that falls under torture in your book.

See my response above....

I certainly did and that response from me was to your 'Making someone fear for their life'... Shaking a whip at someone is not making them fear for their life, my grandma would shake a huge wooden spoon at me when I was six so I would stop trying to eat sweets before dinner. I didn't fear for my life though. If you want to believe Jesus used physical harm, go ahead, but his 'turn the other cheek' teaching contradicts that.



See my response above....

Ummm...one MASSIVE flaw in your logic is that you, as usual, insert facts not in evidence. NOWHERE does it say that Jesus 'shook a whip' at people. Raveneyes, on the other hand, claimed that Jesus used the whip to scare people.

You are wiggling.

Ummm...one MASSIVE flaw in your logic is that you, as usual, insert facts not in evidence. NOWHERE does it say that Jesus 'shook a whip' at people. Raveneyes, on the other hand, claimed that Jesus used the whip to scare people.

You are wiggling.

Lol... Just as you believe Jesus used the whip to beat people I believe he didn't use it to actually whip people. The Bible doesn't specify it as you have said, so we both don't know with 100% certainty. We must go by what we know of Jesus. I see him as a teacher of peace who leads by example, hence 'turn the other cheek', you see him otherwise.

Lol... Just as you believe Jesus used the whip to beat people I believe he didn't use it to actually whip people. The Bible doesn't specify it as you have said, so we both don't know with 100% certainty. We must go by what we know of Jesus. I see him as a teacher of peace hence 'turn the other cheek', you see him otherwise.

I NEVER SAID I SEE HIM OTHERWISE. You are again putting words in my mouth. I am pointing out an aggressive, overt act that would be considered an attack by the pacifists.

Whether or not he used the whip doesn't matter.

Do you think Jesus would be in favor of militaries in order to defend countries? What about spies? Does God favor defeating your enemies or just capitulating to them out of fear? Again, if somebody starts beating up your wife, would Jesus approve of you ripping his testicles from his body in order to protect her? How about this: Jesus said to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and the apostle Paul taught that we are to "obey them that have the rule over you." Does that mean our soldiers are not sinning if they kill an enemy? If we beat a confession out of a terrorist and save thousands of our citizens' lives by preventing an attack, is that wrong according to Jesus?

I NEVER SAID I SEE HIM OTHERWISE. You are again putting words in my mouth. I am pointing out an aggressive, overt act that would be considered an attack by the pacifists.

Whether or not he used the whip doesn't matter.

Do you think Jesus would be in favor of militaries in order to defend countries? What about spies? Does God favor defeating your enemies or just capitulating to them out of fear? Again, if somebody starts beating up your wife, would Jesus approve of you ripping his testicles from his body in order to protect her? How about this: Jesus said to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and the apostle Paul taught that we are to "obey them that have the rule over you." Does that mean our soldiers are not sinning if they kill an enemy? If we beat a confession out of a terrorist and save thousands of our citizens' lives by preventing an attack, is that wrong according to Jesus?

OK! YOU NEVER SAID SO! I just don't see him saying "Turn the other cheek'" and then swinging a wipe to put the beat down on people. Pretaining to this matter.

I really don't know what Jesus meant with all his teachings, but some teachings like peace and tolerance are clearer than others.

I really don't know what Jesus meant with all his teachings, but some teachings like peace and tolerance are clearer than others.

Really? Then how do you explain this?



"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Jn.14:27

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you."

Acts 10:36
"The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."

Mt.10:34 (Jesus speaking)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Lk.12:51 (Jesus speaking)
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Lk.22:36 (Jesus speaking)
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Yeah, he's a real pacifist.

Like I said before when you snapped at me, I interpret Jesus teachings as love & peace; you can interpret them how you see fit.

Like I said before when you snapped at me, I interpret Jesus teachings as love & peace; you can interpret them how you see fit.

Wiggle wiggle wiggle...

You didn't answer my question.

Wiggle wiggle wiggle...

You didn't answer my question.

What was your question?

What do you think about Jesus's 'Turn the other cheek' saying?

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Ya, Jesus was saying to go and kick some ass there........

And, don't point the finger at me for something you do yorself. Mr. Wiggles.

Really? Then how do you explain this?


"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Jn.14:27

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you."

Acts 10:36
"The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."

Mt.10:34 (Jesus speaking)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Lk.12:51 (Jesus speaking)
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Lk.22:36 (Jesus speaking)
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Yeah, he's a real pacifist.

That was my question. I made it really big and bold so you could find it.

You're dodging my question by asking another one. Wiggle.

That was my question. I made it really big and bold so you could find it.

You're dodging my question by asking another one. Wiggle.

Actually, I asked you to clarify your question so I could answer it (most questions end with a question mark), me asking a different question of you is not a dodge since I have to wait for your clarification obviously. Lol, I just don't get you..... You're also pointing the finger at me again of something you do yourself. Just can't help it huh?

(Your answer, thank you for clarifying)

I've given it some thought, can't say that I have a definite understanding of what Jesus was saying there, he isn't very clear, but he doe's say suppose, so I suppose he wasn't giving a straight forward answer either for peace or for violence, but more posing a question. As a what if.......

Care to answer my question of Jesus’ "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

It seems like he is not advocating violence even in the face of violence.

Actually, I asked you to clarify your question so I could answer it (most questions end with a question mark), me asking a different question of you is not a dodge since I have to wait for your clarification obviously. Lol, I just don't get you..... You're also pointing the finger at me again of something you do yourself. Just can't help it huh?

(Your answer, thank you for clarifying)

I've given it some thought, can't say that I have a definite understanding of what Jesus was saying there, he isn't very clear, but he doe's say suppose, so I suppose he wasn't giving a straight forward answer either for peace or for violence, but more posing a question. As a what if.......

Care to answer my question of Jesus’ "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

It seems like he is not advocating violence even in the face of violence.

First of all, your 'answer' is baloney. 'Suppose ye' used here means 'assume ye', not 'what if.'

You're still not answering my question. But I'll answer yours.

Jesus' complete statement is "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Of course, any striking is a painful blow, but the striking in this case is meant as a gross insult (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20). If a right-handed person strikes someone's right cheek, presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand. A fist striking you would be on the left cheek. So this teaching by Jesus is not about self-defense, but about an attack on your dignity.

In the eastern culture slapping someone is considered an insult of the highest order. But Jesus says that His disciples should gladly be willing to endure the insult again.

Christians are permitted to defend themselves and their families (Exodus 22:2; Numbers 1:2-3; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Luke 22:36; Acts 22:1; 25:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:16) and to use God-ordained authority to keep evil from harming them or others (Proverbs 28:8; Acts 16:37-39; 22:23-29).

However, what is forbidden is the taking of vengeance (Romans 12:17-21), bitterness (Ephesians 4:31), and retaliation (1 Peter 2:23). These are absolutely forbidden by Jesus and the apostles.

First of all, your 'answer' is baloney. 'Suppose ye' used here means 'assume ye', not 'what if.'

You're still not answering my question. But I'll answer yours.

Jesus' complete statement is "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Of course, any striking is a painful blow, but the striking in this case is meant as a gross insult (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20). If a right-handed person strikes someone's right cheek, presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand. A fist striking you would be on the left cheek. So this teaching by Jesus is not about self-defense, but about an attack on your dignity.

In the eastern culture slapping someone is considered an insult of the highest order. But Jesus says that His disciples should gladly be willing to endure the insult again.

Christians are permitted to defend themselves and their families (Exodus 22:2; Numbers 1:2-3; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Luke 22:36; Acts 22:1; 25:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:16) and to use God-ordained authority to keep evil from harming them or others (Proverbs 28:8; Acts 16:37-39; 22:23-29).

However, what is