TORTURE!! Terrorist forced to listen to Eminem!!!

[TheDude]

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.

 

[RB3]

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."

 

[fossten]

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."

 

[TheDude]

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.

 

[fossten]

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?

 

[TheDude]

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?

 

[fossten]

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.

 

[TheDude]

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'.........

 

[fossten]

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.

 

[TheDude]

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.

 

[fossten]

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?

 

[TheDude]

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.

 

[MarkOfDeath]

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

 

[fossten]

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?)

 

[TheDude]

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.

 

[fossten]

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?)

 

[TheDude]

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.

 

[fossten]

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?

 

[raVeneyes]

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?

 

[TheDude]

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.

 

[fossten]

: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.

 

[raVeneyes]

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.

 

[TheDude]

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."

 

[raVeneyes]

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

 

[fossten]

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...