The whole left-wing community has expressed all manner of Pharisaical outrage that a few (three) enemy soldiers, responsible for thousands of American deaths, had their heads dunked under water for a few seconds by honorable American interrogators.
Boo hoo; poor terrorist.
And yet at the same time, Obama and the left-wing genocidal minions support and finance regular brutal and horrible dismemberment of yet-to-be born children who can feel the pain as their arms and legs are torn off while they are still alive.
So Obama, real man that he is, by his administrative decisions saves evil terrorists but kills innocent babies.
And all liberals support the same murder of these innocent babies without batting an eyelash.
Is it just me, or does Obama (and the other left-wing extremists) just scream REPROBATE!
These radical geniuses scream bloody murder because THREE murdering terrorists were dunked in water, while at the same time hundreds or thousands of unborn children are mercilessly ripped apart EACH DAY in this country and Obama and the libs are SILENT about it.
This is called duplicity. It is called a double standard. It is called 'calling evil good, and good evil;' which the New Testament said self-serving, brutish men would end up doing in the latter days.
The endless hypocrisy has to stop.
I may not be able to stop it. But those aren't my children who are being tortured by Obama and the liberals; those kids are God's... ... ... !!!
See: Looking Abortion in the Eye
15 comments:
.
RightHooks,
Why do you care about abortion?
Had the women carried the fetus to full term, then would you not say the new born should be allowed to starve as long as _you_ do not have to care for the new born?
___
"outrage that a few (three) enemy soldiers, responsible for thousands of American deaths, had their heads dunked under water for a few seconds by honorable American interrogators."
A couple of points,
1. the people who were tortured were _not_ soldiers.
2. the torturers were _not_ honorable.
"The endless hypocrisy has to stop."
You want to bring hypocrisy to an end, stop being a hypocrite.
~@:o?
.
Ema, You are ascending to new heights of incoherency...
You said, "Why do you care about abortion? Had the women carried the fetus to full term, then would you not say the new born should be allowed to starve as long as _you_ do not have to care for the new born?" - What in the world are you talking about? What kind of dopey drivel is that? I don't think your elevator is going all the way to the top floor, Ema.
Then you said, "1. the people who were tortured were _not_ soldiers." Oh, really now? Let's see, the were organized to and engaged in making war upon the people of the United States of America, they had killed over three-thousand Americans, they were planning to kill thousands more Americans...exactly who were they, Emma, a yodelling fraternity from Switzerland?
Second, is getting wet torture? Our own soldiers experience the exact same methodologies while they are undergoing training. Is that torture too? If it is, why aren't you whining about their treatment as well? (I know, because you only love evil and evil's people and could care less about an American, especially a brave soldier because it makes you look worse to yourself than you already do.)
Furthermore, if getting a murdering terrorist wet is so bad, where does tearing off the limbs of a live human being rank?
Get a clue.
Ema,
Also, you said that the American interrogators were not honorable.
What evidence do you have of this ungrateful accusation? What about innocent until proven guilty? Or is the burden of proof only on those who seek to prove Obama was not born in the USA, but not those who chose to seditious-ly undermine this country by condemning it's soldiers? (Again, there is the typical liberal DUPLICITY). So the interrogators are not honorable merely because of your unsubstantiated, unfounded, raw, pure BIAS, right?
Ema, you are like the swine flu --you're making me more sick than usual.
.
RightHooks,
Speaking of sick...
Torture is a crime. Those who torture are criminals. Those who order people to be tortured are criminals.
You are trying to defend criminals and their crimes. I guess one can ask is your motto "Truth, Justice, or the Amerikan way?"
____
"Why do you care about abortion? Had the women carried the fetus to full term, then would you not say the new born should be allowed to starve as long as _you_ do not have to care for the new born?"
Answer the question or STFU.
""1. the people who were tortured were _not_ soldiers." "
Secretary of Defense Rummsfeld, the alleged war criminal declared those tortured by USA were not soldiers because they would then be covered by international law. You twit.
_________
"where does tearing off the limbs of a live human being rank?"
Do they vote?
~@:o?
.
Ema, your member in good standing at the Puzzle Palace is clearly well-deserved. It's hard to even know where to start...and, of course, the futility of any efforts at reasoning or explaining with/to you also presently looms. But I'll try...
You said, "Torture is a crime. Those who torture are criminals. Those who order people to be tortured are criminals." Yes, and Mohammed ordered all Muslims to cut the heads off unbelievers. Mohammed is a criminal by your own definition. And flying planes into towers is ordered and done by criminals, soldiers, enemy combatants, whatever you want to call them, inflicts torture on those who do not die instantly. Those who ordered this are criminals as well. And WHO CARES if someone dunks their heads in the water BESIDES YOU.
I'm not even gonna go any further on this...here you whine about somebody dunking a few criminals and support outrageous torture of babies at the same time...I'll let your own words shed as much light on you as anyone needs to know.
Not for your idiotic statement that children should be left to starve to death after they are born -- that is just stupid. I can't even get my mind around why you would even think that or how in the world you would FALSELY ASSUME that is what me or anybody else would think or believe.
But of course, coming from someone who believes in the torture and dismemberment of unarmed, defenseless and innocent babies, like you do, and at the same time whines to protect murdering terrorists, like you do, nothing is surprising. You demonstrate this verse, " They call evil good and good evil."
And it is obvious to all.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee, Ema. All of us are misled and enemies of God until we come to grips with our own sin. It is at that confession where our hope begins. But denial will only lead you deeper into dementia than you already are...time to come to the light, Ema...it's time.
RH, I have just one question in response to your notion that Islam is inherently criminal because in the Qur'an and hadith, Mohammed commands the murder of infidels...
Yes or no...Is God not commanding the murder of infidels in this passage from the Bible?
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death..."
Deuteronomy 13: 6-10 (NIV)
PW,
No.
.
Packerwatch,
"No."
(Any bets RightHooks will say Deuteronomy 13: 6-10 (NIV) does not use the word infidel?)
RightHooks is lying himself to the truth. You see, as a wacky RW religious types like RightHooks, a person gets to pick and choose only which parts and pieces of the bible a person wants to use at the moment.
RightHooks and Ali Ben Ali Mohammad Abdul have justified their calls for mass killings of citizens of USA and the rest of the world who happen to follow the teachings of Islam. These two pieces of work, (RightHooks and Ali Ben Ali Mohammad Abdul) can point to ancient, obscure, and outdated writings to scream that followers of Islam _must_ do exactly what the backward writings say - all the while the hypocrites, as 'good' bible thumping yokels, do not have to follow fully their holy writings when it is not convenient to them.
Maybe it would be easier for him, if RightHooks became a follower of the good jewish rabbi Jesus Christ. Then RightHooks would learn about the truth and justice.
~@:o?
.
Ema, PW,
Have you stopped robbing banks? Yes or no.
Yes or no.
YES or NO.
As you can see, not all questions are yes or no questions, are they now?
And PW's question was not a yes or now question, but he wanted a yes or no answer; so I gave him one.
If PW was really interested in learning, in the truth, in understanding what could make a liberal take such a dishonest stand as to hate it when a murdering terrorist gets a bath, yet approves of innocent babies getting tortured, then PW wouldn't ask absolute questions in such a way as to not hear absolute answers.
Ema, 'good rabbi'? Only God is good.
"If PW was really interested in learning, in the truth, in understanding what could make a liberal take such a dishonest stand as to hate it when a murdering terrorist gets a bath, yet approves of innocent babies getting tortured, then PW wouldn't ask absolute questions in such a way as to not hear absolute answers."
You are oversimplifying. I don't hate that a "murdering terrorist gets a bath." I have a huge amount of respect for the law, and I hate to see it broken.
As for abortion, I completely understand your position. But you have to realize that there is a clear ethical debate with multiple sides that believe equally as strongly in their views. That's the difference between you and me. You chalk up my disagreement with you in this debate to "lov[ing] evil."
As for my actual position on abortion, I do believe in a "right to life." The debate is to whom or to what the right to life is extended to. On one extreme, there is the anarchist position that no one has a right to life. On the other, there is the Jainist extreme that all animals, including insects and livestock, have an innate right to life. In my opinion, the right to life is extended to any human beings that have the ability to plan and anticipate their future. This includes neither the unborn nor the irreversibly comatose, so abortion and euthanasia in these circumstances should be legal. I don't disregard your position, because ethical problems are abstract and can't be solved mathematically or scientifically, so while I believe I am right, I acknowledge the fact that I could be wrong.
And finally, I agree that some questions aren't yes or no questions, and your loaded question was a good example (have you stopped robbing banks.) However, a loaded question means that there is an untrue presupposition in the question. In other words, there is an assumption in part of the question that is not true, so the question is not valid.
However, my question was not a loaded question, as I did not presuppose anything in my question. I simply asked whether the passage is an order from God to kill nonbelievers.
You said it isn't. I would like you to explain why it isn't, given that the text seems to indicate that anyone who worships a different god "must certainly be put to death."
.
RightHooks,
No.
_________
Packerwatch wrote, "You said it isn't. I would like you to explain why it isn't, given that the text seems to indicate that anyone who worships a different god "must certainly be put to death.""
Given how you and your close friend Ali Ben Ali Mohammad Abdul have read the book of islam and use the writings to condemn _all_ muslims, his is a fair point.
You demand followers of islam defend their beliefs from your twisting of islam's holy script. Please defend your beliefs from the twisting of evil liberals.
~@:o?
.
PW, on abortion, the multitude of potential ethical positions is not a validation of abortion. There could also be many ethical positions as to whether I should push some blathering lib off a bridge but none of them would make it right for me to do so.
And we do not get to decide where the 'human' line is...after all that 'tissue' in the womb isn't a squirrel, now is it? Is it a frog? A camel? A bird? No, it is a human; and none of us has the right to kill him/her because said human fails to live up to a perverted idea of when human life begins. It is human. Abortion is murder.
Now, for the loaded question...yes your question did have some false assumptions in it...it failed to assume the full and completed work of God/Christ, or as Paul Harvey would say, "The REST of the story..."
The verses you alluded to were commands to the people of Israel as they came out of Egypt and were included in God's revelation to the world that He is holy. God was calling Moses and the Israelites to be separate from the sinful world around them, to be a standard of righteousness which would reflect the righteousness of God, and, therefore, God Himself.
He established true right and wrong for the whole world to see. Our own culture [until the creation of the liberal] reflects these very standards in our values and our laws. It won't be hard for you, considering your course of study, to determine that American laws are based on certain values and standards; and, if you dig, you will find that they are based on Judeo-Christian philosophies. What was dude's name...Blackwell? Isn't that the guy who was the ideological father of American law? And everything he did was founded on Scripture. Answers are there for those who chose to dig for them.
So anyway, God was revealing what holiness and righteousness was. He also was protective of His people in that He did not want them to allow sinfulness into the camp, whether it came from without (other cultures) or within (from one's own family).
Was this a mandate for all people for all time? No. God knew that the Israelites would fall on their faces and fail God in every way. He knew sin lived in them just as it lived in the people that surrounded them. But to reveal such a truth to humanity, that they are sinful, He had to establish exactly what righteousness was.
But it doesn't end there. He knew they would fail, and hence, God rejected them and sent His message, then, to the Gentiles. To quote Paul, "...God's rejection of Israel means salvation for the Gentiles..."
And, of course, this salvation, the work which met the legal requirement of righteousness, or the Law, was accomplished through the propitiating death of Christ.
What that means is that God's righteous standard was met, His justice executed, when His own Son's innocent, guiltless blood was shed on behalf of ALL the people. God's justice was propitiated; the requirements of consequences for sin had been met. God could not be accused of unrighteousness or injustice.
So now God could legally forgive us sinners.
So were those words commands to Israel? Yes. Was it the end of the story? No way. It was a stepping stone for God's full grace to march into history and be revealed to mankind, which it was through Jesus Christ.
Oops, forgot the rest of that verse...
1Romans 11:5 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?Romans 11 is very powerful and explains this whole concept.
So up until the death and resurrection of Christ, it was ok for Israelites to kill non-believers?
And as far as formal logic goes, that was not a loaded question on my part. A loaded question would require you to confirm a falsehood by simply answering the question either way.
PW,
Sorry, was pretty busy yesterday.
You said, "So up until the death and resurrection of Christ, it was ok for Israelites to kill non-believers?"
Israel was chosen by God to be God's ambassadors, if you will, to the world. They were God's instrument whereby He could show the world who He was and what righteousness was.
He also used them to judge the wickedness of the people who lived in Canaan, who's evil mandated God;s judgement. He did this by having Israel conquer the area, and then He gave the land as an eternal gift to Israel.
Was the command you eluded to [from Deuteronomy] a command to kill all unbelievers? You can see that it isn't, so I'm not real sure what you seek to gain by the argument. You can see that it is an exhortation to protect one's family from those who would entice a person to believe in a false god [take Islam's 'Allah,' for example]. It is not an indefinite and universal command to militarily conquer the world like Islam's commands are.
God knows those who are His. He reads the intentions of the heart. He knows who is playing games with Him, who is hiding behind smoke screens and who is sincere.
I'm not sure that I would want to try to indict God with such a statement as, "So up until the death and resurrection of Christ, it was ok for Israelites to kill non-believers?" If one was truly seeking truth, is this a sincere question, or is this rather some kind of expedition one tries to go on to find some illusory ground upon which to stand and claim objection?
You would benefit yourself to be care-ful.
Post a Comment