On Jan 11, 2:57=A0pm, Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 11, 12:39=A0pm,
wrote:
On Jan 11, 11:28=A0am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 11, 9:47 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientol=
ogists,
right? =A0I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't DARE mock o=
r deride a
Muslim.
Some Christians already did while sitting smilingly on top of nake=
d
Muslims.
Just out of curiosity, what basis do you have for saying that they w=
ere
Christians? =A0I've never seen any news reports that suggested what =
they said
their faith was.
They certainly were no humanists. Not even atheists. Their willingness=
to "follow orders" has Christianity written all over it. And their
sadism spells "The Passion of the Christ."
Isn't this reminiscing of the Santa Inquisition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg
"many of them surely devout Christians"
'It may seem ironic that a war fought in the name of principles and
imbued with religious ardor should degenerate to such sordid lows.
While in America people flock to see Christ tortured, in Iraq we
torture our own prisoners -- for information, for deterrence, but
also -- as the pictures document -- for the sheer fun of it. And
yet, perhaps "irony" is not quite the right concept. Perhaps the
relationship between a U.S.-made blockbuster about Christ's pain
and the pain inflicted by our soldiers abroad is closer and more
inevitable that the notion of "irony" would suggest, because many
of the torturers are no doubt heartland Americans, many of them
surely devout Christians -- the core audience of "The Passion of
Christ." They are the people Bush directly addressed when he
characterized the war as a crusade, a fight against evil in the
name of the God. The aptitude of Christians for delivering pain
draws on a rich, millennial tradition -- a tradition built on
certainty and a Manichean worldview. The ability to torture
somebody both requires and confirms this certainty; the torturer's
exhilarating privilege is to feel right by God while doing what is
normally forbidden.'
http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=3Dind0406&L=3Djustwatch-l&O=
=3DD&P...
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
??????
Skipping the fact that no evidence was given that those who committed
those acts were Christians.
A reserve unit from West Virginia was heavily involved. Wanna bet they
weren't all born-again, totally "saved" Christians?
The acts (and those who committed them)
were widely condemned by everybody (regardless of religious
affiliation).
No they weren't. Those disgusting acts were defended by Limbaugh,
Hannity and O'Reilly, Savage (and others), compared to fraternity
pranks, and used as verbal fodder to condemn the silly sensibilities
of deluded "Liberals."
Any grouping of humanity has the possiblity to contain
certain elements that are capable of terrible acts under certain
circumstances.
Theists seem to have the patent at the moment.
While the chain of command may have been negligent in
allowing those circumstances to develop, there is no smoking gun
convicting anyone in authority as prompting those actions.
Oh, horseshit. The acts were ordered and orchestrated by civilian
contractors at eh behest of the military. The military will condemn
enlisted members, but always recoils and rolls into a ball when
officers are involved. One general was fired and lost her star, but
she was a reservist, an utter moron, and expendable. The rest of the
ranking military was spared because the officer corps takes care of
its own.
This was
not a state sponser or religously sponsored event.
It was state sponsored. Who owned Abu? The Shriners?
It was merely a
criminal act and those involved in it were treated as criminals.
It was a concerted series of violations of law, orchestrated by the
military and ordered through the vehicle of contractors who were given
authority (illegally, I might add), to direct military members. The
fact that the military at Abu enjoyed it and went out on their own to
do certain things (little Miss England's sex show, for example),
doesn't obviate the fact that the guards were told to be brutal by
their commanders.
Your hypothesis are not only wrong but clearly show a mind that is
warped by hatred to the extent that any association (not matter how
illogical or factually wrong) is considered to be truth as long as it
feed and re-inforces that hatred.
Blah... and you're a moron.
I'm sorry that you hate us, but I am not sorry that we will prevent
you from destorying us.
Destroying us? Who? People who torture? You're one of them?- Hide quoted t=
ext -
- Show quoted text -
Hi, from far off Chile. Well, I guess I'm not very entitled to utter a
word, (not being a US citizen, etc.) but here is what I think: The
soldiers that did it down there were bored stiff. There were some
funny guys imprisoned not of US and also dressed in something like
nightgowns and so they begin to threat them as clowns - they were also
rendered totally inofensive, while the idlers were totally armed in
their own enclosure.
Idlers are ussually dangerous, specially when with a gun in their
hands. And I don't mean US soldiers; I mean anyone with power in their
hands. (Remember the hanging of Saddam Hussein ? ).
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons,
Scientologists,
right? I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't DARE mock or
deride a
Muslim.
Some Christians already did while sitting smilingly on top of naked
Muslims.
Just out of curiosity, what basis do you have for saying that they
were
Christians? I've never seen any news reports that suggested what
they said
their faith was.
They certainly were no humanists. Not even atheists. Their willingness=
to "follow orders" has Christianity written all over it. And their
sadism spells "The Passion of the Christ."
Isn't this reminiscing of the Santa Inquisition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg
"many of them surely devout Christians"
'It may seem ironic that a war fought in the name of principles and
imbued with religious ardor should degenerate to such sordid lows.
While in America people flock to see Christ tortured, in Iraq we
torture our own prisoners -- for information, for deterrence, but
also -- as the pictures document -- for the sheer fun of it. And
yet, perhaps "irony" is not quite the right concept. Perhaps the
relationship between a U.S.-made blockbuster about Christ's pain
and the pain inflicted by our soldiers abroad is closer and more
inevitable that the notion of "irony" would suggest, because many
of the torturers are no doubt heartland Americans, many of them
surely devout Christians -- the core audience of "The Passion of
Christ." They are the people Bush directly addressed when he
characterized the war as a crusade, a fight against evil in the
name of the God. The aptitude of Christians for delivering pain
draws on a rich, millennial tradition -- a tradition built on
certainty and a Manichean worldview. The ability to torture
somebody both requires and confirms this certainty; the torturer's
exhilarating privilege is to feel right by God while doing what is
normally forbidden.'
http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=3Dind0406&L=3Djustwatch-l&O=
=3DD&P...
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
??????
Skipping the fact that no evidence was given that those who committed
those acts were Christians.
A reserve unit from West Virginia was heavily involved. Wanna bet they
weren't all born-again, totally "saved" Christians?
The acts (and those who committed them)
were widely condemned by everybody (regardless of religious
affiliation).
No they weren't. Those disgusting acts were defended by Limbaugh,
Hannity and O'Reilly, Savage (and others), compared to fraternity
pranks, and used as verbal fodder to condemn the silly sensibilities
of deluded "Liberals."
Any grouping of humanity has the possiblity to contain
certain elements that are capable of terrible acts under certain
circumstances.
Theists seem to have the patent at the moment.
While the chain of command may have been negligent in
allowing those circumstances to develop, there is no smoking gun
convicting anyone in authority as prompting those actions.
Oh, horseshit. The acts were ordered and orchestrated by civilian
contractors at eh behest of the military. The military will condemn
enlisted members, but always recoils and rolls into a ball when
officers are involved. One general was fired and lost her star, but
she was a reservist, an utter moron, and expendable. The rest of the
ranking military was spared because the officer corps takes care of
its own.
This was
not a state sponser or religously sponsored event.
It was state sponsored. Who owned Abu? The Shriners?
It was merely a
criminal act and those involved in it were treated as criminals.
It was a concerted series of violations of law, orchestrated by the
military and ordered through the vehicle of contractors who were given
authority (illegally, I might add), to direct military members. The
fact that the military at Abu enjoyed it and went out on their own to
do certain things (little Miss England's sex show, for example),
doesn't obviate the fact that the guards were told to be brutal by
their commanders.
Your hypothesis are not only wrong but clearly show a mind that is
warped by hatred to the extent that any association (not matter how
illogical or factually wrong) is considered to be truth as long as it
feed and re-inforces that hatred.
Blah... and you're a moron.
I'm sorry that you hate us, but I am not sorry that we will prevent
you from destorying us.
Destroying us? Who? People who torture? You're one of them?- Hide quoted t=
ext -
.
