Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Oh I don't know. Depends on how much I had to smoke or drink that day.,

If you were waterboarded, do you think the interrogator could get you to confess to things you have not done?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@raprap,

The former can't be proved, and the latter is a political construct. I bet you are A-OK with plugging Osama with two shots to the head...boom, boom...just like Maureen Dowd and the rest of the NY Times editorial board is.

Tribalism to be sure, but the delicious irony is that Libs like Dowd condemn and deny any such nature.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

It can't be proved; it can't be disproved. So what?

How does such an obvious statement help us understand this situation?

Look up the term "glib."

Your argument for how it is "likely true" that torture is ineffective is pathetic.

It's you, not I, that has advanced this facile argument that people "have a preference for the last thing that worked."

Now tell us how water boarding of KSM was the "last thing that worked."

0 Replies

@failures art,

Clearly, you don't understand Christian theology .

No Christian scholar would parse the notion of the Trinity to argue that Jesus is neither God or his son.

Why this ridiculous argument?

Walter is either a Christian or he is not.

Because he is a leftist like you should not compel you to argue, with him, that he is.

Walter can believe what he wants and call himself whatever he wants, but he can't manipulate Christian dogma to suit his political leanings.

If he doesn't state, without equivocation, that Jesus was the son of God, was the human vessel of God, and is his savior, he should not lay claim to being a Christian.

I really couldn't care less what Walter call himself.

If it makes him feel good to call himself a Christian, God bless him. Go for it Walter!

The problem I have is when people are intellectually dishonest enough to claim membership in a group; the tenets of which they deny.

You cannot be a secular humanist and a Christian. Jesus would not be OK with diluted liberal Christianity. He didn't rage through the stalls of the money lenders in the temple without intenisity of belief. He wasn't a moral relativist. He knew and declared what was right and what was wrong.

There is no believable Leftist Christ, when leftism means moral relativism and embarrassment for true belief.

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

The Catholic Church's doctrine is Jesus is God.

Catholics believe Jesus is a part of god.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

The Trinity is an entirely different subject.

It is not. The trinity in catholic doctrine is the establishment of what the relationship is between Jesus and God.

Correct. Since 305. Trinitas:

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Walter is either a Christian or he is not.

Because he is a leftist like you should not compel you to argue, with him, that he is.

Walter can believe what he wants and call himself whatever he wants, but he can't manipulate Christian dogma to suit his political leanings.

If he doesn't state, without equivocation, that Jesus was the son of God, was the human vessel of God, and is his savior, he should not lay claim to being a Christian.

I really couldn't care less what Walter call himself.

If it makes him feel good to call himself a Christian, God bless him. Go for it Walter!

The problem I have is when people are intellectually dishonest enough to claim membership in a group; the tenets of which they deny.

Well, I am a Christian, legally, officially; baptised; family Christians since (at least, I don't have earlier sources) 1268.
I call myself a Christian, and I'm a Christian by all (official) records.

That being on the left excludes being a Christian would .... thin out Christian churches dramatically.
Here in Germany for instances, more than 60% of the Evangelicals and 30% of the Catholics weren't Christians anymore according to your definition.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Nope.

Clearly, the intelligence obtained through water boarding was not the totality of information that resulted in the assassination of Bid Laden.

Neither you nor I, however, can determine whether the plugging of Osama would have been achieved without the water boarding produced intelligence.

Enough serious people have indicated that water boarding did advance the mission, that only a stubborn ideologue will argue that without absolute proof, the premise has no standing.

This is my point.

If you believe water boarding is torture and torture should not be employed by our government, we can disagree on this point, but I will respect your position. It is when you insist on gilding your lily and dogmatically declare that torture doesn't work, that I believe your philosophical considerations have given way to those born of your politics.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

There is no governed, legalistic Christian theology, Finn. There are such things for each sect. In fact, these things are what define themselves apart from each other. On the matter of the trinity, this is one area where Catholic theology has a specific language. This is what Walter has tried to explain here.

Walter is not betraying his Christian views, he's expressing the Catholic doctrine on this exact question. That you are not familiar with it, does not mean Walter is doing something incorrect or falsely identifying as Christian.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter do you really hang your identity as a Christian upon the legalities of your national state?

If the German government says you are a Christian than you must be?

Accepting some leftist positions doesn't preclude you from being a Christian, and it's quite possible that Jesus, today, would be a Lefty, but ideological or political notions that object to the axiom that Jesus is the son of God and our savior, means you are not a Christian.

Declare or don't Walter.

The questions are not so difficult:

Is Jesus the son of God?

Can you go to heaven if you don't believe Jesus was the so of God?

Did his death on the cross save you from original sin?

Is Jesus God?

Now you can admire the hell out of Jesus the man, but if you don't believe he is Jesus the personification of God, I have a really hard time accepting your claim that you are a Christian.

Stop dancing around Walter and declare what you believe.

No big deal, at all, if you are not truly a Christian (except what may be your complicated and personal conflict). Your not guilty if you don't believe...at least that is what I personally contend.

Separate your ideological preferences from your claimed adherence to dogma and declare.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Nope.

Clearly, the intelligence obtained through water boarding was not the totality of information that resulted in the assassination of Bid Laden.

What information came specifically by waterboarding? Horse before the cart, Finn.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Neither you nor I, however, can determine whether the plugging of Osama would have been achieved without the water boarding produced intelligence.

Even a broken watch is right twice a day, but we don't say in those two moments that it's a reliable device for telling time.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Enough serious people have indicated that water boarding did advance the mission, that only a stubborn ideologue will argue that without absolute proof, the premise has no standing.

This is my point.

Okay, Finn. Then tell me since this itsy bitsy info was crucial to the mission, why was the OBL task force disassembled in 2005?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If you believe water boarding is torture and torture should not be employed by our government, we can disagree on this point, but I will respect your position. It is when you insist on gilding your lily and dogmatically declare that torture doesn't work, that I believe your philosophical considerations have given way to those born of your politics.

No politics Finn. This is why I suggested we discuss this in scientific terms, and bring writings of experts on human coercion/interrogation into the thread to see what the people who know have to say. That you don't believe WB-ing is torture is more of a political gilding, Finn. The army field manual was changed in an act of politics to hide political blushing. Further, our own armed forces, agree.

Torture will get a person to say whatever it takes to end the torture. How can that information be thought of as reliable?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I'm not dancing around. And I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of Christianity.
There's quite a lot of it online - you even mustn't follow the (more traditional) Catholic doctrine, but can look what Orthodox churches, the Anglican church or any Protestant church say about it.

As said, I'm baptised and belong to a Christian church.
I'm not saying that I'm a "goof Catholic", but I'm trying to be a good Christian, generally.

However, I don't think that my political views have anything to do my belief.
(That would be fun, if members of the Christian Democratic Union or Christian Social Union, our conservatives, were beholden to be Christians)

Regarding your other questions: 'yes' to all, with an exception (partly, at least, since we don't have three but only one God) to the last (see: Trinity')

1 Reply

@failures art,

You are wrong and your error is born of your leftist ideology.

There is one absolute requirement of Christians: That they believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he died on the cross for their sins, and that if they do not believe he is their savior, they will not be saved.

It really doesn't matter whether you or Walter think these requirements are silly or can be interpreted to fit you mind set. Doing so, may be entirely right, but you cannot lay claim to membership in a group, the fundamental tenets of which you either don't accept or pathetically attempt to dodge.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Stop dancing around Walter and declare what you believe.

One of the greatest differences between here and there seems to be that religion is a totally private thing here. (Mostly, at least.)

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There is one absolute requirement of Christians: That they believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he died on the cross for their sins, and that if they do not believe he is their savior, they will not be saved.

It really doesn't matter whether you or Walter think these requirements are silly or can be interpreted to fit you mind set.

I really don't know from where you got the idea that I could have a different idea.

The Apostolicum is indeed the most fundamental dogma of Christianity.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You are wrong and your error is born of your leftist ideology.

Or I'm right, and you are failing to grasp the nuance Walter is expressing.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There is one absolute requirement of Christians: That they believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he died on the cross for their sins, and that if they do not believe he is their savior, they will not be saved.

One? You just named three? Also, some sects don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but that he was God himself. What you seem to be struggling with is that not all of Christianity view this relationship in the exact same way.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It really doesn't matter whether you or Walter think these requirements are silly or can be interpreted to fit you mind set. Doing so, may be entirely right, but you cannot lay claim to membership in a group, the fundamental tenets of which you either don't accept or pathetically attempt to dodge.

Walter is very clearly expressing Catholic teachings on the trinity. He's not going to lose membership with the church for anything he has written here. If you don not like or understand the catholic view of the trinity, you shouldn't be taking it up with me or Walter, but with the church itself.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Well, you were dancing around, and I challenge you to explain how I don't understand the concept of Christianity. It's not a highly complex school of thought (until you get into the mystical nonsense about the Trinity and the body and blood of Christ)

I'm not judging you on whether or not you are a "good" Catholic, or Christian, as I don't know what either means.

I am insuring that if you are going to call yourself a Christian that you acknowledge the fundamental Christian tenet. You seem to have reluctantly done so.

As for being a "good"Catholic, do you believe in Papal infallibility?

Do you believe that good deeds alone can assure you a place in heaven?

Do you know what Martin Luther felt the need to reform?

In the end Walter, whatever your religious beliefs may be are your personal considerations. I respect them.

Only you know why you feel compelled to identify yourself as a Christian, and if you actually prescribe to Christian tenets, only you know why you have such difficulty clearly and unequivocally testifying to them.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Doing so, may be entirely right, but you cannot lay claim to membership in a group, the fundamental tenets of which you either don't accept or pathetically attempt to dodge.

This "membership in a group" certainly is another interesting, but different topic.

On the one hand, I'm a member of the Catholic Church due to my baptism. And only can get out of this membership according to the specific rules of Canon Law.
On the other hand, if I declare at court that I leave the church ...
Theologians have various views of it.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Sorry Young Jedi, but you are not doing Walter any favors.

There is no nuance to God.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I don't have difficulties to explain my Christianity at all.

But I don't see a reason why I should do it, here or elsewhere.

I've read most of what Luther wrote. Some even in those places where he wrote it. All in the language he wrote.

I don't think that is any good to have my belief labelled on my forehead.
Nor do I think that's any good others do so.

I don't think either that would be a productive thing to discuss this with you:
I'm not supporter of religious wars.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

You have pests. You immediately resort to kill traps. Results are unsatisfactory. You quit trying to get rid of the pests. Another month goes by and you start trying again. You then do research and find that you can have fewer pests by making sure you don't leave your trash out and that sealing your windows and doors provides a better deterrent. You learn about the bugs and learn they like pools of standing water, so you check your house and patio. After months and months, you rid your house of the pests using sound knowledge of your insect invaders. Then, somebody comes to you and says that it was not your smart decisions and application of knowledge that got rid of the pests; it was the expensive kill traps you used months ago.

Leon Panetta comes over, and says that, yeah... some ant ate some bait a few months ago...

lmao

0 Replies

Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know