It was 'a' post since your last visit, what you really need is a 2nd grade education. Your own words did you in Gtech, yet you're way too stubborn to see it. You admit to seeing the one post deleted, yet you claim a 'couple' since your 'last visit'. The one post was deleted during your last visit, so 'since your last visit' leaves 'a' post. You trully are your own undoing. -- BTW overall I've deleted at least 3 posts in this thread. Only one that was 'after your last visit' only one that was apart of what you were talking about. I have deleted at least 2 dozen posts in my history on DP, possibly more, with your logic you should put them into your argument as well. Hell I never said I love puppy dogs in this thread, it was not apart of what you stated 'since your last visit' but hell you might as well use that using your lack luster logic.
GRIM, I'm not sure how you come to your conclusions about me claiming that I am a better Christian than you. I don't consider you to be a Christian at all. This is a strong statement but this is my firmly held conviction. You may have great intentions but I must warn you: God doesn't judge you based on your intentions but based on your actions. I wish you WERE a Christian and I wish everyone on dp would be a Christian. The sad thing though is NOT everyone who mentions the name of Jesus is a Christian. Read for yourself Matthew chapter 7 verse 21. You don't have to like my posts, however my greatest desire is not to win an argument with you, but in your case is to make you realise how deceived you are. And be careful whose side you're on. Because Jesus also said NO ONE can serve two masters. Think about who you're serving. It's your call.
#1 Thank you for proving my point. #2 You have brought up being a better christian going to church or not. #3 I do not consider you a christian at all either, a fake one more like it. #4 God will not judge you kindly on being nothing more than an ignorant hate filled instigator such as you are. #5 I suggest you read yourself. #6 I am not serving '2' masters, it is not serving to tollerate fellow man when a fake 'christian' constantly attacks them. There is a difference from tollerance to worshipping, you however fail to see that.
Waterboarding is not torture...if you want torture, make them listen to barbara streisand or britney spears.
I think you need to classify what is torture before say if waterboarding is torture. I don't believe that waterboarding is torture.
Why do you need to 'classify' I would think the definition of any word, including 'torture' would suffice.
If we go by my definition of torture which is to cause permanent pain and suffering then no waterboarding in not torture but someone may have a different view that they classify torture as.
You are not using the full term of torture. Why is it that all of those who say waterboarding is not torture do not even know the definition of it? I have already linked to the dictionary definition on this very thread. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5141892&postcount=11 http://www.answers.com/torture&r=67 Convention against torture. http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm#part1
What is torture? The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987. It defines torture as any act by which: severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as: obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind; when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. What is ill treatment? In times of international armed conflict, ill treatment (described as "inhuman treatment'' and ''willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health' in the Geneva Conventions) are prohibited and criminalized as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. These grave breaches are also incorporated in the jurisdiction of the Yugoslavia Tribunal and of the International Criminal Court. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits ''violence to life and person,'' in particular ''mutilation, cruel treatment and torture'' and also prohibits ''outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment''. These terms include ''other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment." The drafters of common Article 3 avoided a detailed list of prohibited acts in order to ensure that it had the broadest possible reach, leaving no loophole. As the official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross explained: ''It is always dangerous to go into too much detail -- especially in this domain. However great the care taken in drawing up a list of all the various forms of infliction, it would never be possible to catch up with the imagination of future torturers who wished to satisfy their bestial instincts; the more specific and complete a list tries to be, the more restrictive it becomes. The form of wording adopted is flexible, and, at the same time, precise.'' Are there exceptions to the prohibition against torture? No. Article 2(2) of the Convention states that: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." The prohibition of torture has a special status in international law. It is part of customary international law, which means it is binding on all states, whether or not they have ratified any of the international human rights treaties. The prohibition on torture is also a ''peremptory norm,'' which means that it cannot be overruled by any other law or by local custom. May the United States extradite a person to country where s/he might face torture? No. Article 3.1 of the Convention against Torture states that: ?No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.? On October 21, 1998, Congress adopted the United States Policy with Respect to the Involuntary Return of Persons in Danger of Subjection to Torture as part of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act. According to Section (a): "t shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States." Source
Too much religious babble... The main point here is, as a Human Being, don't you find Water-Boarding as degrading? Do you not feel you are a Human first and Christian second? You have too much superiority complex, thats why people here on DP don't like you. Religion is a personal thing. Keep it to yourself. I am sure, deep inside your heart, you find water-boarding is a form of torture. Lord Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) would be very disappointed to see a these wars and crusades in the name of religion.
Lets say they throw you from a roof with a net to catch you ( you do NOT know there is a net). You are not going to die... BUT you will THINK you are going to die and will experience a terrible sense of DREAD. That is torture in my opinion. So yes water boarding is torture but I still see it as a viable means of interrogation.
Perhaps you failed to see the name of this section which is Politics & Religion. Now, when you come in here dictating what I should say and then you start with your views and imply that my religious views are wrong, I think you better think before posting. Again, I will refer you to the name of the section which is Politics & Religion. And about the superiority complex, you surely must agree not all religions are equal.