Iamon lyme:

> we can worship a God who created us in His image

The question is: are we really created in God's image?

What does that mean? Physically? Intellectually? Spiritually?

And who represent's God's image? Mother Teresa? Adolf Gegenueber aka Hitler? Joseph Stalin? St. Francis of Asisi? Bill Gates? Barrack Obama? George W. Bush? etc. etc.

Are ALL human beings created in God's image? And how do we know what God's image is? We keep regurgitating what Genesis said, but considering the actions of human beings in history, can we justified in saying we are a reflection of God?

If ALL human beings are made in God's image, then Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are God's image too.

I refuse to believe that we were made in God's image. Is God cruel, selfish, greedy, opinionated, inflexible, intolerant, racist, jealous, vengeful, murderous, etc.? It would be nice to say that God is all the good things that humanity has, and then conveniently say that "the Devil made us bad". But then, is the Devil not God's creation too? If human beings do evil, did God not make humans with the capacity and the potential for evil? Then that capacity and potential for evil would be a reflection of God too.

So I think that did not make human beings in his image. God made blank slates reflection nothing of God itself. God has to be nothing like we human beings are, otherwise God is both all the good and all the bad things we are.

Iamon lyme: Did you write this above?

Here's a crazy notion. What does it mean when men build a shrine devoted to worshiping a tool? Any new technologies, advanced or not, are just that.. they are tools. They are not gods.

So, in the absence of a God who would have created everything and everyone, who or what exactly are these men worshiping? The tool they made a shrine to, or themselves?

So, depending on whether you believe in God or not, here are our options... we can worship a God who created us in His image, or we can be the gods who create tools in our image.

Hey, relax! I'm just telling you what the aliens told me. Don't shoot the messenger!

(V):

Turing is shown holding an apple—a symbol classically used to represent forbidden love, the object that inspired Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation, and the means of Turing's own death. The cast bronze bench carries in relief the text 'Alan Mathison Turing 1912–1954', and the motto 'Founder of Computer Science' as it would appear if encoded by an Enigma machine: 'IEKYF ROMSI ADXUO KVKZC GUBJ'.

A plinth at the statue's feet says 'Father of computer science, mathematician, logician, wartime codebreaker, victim of prejudice'. There is also a Bertrand Russell quotation saying 'Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty—a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture.' The sculptor buried his old Amstrad computer, which was an early popular home computer, under the plinth, as a tribute to "the godfather of all modern computers".[91]

In 1999, Time Magazine named Turing as one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th century for his role in the creation of the modern computer, and stated: "The fact remains that everyone who taps at a keyboard, opening a spreadsheet or a word-processing program, is working on an incarnation of a Turing machine."[2] Turing is featured in the 1999 Neal Stephenson novel "Cryptonomicon."

In 2002, Turing was ranked twenty-first on the BBC nationwide poll of the 100 Greatest Britons.[92] In 2006 British writer and mathematician Ioan James chose Turing as one of twenty people to feature in his book about famous historical figures who may have had some of the traits of Asperger's syndrome.[93] In 2010, actor/playwright Jade Esteban Estrada portrayed Turing in the solo musical, "ICONS: The Lesbian and Gay History of the World, Vol. 4.". In 2011, in the Guardian's "My hero" series, writer Alan Garner chose Turing as his hero and described how they had met whilst out jogging in the early 1950s. Garner remembered Turing as "funny and witty" and said that he "talked endlessly". [94]

In February 2011, Turing's papers from the Second World War were bought for the nation with an 11th-hour bid by the National Heritage Memorial Fund, allowing them to stay at Bletchley Park.[95]

The logo of Apple Computer is often erroneously referred to as a tribute to Alan Turing, with the bite mark a reference to his method of suicide.[96] Both the designer of the logo[97] and the company deny that there is any homage to Turing in the design of the logo.[98] In Series I, Episode 13 of the British television quiz show QI presenter Stephen Fry recounted a conversation had with Steve Jobs, saying that Jobs' response was, "It isn't true, but God, we wish it were."

The Col: He's the guy who's brain cracked the Germans Enigma machine.He, and Bletchley Park were a big BIG secret during WWII and for many years after. It wasn't till the 70's that some form of recognition was given to the people who broke the German codes, and helped the USA break the Japanese codes.

Without him WWII would have probably gone on for an extra 2 to 4 years, with an estimated extra loss of life of 14-28 million in Europe.

Artful Dodger: Am I still you, or have "they" given up on that?

Was abducted.. again! the only thing that's changed is that the aliens no longer probe their abducties. Now they sit you down at a small table and make you answer multiple choice questions. They insist you pick an answer, but sometimes none of the answers are right. that was torture. I'd rather be probed! Well, no. Actually, I wouldn't.

V said on the previous page: "What gets me is this crazy Christian notion that denies the bilogical mechanics of humans."

He's right, you know. That is a pretty crazy notion.

I like this site. It helps me to unwind.

Been gone since Nov or Dec, came back once to see that I'd timed out in all my games. I didn't die or anything like that, was just busy and extremely tired. So anyway, been looking over the relatively newer posts (this page and the one before it), and honestly, if it wasn't for the time stamps and some reactions to current events, it's just like I never left.

still trying to un-invent the gun? seriously?

[]_ [[]] []_

Artful Dodger: טז לֹא-תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ, לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל-דַּם רֵעֶךָ: אֲנִי," יְהוָה."

Ah yes, how could we ever forget... that?

The Col: ROFL

(V): who?

2012 is billed as the "Alan Turing Year," and a lengthy compendium of past and future Alan Turing events can be found at the Centenary site hosted by the United Kingdom's Mathematics Trust. The big gathering taking place right now is the Alan Turing Centenary Conference in Manchester.

Be sure to read Turing's provocative 1950 essay, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," progenitor of the famous Turing Test. "I PROPOSE to consider the question, 'Can machines think?,'" Turing asked. "This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms 'machine' and 'think.'" Turing Test contests have been all the rage ever since. There's even an opera about the test.

If you love museums, the Bletchley Park National Code Centre and the Museum of Manchester host a "Alan Turing and Life's Enigma" exhibit. The Spencer Museum of Art in Kansas has an online offering titled Cryptograph: An Exhibition for Alan Turing. And the Heinz Nixdorf MuseumsForum has a show named "Eminent & enigmatic—10 aspects of Alan Turing."

A docudrama film about Turing, called Codebreaker, tracks his accomplishments and the deep psychological struggles that Turing went through in the last years of his life.

An excellent short biography of Turing is kept by Andrew Hodges, author of Alan Turing: The Enigma. In addition to Hodges' bio, there is David Leavitt's The Man Who Knew Too Much: Alan Turing and the Invention of the Computer and George Dyson's Turing's Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe, which focuses on Turing's intellectual influence. Also see: Cambridge University Press's republication of his mother Sara's biography of her son: Alan M. Turing.

A man never to be forgotten.

Rupert Murdoch joined in an "over-crude" attempt by US Republicans to force Tony Blair to accelerate British involvement in the Iraq war a week before a crucial House of Commons vote in 2003, according to the final volumes of Alastair Campbell's government diaries.

In another blow to the media mogul, who told the Leveson inquiry that he had never tried to influence any prime minister, Campbell's diary says Murdoch warned Blair in a phone call of the dangers of a delay in Iraq. The disclosure by Campbell, whose diaries are serialised in the Guardian, will pile the pressure on Murdoch in light of his evidence to the Leveson inquiry.

The Cabinet Office released information on Friday that raised doubts about Murdoch's claim that Gordon Brown pledged to "declare war" on News Corporation after the Sun abandoned its support for Labour in September 2009. It supported Brown's claim that he never made such a threat by saying that the only phone call between the two men during the period took place on 10 November 2009 and focused on Afghanistan.

Murdoch tweeted in response: "I stand by every word is aid [sic] at Leveson." But there will be fresh questions about one of Murdoch's most memorable declarations from his appearance before the inquiry in April. The founder of News Corporation said: "I've never asked a prime minister for anything."

Campbell wrote that on 11 March 2003, a week before the Commons vote in which MPs voted to deploy British troops to Iraq, Murdoch intervened to try to persuade Blair to move more quickly towards war. "[Tony Blair] took a call from Murdoch who was pressing on timings, saying how News International would support us, etc," Campbell wrote. "Both TB and I felt it was prompted by Washington, and another example of their over-crude diplomacy. Murdoch was pushing all the Republican buttons, how the longer we waited the harder it got." The following day, 12 March, he wrote: "TB felt the Murdoch call was odd, not very clever."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/15/rupert-murdoch-tony-blair-iraq-alastair-campbell?intcmp=239

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHAwbYpRGkQ&feature=related

synopsis.. replace American Dream with fear.

http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/features/wisconsin-recall

Barring libs cheating in dist 21 we have a clean sweep. Walker won by a larger percentage today than in previous election. Ripple effect will follow.

I love to see you libs spin the GOP's win in Wicsonsin! Obama has spun already. What a moron.

Bernice: I must not have it then as my wife can beat mean with one hand (and a skillet)

U.S. Aid to Anti-Communist Rebels:
The "Reagan Doctrine" and Its Pitfalls

by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter is a foreign policy analyst with the Cato Institute.

Proponents of the Reagan Doctrine, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Michael Ledeen, and Charles Krauthammer, contend that U.S. assistance to anti-communist insurgencies in the Third World would serve three beneficial purposes. First, it would enhance U.S. security by tying down Soviet-bloc military resources and perhaps reversing Soviet expansionist gains. Second, it would achieve these objectives without serious military risk or financial cost to the United States. Finally, it would promote the growth of democracy throughout the Third World.[54] All three contentions are open to serious question.

It is difficult to see how the Reagan Doctrine would bolster U.S. security; indeed, the opposite result is far more likely. Most Third World struggles take place in arenas and involve issues far removed from legitimate American security needs. U.S. involvement in such conflicts expands the republic's already overextended commitments without achieving any significant prospective gains. Instead of draining Soviet military and financial resources, we end up dissipating our own.

Moreover, contrary to the sanguine assumptions of Kirkpatrick and Krauthammer, implementation of the Reagan Doctrine promises to be a costly undertaking. The sums now being discussed are no more than a down payment on a long-term policy. If the intent is to overthrow hostile governments, it will be necessary to provide funds and equipment to insurgents in quantities sufficient to give them a reasonable chance of victory. Most analysts concede that the funding levels contemplated for UNITA ($15-40 million) and the contras ($100 million) are woefully inadequate. Even the annual subsidy of $250-300 million to the mujaheddin seems insufficient to do more than prolong the existing military stalemate. Unless the United States cynically contemplates using such insurgencies merely as pawns to annoy the USSR, military-assistance programs amounting to several billion dollars will be required.

The prospects for the Reagan Doctrine promoting democracy in the Third World are no more promising; again, an intrusive U.S. military policy is likely to produce the opposite result. The Reagan Doctrine threatens to become a corollary to America's longstanding policy of supporting "friendly" autocratic regimes. Administration leaders exhibit a willingness to endorse and assist any insurgent movement that professes to be anti-Soviet, without reference to its attitude toward political or economic rights. The United States has already antagonized Third World populations by sponsoring repressive governments and may incur even more enmity as the patron of authoritarian, albeit anti-Marxist, insurgencies. Such a strategy is hardly an effective way to promote the popularity of democratic capitalism.

The Reagan Doctrine entails a variety of risks and burdens while offering few discernible benefits to the United States. It is a blueprint for unpredictable and potentially perilous entanglements in complex Third World affairs. Proponents of the doctrine seem determined to imitate Moscow's techniques of subversion without considering its adverse consequences.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa074.html

Artful Dodger: yes apparently there is....if you only have one it is dangerous.women have 2 and they are friends with each other :)...Men are dangerous with it and become house wreckers and wife beaters...LOL

Bernice: Is there a test?

who in here has the MAOA gene?

(V): It's always America's fault isn't it?

.. It was about why the country changed from a hippy's dream where a foreigner could walk without fear of harm, to the mess we have now.

It wasn't Islam as some try and shift the blame onto, but the Cold War.

Both the USSR and America tried to buy favour with the Afghanistan people as it was to them a strategic country, with Pakistan on one side and Iran on the other.

As we all know, the USSR won the war of words with a communist government being elected into power. So the USA did what they always did in such situations and started arming anybody who didn't like the Russians and communism. They played the religion card, using the atheism of communism which had alarmed some Afghan Muslims.

As US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski told the local muhajhideen...

"We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours, you’ll go back to it one day because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes and your mosques back again. Because your cause is right and God is on your side."

... Aid increased to over a billion dollars per years.

One point seems to be stated by various officials of the time. It was a matter of revenge for the USA to help the Afghan Insurgents.

"We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would... That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, "We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."

They trained the anti communist forces in the use of IED's. Which as we all know is being used on our troops today.

Russian soldiers who fought in the war have words of advice to our forces....
.... get out, you can't win. No-one has ever conquered Afghanistan.

a reason to love Israel

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/212485.php

the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.
------------------------------------

I could go on. Studies have consistently shown that gun control laws do nothing to deter crime. And when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry their small arms the crime actually goes down.

Gun control advocates always argue on emotion. Gun rights advocats alway use logic and facts.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

----------------------------------------------

....studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

----------------------------------

Übergeek 바둑이: If you took away the guns in the us only two groups would have guns: The criminals and the government. I'd trust criminals with guns before I'd trust the government.

(V): Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are. And you can't have an effective gun control in the US. A little thing called the Constitution prevents the nuts from taking away our gun rights. And as the DEA has found out, taking away people's firearms is a costly affair. Americans aren't going to sit by and watch the government take away their guns. It will never happen.

Übergeek 바둑이: I know you were , hence the clip in the end from Hot fuzz

.. When you see people in the USA shooting others over facebook, you get to wonder how sane the laws are that allow nutters to freely buy guns.

But I guess many Americans would object to having their sanity tested!!

(V):

Sorry, I suppose it is difficult to put a sarcastic tone on a post! I meant my last post to be sarcastic.

False. In the US this has been proven otherwise.

(V): and the silence is broken!!! Welcome back Jules! I knew ya'd make it!

Übergeek 바둑이: Very unlikely. In a country where it is the norm to be able to have a gun, things will not change over night.

"or that an act by a psychopath can be used to justify saying that the law is wrong?"

The likes of the NRA might say so. But more guns in the civilian population will mean more gun related crimes compared to a country with strict guns laws.

Except (eg the UK) in the country as this clip shows!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ka5pedLmLs

Übergeek 바둑이: In the US, where guns aren't restricted, especially in places where you can wear your gun all the time, crime is way down.

Where gun control is greater, there is greater crime.

My math tells me that gun control works against the honest person and in favor of the crook. I think that's what at play here.

Artful Dodger:

> a series of mass shootings prompted the government to toughen its gun laws last June

Let's see. After decades of no gun control, Finland now introduces them. I suppose that in less than one year the law is suppossed to work and be accepted by everybody, even psychopaths. Is it that the law is wrong, or that an act by a psychopath can be used to justify saying that the law is wrong?

May 26, 2012
Teenagers killed as gunman goes on rampage in Finland

So much for gun control

REUTERS - A gunman opened fire from a rooftop in a Finnish town centre in the early hours of Saturday, killing two people and wounding several others, police said.

An 18-year-old man wearing camouflage clothing was arrested after the shooting in Hyvinkaa, a small town 56 km (34 miles) north of the capital Helsinki.

The motive for the shooting was unclear. It followed a series of shooting sprees in Finland in recent years and came less than a year after anti-immigrant gunman Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people in a rampage in neighbouring Norway.

About their new and improved gun control laws:

Finland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world and a series of mass shootings prompted the government to toughen its gun laws last June. The suspect in Saturday’s case did not have a license, police said.

Enough said.

May 24, 2012
Muhammad Raped while Bobby Stayed Mum
By Ryan James Girdusky

The cult of diversity has claimed four dozen more victims. On May 8, 2012, nine men were convicted of rape, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with minors, trafficking for sexual exploitation, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children, sexual assault, and aiding and abetting a rape. All nine of the men are Muslim, eight are British Pakistani, and one is Afghani. The gruesome details of the crime are in themselves barbaric, but the responses from British police are languid and discomfiting.

The national scandal began in 2005 as the nine men in the Manchester area, some of them taxi drivers, would lure many young teenage girls, often 13 to 15 years old, with free food, drugs, and alcohol. The girls came from shoddy backgrounds; many were teenage runaways and living on social services. Once they were high or drunk, they were beaten and raped. They were passed around to other men, mostly of Pakistani descent, where they would be gang-raped by three to five men a night. One case involved a 13-year-old who became pregnant after she was gang-raped by three men. And yet another disgusting incident involved a 15-year-old who was so drunk that she threw up off the side of the bed while two Pakistani men raped her. Another involved a 15-year-old who was gang-raped by 20 men in one night.

The Telegraph stated, "There were 631 documented cases of abuse over a five-year period, and many will have been too afraid to tell their story."

The nine men were between the ages of 22 and 59. One of the men, Abdul Rauf, a married father of five, also happens to be a religious studies teacher at a local mosque. The men received a total prison sentence of 77 years.

The rapes are a tragedy -- it is a tragedy that vulnerable girls can be so easily abducted, raped, and abused. However, it is the delayed response by police and civil service in the area that is the national scandal. In August of 2008, one of the victims, then 15 years old, went to police and social workers; she provided the police with DNA evidence to back up her story of being gang-raped. Twice the police refused to prosecute. She continued to be raped by up to five men a night, four or five nights a week. Former Labour MP Ann Cryer said the silence of the Manchester Bobbies is due to the fact that they were "petrified of being called racists." The Manchester police and Rochdale social services publicly apologized, but their fears of being given the scarlet "R" were not in vain.

The accusation of racism can end public servants' careers, so oftentimes they must revert to political correctness.

Political correctness was also the fallback for most of the politicians in the House of Commons. Leading MP Keith Vaz stated that the gang-rapes were "appalling" but that it was important not to "stigmatize an entire community." He later stated, "I don't think this has anything to do with race."

However, Equalities and Human Rights Commission chief Trevor Phillips said, "I think anybody who says that the fact that most of the men are Asian and most of the children are white is not relevant, I mean that's just fatuous." Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor, who himself is a Muslim, stated that some immigrants bring "cultural baggage" with them from misogynistic societies.

The link between the crime and the girls' race is undeniable according to top officials in the Human Rights Commission, and yet most media outlets outside the U.K. still ignore the case. Had roles been reversed and it were twenty white men gang-raping a Muslim woman, the international media would not rest until there was blood in the streets. The hype of the Trayvon Martin murder is simply ignored when the victims cannot produce the narrative most multiculturalists in the mainstream media wish to project.

It is a sad day for Great Britain on the whole, not just for her victimized daughters -- for the nation which at one point had an empire so large that the sun never set on it has now been reduced to a nation of cowards. If a nation cannot perform its most basic obligation to protect its citizenry because its leaders prioritize protecting their multicultural ideology, that nation and its culture are dead. In the West, theological faith has given way to political religion -- a religion predicated upon self-deception and self-destruction, a religion, which may yet be proven to be as fatal for the West as it has so callously negligent toward these young girls. If Western civilization and all the fruit it has borne are to survive this seeming twilight, then both the ideology of multiculturalism and the cult of diversity must be defeated.

Bernice:

Artful Dodger: okies....Wised up here

You see, killing the bad guys is what's it's all about in war. It has nothing to do with the Bible or Jesus or God. It has to do with the STATE's responsibility to keep its citizens SAFE. That is the Constitutional obligation of the US government. And IF these bozos were to come to the US, ANY US CITIZEN COULD DO THE SAME IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT.


For those of you that see it differently: Wise UP.

(V): Yer so misguided. Where to start?

Question: "What does the Bible say about torture?"

Answer: Torture can be defined as “the infliction of intense pain to punish, to coerce, or to derive sadistic pleasure.” Of course, sadism is never appropriate or just, but what about punishment or coercion? Is there ever a time when inflicting pain is justified in order to punish wrongdoing or to obtain a confession? What does the Bible say?

The Bible acknowledges the existence of torture. In a parable, Jesus spoke of a servant who was “turned . . . over to the jailers to be tortured” (Matthew 18:34). Such an allusion seems to indicate that the use of torture was common in the prisons of the day. The Bible also records the stories of many victims of torture: Jesus, Paul and Silas (Acts 16), the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:2; 38:6), and other unnamed saints (Hebrews 11:35). In every case, we see that the godly are the victims of torture, never the perpetrators of torture.

As individuals, we are not to seek revenge. Vengeance belongs only to the Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19). Also, as individuals we have no authority to punish society’s wrongdoers or to extract confessions from them. Therefore, as individuals, we can have no license to torture; inflicting intense pain on others is wrong. God alone is able to mete out punishment with perfect justice, and it is His prerogative to make His punishment painful. Demons are aware of a future time of “torture” for themselves (Matthew 8:29). Hell is a place of “torment” and intense agony (Matthew 13:42; Luke 16:23-24). During the Tribulation, torment will be part of the plagues upon evildoers (Revelation 9:5; 11:10). In any of His judgments, God is holy and perfectly fair (Psalm 119:137).

(V): It isn't murder to kill those who are trying to kill you and other innocent people. In fact, it's the responsibility of those stronger to protect those that are weaker. While you would let murderers kill and maim, I'd put a few hole in their heads.

Your answer is to do nothing. Maybe it's just that you have a yellow streak down your back.

(V): Your basic position is to sit by and do nothing and let innocent people, even children, be murdered. You'd turn your neighbor in in Nazi Germany!

Artful Dodger: I didn't say that. I said I was not happy to commit an act of torture.

"But at least you can say you didn't use torture against thugs, murderers, evil men!"

And become a thug, murderer and evil man in the process. Wow... Quite happy to be hellbound aren't you? Just like the Muslim version of "the book people".

"Trying to kill known terrorists. BTW, your government has the same policy as does the USA. "

Yes it does, but we are still accountable to the likes of the Geneva convention and other things.

I mean... you keep avoiding the point but, how does this idea of death and murder sit with what's in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

.. it doesn't does it. Just as suicide bombers are breaking the word of Muhammed.

(V): It's not terrorism trying to save lives of innocent people. That's what I'm talking about. You apparently are ok with the murder of innocent children, even your own! Amazing! I'm for pulling out all the stops and I don't care if it's "legal" or not. Why should I be concerned about some terrorist that wants to harm (kill) others? You speak of taking the moral high ground but to you that ground is letting innocent children be blown to bits! But at least you can say you didn't use torture against thugs, murderers, evil men! You just sat by and did nothing while they continued killing innocent people.

And not trying to kill an idea. Duh! Trying to kill known terrorists. BTW, your government has the same policy as does the USA.