It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Support of torture: Another reason why fundamentalist and orthodox religion has failed.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
A Washington Post/ ABC new poll shows that a much higher percentage of American evangelicals support the CIA's use of torture AND even say that the methods outlined in the CIA torture report were NOT torture.

www.addictinginfo.org...

First of all, such methods as waterboarding have been classified as torture since WWII, when US authorities convicted and hung Japanese officers for using it on Americans. They were convicted of war crimes and torture.

www.historycommons.org...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Second, using torture and not giving due process to foreign nationals violates all of the principles of universal and inalienable human rights enshrined in both our Constitution and countless international agreements that we have signed, including the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter.

Third, treating people in such a way, especially when many of the people tortured in the CIA programs turned out to be innocent, goes against everything that spirituality stands for, awareness, connection, compassion, justice, etc. I do not think that Jesus would support such tactics nor do such tactics represent spiritual awareness.

But here we see a far higher proportion of religious people supporting such tactics! Where are the "fruits of the spirit?" If Christianity is really "the one true path beyond others," and the holy spirit and being born again changes you for the better, then why are so many Christians so darn ignorant and frankly supporting evil policies?

It's just like the Religious Right continues to apologize for George Bush, the very man who instituted this regime of torture, AND invaded illegally a country posing no real threat to us, Iraq. The Iraq invasion resulted in something around 200,000 CIVILIAN deaths. Since when is invading illegally foreign countries, bombing the sh%t out of them, and killing countless civilians "Christian" behavior?

It is the same often with socio-economics. Many of the most religious seem to be brainwashed by capitalism. Whereas Jesus was all about justice for the poor and vulnerable, so many Christians support pro-rich policies and exploitative business.

Why is it that when it comes to the poor, war, torture, and environment, so many of the most religious seem to be completely on the wrong side of history?

I suggest, as a former Christian, that Christianity in it's orthodox form quite simply is not what it purports to be, the path that leads to greater awareness and awakening.

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis

edit on 28-12-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Jesus wouldn't support torture, you're right.


That makes no difference to a large percentage of Christians who fail to follow his teachings.



& considering the Book of Revelation States that The Morning Star is their God...
Lucifer would actually be proud of their commitment to torture.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Jesus wouldn't support torture, you're right.


That makes no difference to a large percentage of Christians who fail to follow his teachings.



& considering the Book of Revelation States that The Morning Star is their God...
Lucifer would actually be proud of their commitment to torture.


I want to say that I know Christians who would not support such things, just as the poll shows.

Why do you think that there are Christians who seem to do or support things that are the opposite of probably what Jesus would want?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


Why do you think that there are Christians who seem to do or support things that are the opposite of probably what Jesus would want?


Because this Planet is very selfish.

It's not just Christians...

There is Muslims like IS who do not follow Muhammad...
There is Jews like Netanyahu that do not follow Jacob...

But considering what & how they preach to non-Christians, the Christians themselves should be held to a higher standard.


Also, a large percentage believe that they are sinless thanks to Jesus...
& they live in the delusional World where they can sin & Jesus will forgive them...
It gives them incentive to "do as thou wilt"...
Which is a classic Luciferian teaching.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Last I knew Christ walked on water,not used water boarding to make converts.

This whole things is stupid. Don't flash your cross or wave your flag at me when the USA and Christians are going against EVERYTHING they know is right.And the excuse that if it will prevent another 9/11...yeah it doesn't so stop making excuses.Torture doesn't so much get information out of the person being tortured as it defines the torturer. No one can commit atrocities on another human and think it doesn't effect them as a person. No country can allow torture from a citizen without it defining whether that country is a moral and just country or not. By allowing the use of torture,we defined not only that we are NOT moral and just country,we left ourselves open to ridicule and humiliation by the rest of the world. We are now getting some well deserved criticism from other countries for trying to tell them their moral code,while all the while in secret we are doing as bad if not worse. Do please remember,this report is ONLY saying what they CHOSE to let out. It is in no way the whole story. Only what they thought we could swallow with out going on a rampage.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Exodus 21:20


And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Sounds fair, right? Oh wait, the next part...

Exodus 21:21


Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

If you beat your slave to death, you shall be punished. As long as you beat your slave within an inch of their life and let them recover, you are within reason. Anyone care to justify this in todays world?

Makes sense why they would support torture. In biblical times, most men or women who were found guilty of their crimes were not only thrown in prison, but often beaten, tortured, and put to death.


edit on 28-12-2014 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Whew, quite a rant, bro. LOL

Quite a few inaccuracies in it, though.

The Geneva Convention doesn't cover civilians is the first. Spies, etc. were executed on a regular basis by all sides in the last century.

Bush certainly didn't invent torture either. He did, however, take over a country that was living in the last century, militarily speaking, that was not prepared for a 'civilian' attack.

There is a time and place for compassion and a time when compassion is the least of a leader's concerns.

I, for one, would never vote for a Jesus as my leader. We can see what his ideals resulted in for him...nailed to a cross.

Seeing everyone is Iraq was a civilian-there was no military, by definition, the numbers you quote are flat out a misrepresentation.

That same president allowed every home in Iraq one AK-47 and ammo for home defense, had extreme rules of engagement that caused many extra U.S. and coalition casualties and pin-point accuracy in applying it's ordinance to a level unprecedented in history.

Trying to apply a peace time/civilian mores to a war is in itself contradictory. As in so many issues out there, where to draw the line is the tough part.

When measured to previous wars, Iraq was about as humane as it gets. No matter how misguided the intent, the U.S. spent an unbelievable amount in blood and money attempting to create a better Iraq than one Saddam created.

Your view of it is one sided from what I can see. Fear of consequence is a major deterrent, torture, imprisonment and execution are part of those tools.

May we need them less in the future.....



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis




In biblical times, most men or women who were found guilty of their crimes were not only thrown in prison, but often beaten, tortured, and put to death.


And therein is why this is not so now. Christians are not supposed to be going by the old testament.What you are quoting is old testament rules. When Jesus came he preached a totally different ball game. Which Christians a lot of times choose not to go by.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Why wouldn't believers who support the eternal torture of those who don't abide by their dogma, also support the torture of living people who defy their proclaimed doctrine and morality?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Whew, quite a rant, bro. LOL

Quite a few inaccuracies in it, though.

The Geneva Convention doesn't cover civilians is the first. Spies, etc. were executed on a regular basis by all sides in the last century.

Bush certainly didn't invent torture either. He did, however, take over a country that was living in the last century, militarily speaking, that was not prepared for a 'civilian' attack.

There is a time and place for compassion and a time when compassion is the least of a leader's concerns.

I, for one, would never vote for a Jesus as my leader. We can see what his ideals resulted in for him...nailed to a cross.

Seeing everyone is Iraq was a civilian-there was no military, by definition, the numbers you quote are flat out a misrepresentation.

That same president allowed every home in Iraq one AK-47 and ammo for home defense, had extreme rules of engagement that caused many extra U.S. and coalition casualties and pin-point accuracy in applying it's ordinance to a level unprecedented in history.

Trying to apply a peace time/civilian mores to a war is in itself contradictory. As in so many issues out there, where to draw the line is the tough part.

When measured to previous wars, Iraq was about as humane as it gets. No matter how misguided the intent, the U.S. spent an unbelievable amount in blood and money attempting to create a better Iraq than one Saddam created.

Your view of it is one sided from what I can see. Fear of consequence is a major deterrent, torture, imprisonment and execution are part of those tools.

May we need them less in the future.....



It's a rant, yes, but a justified one. I am fairly sick of seeing religious people in the U.S. speak about religion, God, and how we are going downhill as a country, only to turn around and support some of the most evil polices out there.

To your point about torture, the Geneva Conventions may focus on enemy combatants, but that is what supposedly these "terrorists" were seen as. Second, this goes back to my point, that many people like yourself seem to use the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law. Everything from the US Constitution to the UN Universal Human Rights to the Geneva Conventions spell out that due process is necessary and human rights central. People like yourself make excuses and find any which way to slide around the whole point, that all humans have inalienable human rights. People like yourself will say "but, but, but, the Constitution only covers Americans," ignoring the part about inalienable rights that no government can take away. Yes, of course Bush didn't invent torture, but he sure reinstituted it here in 'Murica and was quite blatant about it.

This also speaks nothing to my second point, that such treatment of other human beings would not fall within ostensible Christian values. When you say that you "wouldn't vote for Jesus to be our leader," this is the same dichotomy as with the Religious Right's support of the rich rather than social justice and equality within our society. Do you guys even really believe in what Jesus taught? About peace, pacifism, helping the vulnerable and poor? If you did you would vote for such things. This goes equally for the neo-cons in liberal clothing, such as John Kerry or Hillary Clinton.

As to Iraq, my view is not one sided at all.

Iraq posed no threat to the US. Saddam was not threatening us. Saddam did not have weaponry that could reach outside the ME. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. The WMD claim is irrelevant, as we didn't have proof, one, and two someone having WMD's (like half of the world who does) does not legalize in any shape or form invasion and regime change. According to all ethical standards and international law, it is both highly immoral and illegal to preemptively strike anyone, especially those who are not even threatening us. Anybody that spends enough time studying the past 100 years of history knows that the war in Iraq was all for power and geo-political power, therefore evil.

You speak of "pinpoint" use of ordinance. Do you mean like the drones both under Bush and Obama that kill entire wedding parties? And what of the 200,000 Iraqi civilians dead, that once again were due to the illegal and immoral Iraq War? How do you justify those? That is a war crime bro.
edit on 28-12-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Why wouldn't believers who support the eternal torture of those who don't abide by their dogma, also support the torture of living people who defy their proclaimed doctrine and morality?



Fair enough, and with many hyper religious people being hyper nationalist, and being willing to oppress, deride, or even attack other groups, it isn't that surprising.

And there does seem to be a conflation in many of their minds between religion and state, which could add to this.

Note that this problem extends to extremists of any type, including Muslim militants, communist revolutionaries, etc.
edit on 28-12-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: eisegesis




In biblical times, most men or women who were found guilty of their crimes were not only thrown in prison, but often beaten, tortured, and put to death.


And therein is why this is not so now. Christians are not supposed to be going by the old testament.What you are quoting is old testament rules. When Jesus came he preached a totally different ball game. Which Christians a lot of times choose not to go by.


Right, and ironically, it usually seems like Christians in politics are following the Old Testament, not the new. Just look at good old Bush. He instituted torture and invaded countries. That's the old school way in the Old Testament, you know, violence, wars, invasions, no human rights, etc.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Last I knew Christ walked on water,not used water boarding to make converts.

This whole things is stupid. Don't flash your cross or wave your flag at me when the USA and Christians are going against EVERYTHING they know is right.And the excuse that if it will prevent another 9/11...yeah it doesn't so stop making excuses.Torture doesn't so much get information out of the person being tortured as it defines the torturer. No one can commit atrocities on another human and think it doesn't effect them as a person. No country can allow torture from a citizen without it defining whether that country is a moral and just country or not. By allowing the use of torture,we defined not only that we are NOT moral and just country,we left ourselves open to ridicule and humiliation by the rest of the world. We are now getting some well deserved criticism from other countries for trying to tell them their moral code,while all the while in secret we are doing as bad if not worse. Do please remember,this report is ONLY saying what they CHOSE to let out. It is in no way the whole story. Only what they thought we could swallow with out going on a rampage.


Thank you, exactly.

Torture doesn't even work to provide good information!

And the moment that someone throws out the whole "we need to do this to prevent more terrorism or to save our own soldiers," then they have to recognize then that every other enemy or government therefore has the right to do that to our civilians or soldiers. Otherwise they are a hypocrite, or haven't thought things through fully as to the implications on a global scale. People who torture and violate human rights almost ALWAYS use these justifications.

And, when the US is invading countries, violating human rights and due process, and torturing people, it shows that our government does not have the moral high ground nor is it really all about supporting human rights worldwide.

As you said, once a government does all of the above, they cease to be moral. And the people who support such actions, even if they do not do them themselves, also cease to be moral.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


Why do you think that there are Christians who seem to do or support things that are the opposite of probably what Jesus would want?


Because this Planet is very selfish.

It's not just Christians...

There is Muslims like IS who do not follow Muhammad...
There is Jews like Netanyahu that do not follow Jacob...

But considering what & how they preach to non-Christians, the Christians themselves should be held to a higher standard.


Also, a large percentage believe that they are sinless thanks to Jesus...
& they live in the delusional World where they can sin & Jesus will forgive them...
It gives them incentive to "do as thou wilt"...
Which is a classic Luciferian teaching.




A good post overall, and I agree that it extends beyond Christians for sure.

Your last point is good though. There is an argument that because orthodox Christians are taught that no "works" can make them righteous, and that we are all hopeless sinners, and only Jesus takes away sin, that there is a certain complacency about being moral in action. I mean, if you really believe that no matter how good or bad you act it matters not, then unless you have your own philosophic reasons for not acting bad why wouldn't you? Christianity often doesn't teach why or why not to do things, only that "It shows God you love him" when you are obedient or following the Bible.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I can not help but comment on this one.




"The Geneva Convention doesn't cover civilians is the first.

Actually we have signed a number of agreements over the definition of enemy combatants as well as civilians.There are clear cut rules for how both are to be treated.




Bush certainly didn't invent torture either

. No one said he did, what was said is that he knew and supported using torture.




"There is a time and place for compassion and a time when compassion is the least of a leader's concerns. "

I couldn't agree more with that statement. But there is a difference in simply not being compassionate and resorting to torture. No excuses.




"I, for one, would never vote for a Jesus as my leader.
" I for one,would not want him for my leader here either.Jesus was a leader for people's souls if you go by the Christian ideology. But even he said "leave unto Caesar,that which is Caesar's. Leave unto God,that which is God's."




"Seeing everyone is Iraq was a civilian-there was no military".
Actually yes there was a military there in the beginning. And there are complaints still that some of Saddam's former people have gotten back in the military again.




"That same president allowed every home in Iraq one AK-47 and ammo for home defense,"
What an awesome guy! If he had stayed out of there it wouldn't have been our worry to begin with.



"Trying to apply a peace time/civilian mores to a war is in itself contradictory.
" Very true. But the Geneva convention and other agreements were signed specifically for times of war.The countries and enemy combatants behavior during which.




When measured to previous wars, Iraq was about as humane as it gets.


Then all the more reason for us to stay out of them. We run around the world huffing and puffing and threatening to blow other countries houses down if they don't go by our 'rules'. We make wars supposedly because we want to change their government(whether they want it or not),or we want them to have better human rights in said country.Yet we are unable to uphold those same values here. We are hypocrites plain and simple. This is the equivalent of someone being a wife beater and just almost killing his wife,then he thinks there should be laws against it for everyone else to do so. Its just so much nonsense. At least if we are going to be a corrupt unmoral country,then just say we are and stop getting into other countries affairs. Or clean up our own house first before telling any other country what they should be doing.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: eisegesis




In biblical times, most men or women who were found guilty of their crimes were not only thrown in prison, but often beaten, tortured, and put to death.


And therein is why this is not so now. Christians are not supposed to be going by the old testament.What you are quoting is old testament rules. When Jesus came he preached a totally different ball game. Which Christians a lot of times choose not to go by.

Well, slavery didn't end when Jesus went to bat and was still a very integral part of society. The majority of slave owners even after the new testament were Christians.

The hypocrisy is that Christians will use the bible for both abolishing slavery and advocating for it by tiptoeing around contradictions and cherry picking whatever supports their argument. This was the case all throughout history and is still happening today in some areas. The new testament did nothing to cast shame or teach against slavery. Writers just decided to remain tight lipped about the subject.


edit on 28-12-2014 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Nope, I don't believe in pacifism.

If Christians practiced that view without exception, the Christian faith wouldn't exist on this planet.

I'm not a practicing Christian-obviously- but subscribe to the Judeo-Christian moral code as a successful tool in a cooperative society.

Not a contradiction in my mind whatsoever. I call it balance. A tool. There are times when a tool is needed and times when one leaves it in the shed...


This planet is unkind to pacifists. As far as Christianity goes, more pointedly, the "U.S". version, I deem it successful.

It has given this planet the least number of casualties, war-wise, especially when compared to the numbers in the last century, that any 'empire' in history. The longest period of relative stability in this planet's history. A world-wide economy which was almost none-existent at the end of WWII, a better standard of living in the third world, the list goes on.

All points you seem to ignore. is your point Christianity or, underlying that, the U.S.?

For all the obvious flaws of the Christian faith, all faiths for that matter, it is unarguable that without the morals of those faiths, civilization wouldn't exist. It allowed a generally agreed-upon code of conduct that allowed cooperation. Without which the guy with the biggest club rules the cave.

I hold the pragmatic view that when the 'all's well' is sounded that code holds sway. When the sirens go off...lock and load.

As far as Bush and the Iraq war goes, I don't want to rehash that one, we will have to agree to disagree. suffice to say Bush had a whole bunch of bad choices to pick from. Even inaction was a bad choice, laden with consequences.

I give him a mulligan. Just my opinion.

I also suspect, due to your obvious intelligence, that there's a point/scenario where you also would park your views on the back burner and mangle any threat to you and yours while humming 'Amazing Grace'....



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: eisegesis




In biblical times, most men or women who were found guilty of their crimes were not only thrown in prison, but often beaten, tortured, and put to death.


And therein is why this is not so now. Christians are not supposed to be going by the old testament.What you are quoting is old testament rules. When Jesus came he preached a totally different ball game. Which Christians a lot of times choose not to go by.

Well, slavery didn't end when Jesus went to bat and was still a very integral part of society. The majority of slave owners even after the new testament were Christians.

The hypocrisy is that Christians will use the bible for both abolishing slavery and advocating for it by tiptoeing around the contradictions and cherry picking whatever supports their argument. This was the case all throughout history and is still ongoing today in some areas. The new testament did nothing to cast shame or teach against slavery. Writers just decided to remain tight lipped about the subject.



This brings up an important point. Has there ever not been a time in Christian history where the majority of Christians didn't seem to follow the implied ethics of Jesus? Crusades, etc.

Or, as you are noting, is there a fundamental problem in the texts. You are right that the BIble does not prohibit slavery. If we take the Old Testament, which Christians do hold to be part of the Word of the Lord, all kinds of horrific acts are done against people outside of the Jewish circle, including genocide against the Canaanites.
edit on 28-12-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae

The Geneva Convention was an agreement between countries. Period.

Your going to have to name the 'agreements' the we've signed onto that define 'enemy combatants'.

Obviously, there was a military in the beginning in Iraq. I'm referring to the 200K that the OP refers to. Your splitting hairs on that one.

If find your argument on the hypocrisy of the U.S. fairly standard. I don't buy into it.

Getting rid of Saddam was a valid goal. I don't really care much whether the people of Iraq were consulted on it or not. They hold responsibility in having allowed Saddam to be their leader, at least to a degree. (Plenty of videos out there of a whole bunch of happy Iraqis pulling down Saddam's statue, in case you've forgotten.)

There's a number of wars that didn't happen due to the U.S. as well.

Bush, or at least Condi and Co., stopped Pakistan and India from going at it, as I recall. India would have already 'absorbed' Sri Lanka. China the same with Taiwan. Then there's Israel...the U.S. has restrained Israel, not empowered them. Seriously! I truly believe the Mid-East would have blown up long ago, if not for the U.S.. It would have gone nuclear, as it came within 20 minutes of doing so back in the day...

I'm sure you disagree with my views on this, but, it is my view and belief.

As far as torture goes? Distasteful, but on occasion, the lesser of evils, in my view.

So many choices these days fall into that category, including doing nothing....



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Dimithae

The Geneva Convention was an agreement between countries. Period.

Your going to have to name the 'agreements' the we've signed onto that define 'enemy combatants'.

Obviously, there was a military in the beginning in Iraq. I'm referring to the 200K that the OP refers to. Your splitting hairs on that one.

If find your argument on the hypocrisy of the U.S. fairly standard. I don't buy into it.

Getting rid of Saddam was a valid goal. I don't really care much whether the people of Iraq were consulted on it or not. They hold responsibility in having allowed Saddam to be their leader, at least to a degree. (Plenty of videos out there of a whole bunch of happy Iraqis pulling down Saddam's statue, in case you've forgotten.)

There's a number of wars that didn't happen due to the U.S. as well.

Bush, or at least Condi and Co., stopped Pakistan and India from going at it, as I recall. India would have already 'absorbed' Sri Lanka. China the same with Taiwan. Then there's Israel...the U.S. has restrained Israel, not empowered them. Seriously! I truly believe the Mid-East would have blown up long ago, if not for the U.S.. It would have gone nuclear, as it came within 20 minutes of doing so back in the day...

I'm sure you disagree with my views on this, but, it is my view and belief.

As far as torture goes? Distasteful, but on occasion, the lesser of evils, in my view.

So many choices these days fall into that category, including doing nothing....



You still haven't addressed my initial contention that people with your argumentation use the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law. The Founding Fathers said that the rights in the Constitution applied to all people, and were inalienable. That no government could take them away. So legally speaking, the Constitution applies to Americans. But philosophically and what the forgers believed was that such rights were inherent to humans. So from my perspective, people like you either don't understand those philosophies or don't want to follow them.

Second, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights does prohibit such actions towards any persons. www.un.org...

"Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

As to Iraq, it was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and constituted the war crime of aggression under the UN Charter, which we signed. Sorry, that was "an agreement between countries" that we signed on to and negotiated on our very own soil. It specifically prohibits unilateral actions, preemptive strikes, all of that. Don't respond with "We are 'Murica, we do what we want!"

This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that you claim doesn't exist. That if some tea pot dictator or developing nation violates due process, imprisons people, or attacks other countries, "why we are going to regime change them and look how backwards they are." And people will applaud when their leaders are finally tried under international law, such as in the ICC. The US will often use these reasons to invade or intervene. However, when it comes to the U.S., people like yourself will bend over backwards to justify why it's okay for the US to attack anyone they want in violation of international law, and why it is okay to torture, etc ad infinitum.

If someone has a strong grasp of international politics and war, they know that none of these wars, including in Iraq, had anything to do with human rights in Iraq or democracy. It is purely about power and empire. Finally, Saddam was our ally in the 80's. Spare us the "we were trying to install democracy" claim.
edit on 28-12-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join