PDA

View Full Version : G.I. Held In Attack On U.S. Soldiers G.I. Held In Attack On U.S.Soldiers


taeclee99
Mar 22, 2003, 09:15 PM
If these charges are true...this soldiers deserves to be hanged for treason:

(CBS)_An American soldier is among three suspects being held in connection with a grenade and small-arms attack that injured at least 16 U.S. soldiers at Camp Pennsylvania in northern Kuwait, reports CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassman, who is on the scene with the Army's 101st Airborne Division.

Eleven of the injured were hurt so seriously they had to be choppered out of the camp.

Strassmann said three grenades were rolled into three officers' tents at the camp. When officers ran from the tents, they were hit by small arms fire.

Three suspects were being held for questioning: two Kuwaitis who served as translators and an American soldier described as an engineering sergeant.

The American was found injured and hiding in a bunker. Asked if he was hurt throwing a grenade, Strassman reports the soldier replied, "Yes."

Separately, Strassmann reported, an Iraqi rocket fired at U.S. forces in Kuwait was destroyed by Patriot missiles launched from nearby Camp New Jersey.

The attacks on U.S. troops came as the American assault on Iraq gained steam.
American and British forces besieged the southern city of Basra and pounded Baghdad with impunity.

alset
Mar 22, 2003, 09:43 PM
I just don't understand people turning on their fellow troops. If guilty, I want to see this fellow made into an example.

Dan

pseudobrit
Mar 22, 2003, 10:01 PM
Hmm. Sounds strange. I reckon all the details are not out yet, and they will clarify what really happened. Seems like it's got something more involved going on. Soldiers usually don't start shooting their own unless they've totally lost it.

LethalWolfe
Mar 22, 2003, 10:05 PM
I saw this on FOX news just after it happened and everyone was trying to figure out WTF just happend and I thought I kept hearing wrong 'cause i was like, "It sounds like a US soldier was involved in the attack." If he was involved he needs to be exicuted immediately.


Lethal

MacAztec
Mar 22, 2003, 10:06 PM
What do you know. They are reporting he was a MUSLUM american. Weird isnt it:rolleyes:

Totalshock
Mar 22, 2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec
What do you know. They are reporting he was a MUSLUM american. Weird isnt it:rolleyes:

What's the news source on that report? I can't imagine the military releasing the racial details of a suspect (I believe the military justice system operates on the 'innocent until proven guilty' preise?") when they aren't releasing name/rank/and other details. The camp information officer I just heard interviewed steadfastly refused to identify the individual being held.

I can't see why they would let that information out before the investigation is done, and/or the person formall charged, unless the intention is to create more racial tensions than already exist.

NavyIntel007
Mar 22, 2003, 11:02 PM
<explitive deleted>:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

drastik
Mar 22, 2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Totalshock
What's the news source on that report? I can't imagine the military releasing the racial details of a suspect (I believe the military justice system operates on the 'innocent until proven guilty' preise?") when they aren't releasing name/rank/and other details. The camp information officer I just heard interviewed steadfastly refused to identify the individual being held.

I can't see why they would let that information out before the investigation is done, and/or the person formall charged, unless the intention is to create more racial tensions than already exist.

Its being attributed to other military sources as the brass are not saying anything concrete. I saw it in the New York Times, not exactly a bashtion of anti-liberal politics.

Totalshock
Mar 22, 2003, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by drastik
Its being attributed to other military sources as the brass are not saying anything concrete. I saw it in the New York Times, not exactly a bashtion of anti-liberal politics.

I've since seen it reported on CBS, and heard it mentioned in passing on CNN.

They're now reporting that one of those injured in the attack may have died as a result of his injuries.

It's truly sad, especially since the military is so much about trust in your fellow soldiers, and the officers guiding you.

Juventuz
Mar 22, 2003, 11:13 PM
It's been mentioned that the soldier has an Arabic name, that was on MSNBC and on CNN. Neither said he was a Mulsim, but both said that his name is Arabic and they showed a picture of him.

On MSNBC the Time reporter said that many soldiers said that he'd been quiet and to himself lately and was recently reprimanded and was to be left in Kuwait while the rest of his unit was to head out for Iraq.

taeclee99
Mar 22, 2003, 11:26 PM
The AP has just reported one soldier has died of his injuries. Terrible tragedy this is.

Nuc
Mar 22, 2003, 11:50 PM
I say put him on the front line. Or better yet put him in a bright orange straight jacket with an American flag flying over his head. Then have him run towards Baghdad with a tape player saying "I have a bomb". That should take care of that situation ;)

MrMacMan
Mar 23, 2003, 12:07 AM
You know what... he isn't muslim.

What the hell, i read a story that he did do that, but he is pure america. Not close to an arabic name or muslim, heck what the hell are they reporting that for?

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
You know what... he isn't muslim.

What the hell, i read a story that he did do that, but he is pure america. Not close to an arabic name or muslim, heck what the hell are they reporting that for?

Sounds eerily like the initial reaction to the OKC bombing -- they reported right away on the news that they saw some Arabic garbed men running from the site before it blew and it turned out to have been an all-American fella.

Which brings me to this post:
Originally posted by MacAztec
What do you know. They are reporting he was a MUSLUM american. Weird isnt it :rolleyes:

Please clarify what this post is meant to convey for me. If it means what I think it means, I'm sickened by it.

This sounds like one soldier just lost his marbles. It happens. The guy will be punished appropriately, I hope not by any of the cruel means suggested.

LethalWolfe
Mar 23, 2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
This sounds like one soldier just lost his marbles. It happens. The guy will be punished appropriately, I hope not by any of the cruel means suggested.


So you don't think he should be exicuted if he did roll those grenades into the command tents?


Lethal

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
So you don't think he should be exicuted if he did roll those grenades into the command tents?


Lethal

No. He'll be in a military prison for the rest of his life.

What does one more killing accomplish?

LethalWolfe
Mar 23, 2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
No. He'll be in a military prison for the rest of his life.

What does one more killing accomplish?

Assuming he did roll those 'nades that wounded 13 and killed one (so far)...

What does putting him in prison until he dies accomplish? Besides forcing other inmates and guards to look at that piece of sh#t every day for the next 50 or 60 years?

If he did roll those grenades he needs to be convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, treason and then exicuted. I do disagree w/the suggestion to hang him though. That would require more time and effort than he's worth. Dragging him around back and shooting him in the head sounds like a plan though.

IMO there is nothing worse a soldier can do than murder his own in cold blood. The depths to which this apperant action troubles and enrages me is beyond words.


Lethal

taeclee99
Mar 23, 2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Assuming he did roll those 'nades that wounded 13 and killed one (so far)...

What does putting him in prison until he dies accomplish? Besides forcing other inmates and guards to look at that piece of sh#t every day for the next 50 or 60 years?

If he did roll those grenades he needs to be convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, treason and then exicuted. I do disagree w/the suggestion to hang him though. That would require more time and effort than he's worth. Dragging him around back and shooting him in the head sounds like a plan though.

IMO there is nothing worse a soldier can do than murder his own in cold blood. The depths to which this apperant action troubles and enrages me is beyond words.


Lethal

I couldn't agree with you more. This bastard needs to be put out of his misery. What do you think costs less to shoot him or the rope to hang him with?

I say hang the bastard. Shooting him in the head is much too kind a punishment.

iJon
Mar 23, 2003, 01:39 AM
i think we should tie him in a chair in a tent. and throw some gernades in there. this guy ********* up and he will pay. let him say by to his parents and end his life.

iJon

elfin buddy
Mar 23, 2003, 11:22 AM
Not because an American soldier went crazy and attacked a few other American soldiers, but because of all the crap that's been spewing from the fingers of people on this thread. Do you people have any idea what you're saying?

Those of you who are automatically demanding for him to be brutally executed (before all the facts are known) are exactly the kind of people who keep Earth from reaching world peace.

I'm disgusted. As long as people yearn for the death of others (as many people on this thread are doing), the world will always be at war.

iJon
Mar 23, 2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by elfin buddy
Not because an American soldier went crazy and attacked a few other American soldiers, but because of all the crap that's been spewing from the fingers of people on this thread. Do you people have any idea what you're saying?

Those of you who are automatically demanding for him to be brutally executed (before all the facts are known) are exactly the kind of people who keep Earth from reaching world peace.

I'm disgusted. As long as people yearn for the death of others (as many people on this thread are doing), the world will always be at war.
ok mother teresa, should we slap him on the wrist. you dont just accedently drop some gernades in tents.

iJon

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by iJon
ok mother teresa, should we slap him on the wrist. you dont just accedently drop some gernades in tents.

iJon

Nor do you accidentally drag "someone around back and shoot them in the head"

A killing is a killing and murder is wrong regardless of whether or not it's in revenge or in the name of justice.

The Old Testament says eye for an eye, but the NEW Testament says the old one is insignificant.

let me ask a question -- would YOU (those who seem so quick to judge and call for blood) pull the trigger on him? Would you gladly pull the lever with a smile on your face? Could you live with yourself if you did exactly what he did?

Why is it murder and treason (and this act is not the definition of treason) if he throws a grenade and kills one man, but justice if you throw a grenade and kill him?

"Whatsover you do to the least of my people..." applies to murderers and criminals as well as the meek and poor.

MacAztec
Mar 23, 2003, 11:55 AM
I think what the military does in this case is puts him up in a military firefight line. Its a line of marines, and he is out on a field, and he is shot with oh....probly 100 bullets.

Sounds right to me.

MacAztec
Mar 23, 2003, 11:56 AM
Pseudo- You are saying that if someone were to kill your family, and you SAW him do it, you wouldnt do anything to him until he was legally convicted, and if then maybe nothing at all?

iJon
Mar 23, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Nor do you accidentally drag "someone around back and shoot them in the head"

A killing is a killing and murder is wrong regardless of whether or not it's in revenge or in the name of justice.

The Old Testament says eye for an eye, but the NEW Testament says the old one is insignificant.

let me ask a question -- would YOU (those who seem so quick to judge and call for blood) pull the trigger on him? Would you gladly pull the lever with a smile on your face? Could you live with yourself if you did exactly what he did?

Why is it murder and treason (and this act is not the definition of treason) if he throws a grenade and kills one man, but justice if you throw a grenade and kill him?

"Whatsover you do to the least of my people..." applies to murderers and criminals as well as the meek and poor.
i could probably give you a straight answer if i was in that tent or if my friend was killed in that. and it wouldnt be an accident if we drug him around back and shot him, it would be on purpose. he would be dishonorably discharged by attacking his own country and his life would be ended by us. this is life, you dont do it. letting people like this live is what causes problems in the world. i stand by my decision for this person to die for doing this to his own country.

iJon

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec
Pseudo- You are saying that if someone were to kill your family, and you SAW him do it, you wouldnt do anything to him until he was legally convicted, and if then maybe nothing at all?

I didn't say that. I am of the demeanor where I probably would take immediate revenge on someone who killed someone in my family.

BUT, I would do so against the law, with full knowledge that what I did was just as bad as what he did, and I would rightly face prosecution for my crime. Moreover, I would have to answer to God for what I did, as He's the only one able to rightly pass judgement on me.

First, I hope such a situation would never arise, and second, I hope that if it did I would have the fortitude to allow the perpetrator be brought to justice under the law.

jelloshotsrule
Mar 23, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec
Pseudo- You are saying that if someone were to kill your family, and you SAW him do it, you wouldnt do anything to him until he was legally convicted, and if then maybe nothing at all?

being that i feel the same as pseudo, i will respond to this question as well:

first, i cannot claim to know how it would feel to see someone kill my family. but, ideally, i would forgive him and let him be punished properly, without being killed. who are we (humans) to decide when life can be taken away? no one.

second, last i checked, this guy didn't kill someone's family right in front of them. though it might even be worse (or at least just as bad), it's not the same, so i'm not sure why you bring up the other example.

third, your assumption of muslim roots and implication that "oh, big shock there" is sickening. though not surprising.

eflin- hear hear

iJon
Mar 23, 2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I didn't say that. I am of the demeanor where I probably would take immediate revenge on someone who killed someone in my family.

BUT, I would do so against the law, with full knowledge that what I did was just as bad as what he did, and I would rightly face prosecution for my crime.

First, I hope such a situation would never arise, and second, I hope that if it did I would have the fortitude to allow the perpetrator be brought to justice under the law.
we arent dragging him out and killing him. although by law they can kill him right there on the field. he will executed, or he will be sent to Leavenworth Prison and be put in prison so long he might as well be dead. but i do hope he dies. and i hope the families can watch him die.

iJon

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 12:17 PM
He will die someday. And he will have to answer to a higher power for what he's done. That's justice.

Tim McVeigh was begging for the needle. Life in prison is much worse than being put out of your misery.

LethalWolfe
Mar 23, 2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by elfin buddy

Those of you who are automatically demanding for him to be brutally executed (before all the facts are known) are exactly the kind of people who keep Earth from reaching world peace.




Read each of my posts. Everyone of them says "if he did it he should be exicuted."

As for preventing world peace... Well I think people like Saddam do a better job of it than a few computer geeks posting on a forum.


No he did not kill a member of his family but for almost every soldier out there they are closer to fellow troops than they are to their own family. This is bond is even more strengthend during, and after, combat. You depend on your buddies to keep you alive and your buddies depend on you to keep them alive. Read "Citizen Soldier" by Stephen Ambrose. Troops on the front line didn't fight day in and day out for freedom, or the people back home, or to stop communism. They fought day in and day out in horrid conditions for the guy next to them and the guy in the next fox hole. They risked their lives for each other. They killed the enemy for each other. They died for each other. And now we have a situation where an American soldier might have purposlely betrayed, wounded, and killed soldiers that would have fought and died for him. That idea absolutely sickens me.

If he did this he should be exicuted. And considering pseudobrit's words about McVeigh, it is also the humaine thing to do.


Lethal

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 11:07 PM
This article adds an interesting tidbit:

Other Muslim soldiers at the camp have apparently complained about a hostile atmosphere.

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,920574,00.html)

jelloshotsrule
Mar 23, 2003, 11:12 PM
interesting link, thanks

does anyone know what the cause was of the fragging (as they call it) during the vietnam war? they say race reasons, but do they mean vietnamese americans doing it to other troops? or do they mean like black troops doing it to the white troops? not sure how to take it.

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
interesting link, thanks

does anyone know what the cause was of the fragging (as they call it) during the vietnam war? they say race reasons, but do they mean vietnamese americans doing it to other troops? or do they mean like black troops doing it to the white troops? not sure how to take it.

I think that's what they're talking about, which is sad, because you'd think they'd be above that kind of crap nowadays.

Also, if a commander had a reputation for needlessly sacraficing his men, it often wouldn't be long before he found himself "KIA" from an American bullet in his head.

LethalWolfe
Mar 23, 2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
interesting link, thanks

does anyone know what the cause was of the fragging (as they call it) during the vietnam war? they say race reasons, but do they mean vietnamese americans doing it to other troops? or do they mean like black troops doing it to the white troops? not sure how to take it.


In regards to fragging during Vietnam. During my dads tour in Vietnam he replaced another Capt. that had been fragged (grenade in his desk drawer) by a group of black soldiers that were dealing drugs on the base. The previous CO tried to stop them and they killed him. Long story short my dad won the intimidation war and stopped the drug trafficing. But he still spent his entire tour looking over his shoulder and sleeping w/his feet against his door and a locked 'n loaded M-16 by his side. Fighting in a war is horrible enough. Fighting in a war where you have to keep an eye on the guy next to you to make sure he doesn't kill you is unacceptable. If you are guilty of fragging you need to be exicuted.

Unfortunetly the article pseudobrit posted doesn't surprise me. I'm sure women, blacks, and Japanesse-american soldiers have faced the "hostile atmosphere" that some of the soldiers w/Middle Eastern blood have.


Lethal

Saber Rules
Mar 24, 2003, 01:43 AM
::Surfs in from nowhere, reads a post and tries desperately not to get involved but to no avail::

A killing is a killing and murder is wrong regardless of whether or not it's in revenge or in the name of justice.


Your above sentence doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that it is wrong for the government to kill an individual because that individual killed someone else? I'm not sure whether you are focusing on an individual's response to a killing/murder or a government's response.

The Old Testament says eye for an eye, but the NEW Testament says the old one is insignificant.


Where exactly does the New Testament say the old one is insignificant?

let me ask a question -- would YOU (those who seem so quick to judge and call for blood) pull the trigger on him? Would you gladly pull the lever with a smile on your face? Could you live with yourself if you did exactly what he did?


If this guy is guilty, then I believe he should be executed for his crime. That would be justice.

Would I "gladly" pull the lever with a "smile" on my face? What an odd question. Perhaps by creating such a vision in your mind you have biased yourself into thinking execution for murder is wrong? I would pull the lever if it were my job to do so.

I can't answer the "...if you did exactly what he did" question. I would never do what he did, it makes me sick to even think about it.

Why is it murder and treason (and this act is not the definition of treason) if he throws a grenade and kills one man, but justice if you throw a grenade and kill him?


The first killing is a breaking of the law. The second killing is enforcing the law. The murderer receives the payment for his crime. The executioner is the government's tool to administer justice.

"Whatsover you do to the least of my people..." applies to murderers and criminals as well as the meek and poor.

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer..."

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Saber Rules
::Surfs in from nowhere, reads a post and tries desperately not to get involved but to no avail::



Your above sentence doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that it is wrong for the government to kill an individual because that individual killed someone else? I'm not sure whether you are focusing on an individual's response to a killing/murder or a government's response.
It is wrong for the government to kill.


Where exactly does the New Testament say the old one is insignificant?

Well, in one instance I remember Jesus bringing an end to an argument about the OT by saying "I give you a new commandment..."


I can't answer the "...if you did exactly what he did" question. I would never do what he did, it makes me sick to even think about it.
But you would do exactly what he did to him if it were your job?

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer..."

Read your Gospel instead, it's not quite so full of antiquated Jewish law...

elfin buddy
Mar 24, 2003, 07:02 AM
I'm not going to bother to go back and re-read your posts. If they are worded in the way that you say they are, then my post wasn't directed at you.

Yes, Saddam is much better at preventing world peace than anyone here, but that doesn't mean everyone here is insignificant.

jelloshotsrule
Mar 24, 2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, in one instance I remember Jesus bringing an end to an argument about the OT by saying "I give you a new commandment..."


i concur.

he also pretty much brought upon the change of seeing god as vengeful and all powerful. to merciful and forgiving.... (he being jesus of course)

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i concur.

he also pretty much brought upon the change of seeing god as vengeful and all powerful. to merciful and forgiving.... (he being jesus of course)

Too bad so many "Christians" have thrown that notion out the window.

It's so much easier to get behind violence and war and death and destruction and bombs and guns and POWER and awesome force and vengeance.

That "hippie" crap like peace and love and mercy and understanding, well, that's just a bunch of bleeding heart hippie crap.

Yeah, Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal hippie.

leprechaunG4
Mar 24, 2003, 03:30 PM
When did this become a theology discussion? Anyways, Jewish religion, no after life talked about. Instead in the old testimate it was live a good Jewish life or God will rain fire down upon you. Jesus comes along and dies and creates the idea of heaven. Well now that makes this world a test and not the real thing. Do the right stuff here go to heaven, be bad, go to hell. Sets up the basic principle that the Christian belief is that God is testing them. The Muslim religion came about during a growth period and it is more based around God rewarding humans. Wow that was theology way over simplified.

Jesus wouldn't be a hippy, he had better things to do with his time on this planet than just get high all the time.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Jesus wouldn't be a hippy, he had better things to do with his time on this planet than just get high all the time.

Congratulations, you win the oversimplification and prejudice award.

jelloshotsrule
Mar 24, 2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Too bad so many "Christians" have thrown that notion out the window.

It's so much easier to get behind violence and war and death and destruction and bombs and guns and POWER and awesome force and vengeance.

That "hippie" crap like peace and love and mercy and understanding, well, that's just a bunch of bleeding heart hippie crap.

Yeah, Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal hippie.

hear hear!

reminds me of my fellow catholics who turn a blind eye to our leader (the pope) and get behind violence. the pope is, in my belief, and that of true catholics, a leader chosen for us through god's will. and while i think god has a reason for all things, even our various presidents, the pope has higher power than a president in my mind, morally. and i don't have a problem with non catholics who disagree, but to see catholics ignore him makes me gag


lep- not all hippies smoke pot. i'm not a hippie per se, but i am liberal (as you know). and i think i've said before since you were here, that i don't smoke pot.... and actually, i think it's partially due to my christian beliefs, so you're right, i don't think jesus would smoke pot either... but he also might not waste all his time bathing. ;)

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 11:06 PM
Good to hear of a fellow Catholic who stands behind his faith and religion and not his government or political party.

I am proud (wrong word -- humbled) to be Catholic first and American second.

Nar laga Dia do lamh!

Saber Rules
Mar 25, 2003, 02:20 AM
It is wrong for the government to kill.

Thanks for the clarification.

Well, in one instance I remember Jesus bringing an end to an argument about the OT by saying "I give you a new commandment..."
This occurred in the Gospel of John and its purpose was not to end an argument or to communicate to the disciples that the Old Testament was insignificant:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
-John 13:34,35

Don't forget, "Do not murder" comes from the Old Testament. Isn't this commandment the basis for your "do not murder" argument?

But you would do exactly what he did to him if it were your job?
Yes. But not gladly or with a smile. ;-)

Read your Gospel instead, it's not quite so full of antiquated Jewish law...
The quote I gave you was from Romans 13:1-4 from the New Testament. Hardly what I would call "antiquated Jewish law"

My overall point is this. You are of the opinion that the government has no right to kill an individual if that individual killed another individual. You are entitled to your opinion, which I of course disagree with. But it appeared from your post that you were using scripture to back your opinion. That's where I draw the line because scripture does not back your opinion.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Saber Rules
The quote I gave you was from Romans 13:1-4 from the New Testament. Hardly what I would call "antiquated Jewish law"

I'm sorry, what would you call 2000 year old Jewish law? The letters also contain passages that advise women to keep their heads covered at all times.

My overall point is this. You are of the opinion that the government has no right to kill an individual if that individual killed another individual. You are entitled to your opinion, which I of course disagree with. But it appeared from your post that you were using scripture to back your opinion. That's where I draw the line because scripture does not back your opinion.

"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should liimit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." 2267, Catechism of the Catholic Church, drawing points from scripture and inspired scholars for the past 2000 years.

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 07:18 PM
psuedo - His point wasn't to prove you forgot a "2000 year old Jewish law." It's from the new testament therefore not Jewish. You remember that whole thing about the new testament being the christian half. Ah come on you atleast remember that much from religion class if you are going to use the scripture as your argument. Technically I am Catholic as well, but I am far from proud of it at many times. Yes I believe in some of what the Church teaches. I am confirmed, saints name is Sebastion (remember him, the guy who was executed twice, patron saint of the soldier) However, to think that the Church is without err does not sit with me. Man is to err, God may be without err, but Man certainly is. The pope is a man, for him to place himslef on a Godly level I personally see as blasfamous. I can't agree with the Catholic Church when they tell me I should hate my friend simple because he is homosexual. God loves all, but you are going to tell me to hate this person because he is homosexual? No you're right the church is always right, and the Spanish Inquesition was aa pool party.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 07:25 PM
Hey, come back :confused:

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
psuedo - His point wasn't to prove you forgot a "2000 year old Jewish law." It's from the new testament therefore not Jewish. You remember that whole thing about the new testament being the christian half.

The early Christian faith was a sect of the Jewish faith. Jesus was a practicing Jew, as were all the apostles. Or are you one of those of the opinion that Jesus was the first Christian?

The pope is a man, for him to place himslef on a Godly level I personally see as blasfamous.

The Pope is a man, and makes no claim to be a god or position himself on a godly level. To do so would be blasphemous. The Pope is decsended from an unbroken line of holy men reaching back to the apostle Peter, who Jesus chose as his representative on Earth. His name is Karol Wojtyla.

However, as a Catholic you must believe that his teachings on faith are infalliable, for his hand is guided by the Holy Ghost.

I can't agree with the Catholic Church when they tell me I should hate my friend simple because he is homosexual. God loves all, but you are going to tell me to hate this person because he is homosexual?

The Church is very clear on this: hate the sin, not the sinner; you are to embrace the sinner, not reject him. The Church only considers the act of homosexual phyiscal contact to be wrong in that it is fornication. It does not consider the state of homosexuality to be sinful.

No you're right the church is always right, and the Spanish Inquesition was a pool party.

The Church has admitted that the Inquisitions were wrong, though there was some racking going on (pool party -billiards - get it? :p ).

For someone who claims to be a Catholic, you sure don't know much about the Church. Sorry, but I think maybe you need to go see a priest for an hour and catch up on some stuff you seem to have misconceptions about.

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 08:00 PM
Psuedo I pointed otu right off that though technically catholic I disagree with many of the church's views. I am not even sure if I want to consider myself catholic at all. What does the fact that Christianity grew from Judaism have to do with your blatant ignorance of saber's post. A passage from the new testament is not Jewish law. You scold me over my knowledge of the church yet forget that the new testament was written down long after Jesus died.

I do not consider the pope infalliable (a main reason I don't fit as a catholic). If the Pope is infalliable then how can the church retract the Spanish inquisition. The Pope was infalliable and he said it was good, but now it's wrong. So one Pope has said another Pope was wrong? So one Pope's infallibility can negate that of a previous Pope's? Do you see how this logic is foolish?

Oh yes I have heard the hate the sin not the sinner speech thousands of times. Who said homosexuality is a sin. Are you to read to me about the dropping of seed and draw from that all of these sins? If you follow that theory: If you EVER have intercourse without the intent to procreate you are a sinner. Sorry but I don't think God would make sex that fun and then not want us to do it. I have faith that the big guy is not some jerk;) So by hating the sin not the sinner what do you do? You still are telling that person what they are doing is wrong? The church still expects homosexuals to "change" like it's some choice they made. So you know what you are still hating the sinner, but trying to make yourself feel better about it by your fuzzy logic.

Does the church teach some very good values? Yes. But it is also bogged down by mindless blowhearts. I do not have any misconceptions of the church, I merely have a mind of my own that I used to contemplate all the teachings and decide what made sense, and what was utter crap.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 08:22 PM
Please in the future don't present yourself as "technically Catholic" and then proceed to insult the Church for positions it does not hold. It makes it seem as if you were knowledgeable about the matters of the Church when you clearly (to a Catholic) are not.

The passage he quoted concerns the early Church's position on how to deal with a government. Just as Jesus said, "give unto Caesear what is Caesar's..." so too does this say that the government should be respected for what it's worth. It's an early separation of church and state, if you will, and not a matter of faith.

Which brings me to this:

I do not consider the pope infalliable (a main reason I don't fit as a catholic). If the Pope is infalliable then how can the church retract the Spanish inquisition. The Pope was infalliable and he said it was good, but now it's wrong. So one Pope has said another Pope was wrong? So one Pope's infallibility can negate that of a previous Pope's? Do you see how this logic is foolish?



I do see this logic as foolish. However, that's not the idea of infalliablility. If you read carefully my first response, I said *ON MATTERS OF FAITH* This is key and crucial. The Catholic Church acknowleges that the Bible itself contains error and hyperbole, and much of even the New Testament is unimportant because it does not concern matters of faith.

This is also why the passage quoted from Romans is insignificant today.

And, yes, the Catholic Church teaches that it's wrong to "spill your seed" because it sees the human sexual experience as one of purpose -- the purpose of procreation.

You can disagree with it if you like (many Catholics do, perhaps most), but remember that it's on the same level of "evil" as masturbation or pornography, which I personally don't mind at all. (oh, that just sounds wrong, doesn't it?:p )

I have girlfriend. I am not married. I commit the same sin as a homosexual -- fornication. There's much worse you can do in your life. I know it, the Church knows it.

So by hating the sin not the sinner what do you do? You still are telling that person what they are doing is wrong? The church still expects homosexuals to "change" like it's some choice they made. So you know what you are still hating the sinner, but trying to make yourself feel better about it by your fuzzy logic.

If you're looking to kick someone around for being a fag-basher, you're going to have to find someone other than me. Maybe Falwell or Robertson or O'Reilly or Savage.

I happen to like the folks. :) I go to Rehoboth Beach (If you have to ask, you won't understand) every summer and my girlfriend tells me when a guy is checking me out (I'm oblivious to anything of the sort from either sex). I'm sincerely flattered by that sort of thing. ;)

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 09:03 PM
Well psuedo being confirmed makes me "technically catholic" now doesn't it. You say I am not knowledgable of the Church, ah but I have much knowledge of the church, merely disagree with it often, big difference there bucko. Ok so you want the Pope only infalliable on matters of faith now, ok so whatever he says about this war means nothing than, stop trying to use it. Hey just following your rules.

As for the rest of your drivel and insulting attitude and cooments, I will not respond.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Well psuedo being confirmed makes me "technically catholic" now doesn't it. You say I am not knowledgable of the Church, ah but I have much knowledge of the church, merely disagree with it often, big difference there bucko. Ok so you want the Pope only infalliable on matters of faith now, ok so whatever he says about this war means nothing than, stop trying to use it. Hey just following your rules.

As for the rest of your drivel and insulting attitude and cooments, I will not respond.

You say you are knowledgeable of the Church but so far everything you have said about the Church would point to the opposite -- that you know nothing about the Church. I think that every assumption you have made in this thread has been flat wrong. You "disagree" with things about the Church that are not true.

And my drivel and insulting attitude aside, you were the one who insinuated that I was a fag-basher based on the fact that I'm Catholic.

I resent that kind of prejudice.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 09:17 PM
I agree with your idea that the Pope has no God-given authority to say that this war is wrong.

It is however unwise to disregard the advice and moral guidance of such a wise, pious man.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 09:18 PM
Right on! You don't have to be Catholic to be a fag-basher! ;)

macfan
Mar 25, 2003, 09:25 PM
One could note that the Pope of the day did very little to condemn Hitler during WWII. The Pope is not infallible in these matters. One could also not that Gospels don't seem to address the concepts of war or governments very much.

One could also note that the Pope probably considers personal sexual morality to be a matter of faith on which the Catholic church has spoken fairly clearly, although I suppose that one can pick and choose which part of the Church's moral code or pronouncements one wants to obey as a matter of course. It may be unwise to disregard the advice and moral guidance of such a wise, pious man.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by macfan
One could note that the Pope of the day did very little to condemn Hitler during WWII. The Pope is not infallible in these matters. One could also not that Gospels don't seem to address the concepts of war or governments very much.

One could also note that the Pope probably considers personal sexual morality to be a matter of faith on which the Catholic church has spoken fairly clearly, although I suppose that one can pick and choose which part of the Church's moral code or pronouncements one wants to obey as a matter of course.

The story of Pius XI is in contention re Nazi passivity.

As far as picking and choosing, yes, that is up to the individual to decide -- that's between them, their priest and God.

Saber Rules
Mar 26, 2003, 04:27 AM
I'm sorry, what would you call 2000 year old Jewish law? The letters also contain passages that advise women to keep their heads covered at all times.

The Jews call the first 5 books of the Bible the Law (Torah). When you say Jewish law, I assume you mean this definition. The New Testament is not part of the Jewish law, therefore I do not consider a quote from Romans "antiquated Jewish Law".

"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should liimit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." 2267, Catechism of the Catholic Church, drawing points from scripture and inspired scholars for the past 2000 years.
I used the wrong word in my post. I should have used "Bible" instead of "scripture". Here's the fixed version:

"...it appeared from your post that you were using the Bible to back your opinion. That's where I draw the line because the Bible does not back your opinion."

I'm being very specific here. I personally don't care where you pull your sources from or what you believe. What I do care about is if you use a verse from the Bible out of context or if you say the Bible says something and it doesn't. If you would have used the 2267 quote in the beginning, I would have left you alone. Here's where I stand on your original post:

"The Old Testament says eye for an eye, but the NEW Testament says the old one is insignificant.

The above statement is false.

"Whatsover you do to the least of my people..." applies to murderers and criminals as well as the meek and poor.
And it is written for the individual. Governments are established by God for His purposes. Two of those purposes are to protect individuals and to administer punishment. It is entirely legitimate for governments to kill murderers, based on "antiquated Jewish Law". You don't believe that and that's fine. But the Bible is not in agreement with you.

skunk
Mar 26, 2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Saber Rules
Governments are established by God for His purposes. Two of those purposes are to protect individuals and to administer punishment. It is entirely legitimate for governments to kill murderers, based on "antiquated Jewish Law". You don't believe that and that's fine. But the Bible is not in agreement with you.

ALL governments?? The Iraqi government? Have we just landed on an alien planet? :eek: :eek: :eek: Where did the thread go :confused:

pseudobrit
Mar 26, 2003, 12:42 PM
And centuries of scholars in the Church disagree with that idea. The only time it's acceptable for a government to kill a criminal is if not doing so would cause further harm to the people.

Saber Rules
Mar 27, 2003, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by skunk
ALL governments?? The Iraqi government? Have we just landed on an alien planet? :eek: :eek: :eek: Where did the thread go :confused:
LOL.

The verse from Romans says:

"...for there is no authority EXCEPT that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." (Emphasis mine)

Therefore, based on this verse, the Iraqi government has been established by God. I share your queasiness on this but a different perspective might help.

If you remember or are familiar with the time when the Jews were still in Egypt and God was about to set them free, he told Moses to basically tell Pharoah that he could have wiped him out completely:

"...BUT I HAVE RAISED YOU UP FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (Emphasis mine obviously)

And when Pilate was talking with Jesus he said:

"Do you refuse to speak to me? Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above..."

That particular Pharoah wasn't the nicest of rulers and Pilate did some very awful things, but having them in those positions of authority allowed events to occur that would not have occurred otherwise. I get angry when I read about the things that Pilate did to Jesus but I would be lost if he hadn't done them.

Now concerning Iraq, without a revelation from God, I have no idea what its purpose is. What if Saddam was setup so that we would knock him down and liberate the Iraqis, perhaps allowing the Gospel to reach them? What if he is just meant to be a stumbling block so that we have friction with France, Germany, and Russia for some future purpose that we can't see?

Perhaps a verse like the one from Romans is difficult to accept because we can only see the trees while God sees the forest.

Saber Rules
Mar 27, 2003, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
And centuries of scholars in the Church disagree with that idea. The only time it's acceptable for a government to kill a criminal is if not doing so would cause further harm to the people.

And although I disagree with those scholars, it is an excellent reply and I think that it about raps up this thread. You seem to have a good knowledge of what the Catholic Church scholars have written through the years and it appears you hold those writings in high regard. Don't be afraid to quote those sources when they are clearly the foundation of something you believe. It helps avoid confusion.

My focus is on the Bible itself and I rarely read other sources. I consider the entire Bible to be the Word of God which should explain my zeal in defending it.

"...Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the LORD. "This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word."

Wanting to be esteemed by God I try to be humble and contrite, and I hold what I believe to be his word in very high esteem.

::Catches a nice big TCP segment and rides the bit stream back out to the Internet::

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 08:39 AM
One other bit of news from this thread should be that a second victim of the attack died yesterday. So sad...