British Soldier Murdered II

[poncho]

Originally Posted By The Squire

The problem with your citations are you missed the last two paragraphs of the first article Quote:
Indefinite detention under the 2001 Act was criticised heavily from the start and the procedure adopted by SIAC questioned even by special advocates instructed to appear before it. In 2005 the powers were scrutinised by the House of Lords in A-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The Court considered, in particular, the breaches of Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that detention under s 23 entailed – the Government had accepted that the powers amounted to a derogation from the Convention but justified this on the basis that that the terrorist threat to the country amounted a “public emergency.” The Court did not seek to challenge that assertion but, crucially, noted that indefinite detention could not be applied to UK citizens. In addition, there was nothing to prevent a foreign terrorist “suspect” being released to any country where he or she would not be at risk of torture. The House of Lords concluded that the powers were therefore discriminatory and made a Declaration of Incompatibility.
My bold. If I read these paragraphs correctly, the Act has been nullified by the courts.
And in the second the four persons in question are under "house arrest" Under sever conditions mind you, but they are not in one of Her Majesty's prisons and their cases are on appeal. So, the conditions in the UK are hardly as far reaching as one would assume from your post.


My opinion follows: The West is in a war with the Salafists. It is an unconventional and asymmetrical war. Further, in consideration of any American Salafists who get caught up in the meat grinder, they put themselves in the same position as the men under Major General Pickett, CSA when they charged Cemetery Ridge.

The problem with your observation is I didn't miss the last two paragraphs Squire. The words to pay attention to is "the court considered". If the court is considering something of this nature it's usually considering something the government wants to do. So the take away is Matt's government wants the power. The court said no, this time. One big pretext and Matt can say goodbye to what little is left of his freedom.

If the "court found" that indefinite detention of individuals would violate international law then how can Obama do it?

My opinion follows and mine is backed up by reams of evidence. The west isn"t in a war with Salafists at all. One does not fight a war by funding and arming the enemy and using them as proxy fighters to overthrow other governments.

The west is at war with Russia and China and using the Salafists to create an area of instability in Eurasia. See the Grand Chessboard.

Of course you got the government and corporate media's word that the west if at war with Salafists but the evidence doesn't line up with it and you also have the knowledge that govt lies and the media sticks to it.

 

[poncho]

The Grand Chessboard (1997)

Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries - almost but not quite superpowers - whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine,Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential "lesser" nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).

The Salafists are our proxy fighters in this war Squire. And they make for a great boogeyman to scare "westerners" into accepting authoritarian big brother police state govt at home. " Give up all your rights and privacy or our Salafist proxy fighters will get you."

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can look at the evidence and believe we're at war with Salafists. It just doesn't add up. We fund them, we arm them, we support them while they terrorize whole cities and villages at will then claim we're at war with them? Nope. Just don't add up.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Poncho: I gave up your brand of over reaching paranoia 35+ years ago when I dissassociated myself from the John Birch Society. Back then, I came to the conclusion the lost will always act like the lost. And that Satan is alive and active in the affairs of men. But this I do know God will not allow Satan ultimate victory.

 

[Bob Alkire]

...I came to the conclusion the lost will always act like the lost. And that Satan is alive and active in the affairs of men. But this I do know God will not allow Satan ultimate victory.

My friend I agree with you 100 per cent. I came to the same conclusion years ago.

 

[poncho]

Report: Britain to transfer weapons to Syrian rebels

Senior British diplomat estimates first arms transfer will reach rebels in 3 months, possible that US will also contribute, if Geneva conference fails. Despite final decision still pending, rebels already anticipating transfer

Ynet

IOW Al Qaeda will get British weapons in three months.

Russia to provide Syria with MiG-29 fighter planes'

The head of aircraft maker MiG said on Friday that Russia was counting on providing Syria with 10 MiG-29 fighter planes and was discussing details with a Syrian delegation, RIA news agency reported. It did not say when they might be delivered.

JPOST

Over reaching? We read about it everyday in the news. Mainstream sources all report on it.

You gave up to soon Squire alot of that crazy stuff the JBer's were talking about 35 years ago has come to pass . . . right in front of our eyes. But then there's nothing we can do about it because "the devil made em do it" right?

I've heard some lame excuses in my day but "there's nothing we can do because the devil made em do it" has to take the cake. I hear it a lot these days, is that the doctrine being taught in 501c3 churches?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It's not a matter of "the devil made them do it". It's a matter of a fight against principalities and powers, against the prince of this world. Further, my home church was founded during the Hayes administration which hardly makes us 501c3 churches.

 

[poncho]

It's not a matter of "the devil made them do it". It's a matter of a fight against principalities and powers, against the prince of this world. Further, my home church was founded during the Hayes administration which hardly makes us 501c3 churches.

Sounds more like a matter of avoiding any kind of fight at all to me. But not just that it sounds like you don't even want to acknowledge what is right in front of your eyes.

I thought we had a duty to tell the truth not avoid it. What ever happened to the church in this country? At one time the church was full of liberty loving patriots that won our freedom from an oppressive government. But now it seems like the churches are full of people that believe being oppressed by their own government is the will of God.

When did the church lose it's spine Squire?

 

[robt.k.fall]

Sounds more like a matter of avoiding any kind of fight at all to me. But not just that it sounds like you don't even want to acknowledge what is right in front of your eyes.

I thought we had a duty to tell the truth not avoid it. What ever happened to the church in this country? At one time the church was full of liberty loving patriots that won our freedom from an oppressive government. But now it seems like the churches are full of people that believe being oppressed by their own government is the will of God.

When did the church lose it's spine Squire?

The Squire keeps mny things about himself clsoe to his chest. So, I'll step in and explain his and my position a little fuller. First, I have a few questions. Are we any better than the Christians of the first century? They had to deal with Imperial Roman persecution. Can we expect any better? We have today persecuted brethren. Again are we better than they are? We are Baptists not Muensterites.

 

[poncho]

The Squire keeps mny things about himself clsoe to his chest. So, I'll step in and explain his and my position a little fuller. First, I have a few questions. Are we any better than the Christians of the first century? They had to deal with Imperial Roman persecution. Can we expect any better? We have today persecuted brethren. Again are we better than they are? We are Baptists not Muensterites.

Jesus commanded His followers to sell their clothes and buy a sword even though it was illegal for a Jew to own a sword in those days. The punishment was severe if a Jew was caught with one. Jesus commanded His followers to break an unjust Roman law on the pain of being scourged or even crucified.

Are we any better than His disciples?

All the old testament prophets stood up to unjust and evil rulers.

Are we any better than the prophets?

John the Baptist was a Baptist too but he stood up and shook his fist in an unjust ruler's face and lost his head because of it.

Are we any better than John?

I don't think we're better than any of them do you?

 

[robt.k.fall]

I apologize to the Board for being so pedantic in this post. However, I learned years ago "a text taken out of context is a pretext." So, this post will be heavy laying out the context for my remarks.

Jesus commanded His followers to sell their clothes and buy a sword even though it was illegal for a Jew to own a sword in those days. The punishment was severe if a Jew was caught with one. Jesus commanded His followers to break an unjust Roman law on the pain of being scourged or even crucified.
Are we any better than His disciples?
All the old testament prophets stood up to unjust and evil rulers.
Are we any better than the prophets?
John the Baptist was a Baptist too but he stood up and shook his fist in an unjust ruler's face and lost his head because of it.
Are we any better than John?
I don't think we're better than any of them do you?

I believe this is the potion of Scripture you are referring to.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
***
49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

I see the following to be of interest:

1. From verse 38, it looks like the disciples were already armed.
2. From verses 49-51, Our Lord expected the disiples to be under His command. Thus Peter (the "one of them") , was not authorized to smite anyone. In fact, I'll hazard if Peter had struck a fatal blow, Our Lord would have resurrected the servant of the high priest in stead of just healing his ear.
3. From the tenor of the narrative, the swords were to protect the group on their journey from the Upper Room to the Garden from thieves. The swords were not possessed to attack any Roman or Herodian soldiers they met on the way.

John also gives some additional details in his account of the happenings in the Garden:

John 18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

1. A question: did the arresting guards fall to the ground in verse 6? As John's record is silent on this point, my guess is Our Lord's "I am" carried with it the same dose of Divinity as the "I am's" in Exodus 3:14

   And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

2. He uses the same words in v 8 without any severe reaction.

As for example of John the Baptist, please note he went to his death without any resistence.
Now concerning my home church I refer you to:
http://youtu.be/WObJ1EkWGsA

 

[poncho]

So we agree Jesus commanded his disciples to break a Roman law. Okay.

John the baptist didn't resist? Ha ha ha. His whole life was an act of resistance. Why? He told the truth and called attention to the corruption of the elite "ruling class". He didn't lose his head because he believed in Jesus he lost it because he was critical of the elite "ruling class". He put them to shame. He pointed out their hypocrisy.

Jesus told the truth and called attention to the corruption of the "ruling class". He was crucified because He defied the elite "ruling class". He put them to shame. He pointed out their hypocrisy.

You try to make it sound as if I'm calling for armed resistance. Why? Jesus resisted non violently so did John the Baptist. Shouldn't we as followers of Jesus do the same? Instead of taking sides in a corrupt system (R's vs D's or left vs right) shouldn't we be more interested in exposing the injustice and hypocrisy of the elite "ruling class"?

The bible is full of God's people defying the civil authorities, but I'm supposed to forget all that because of a couple verses taking out of the context of the rest of the bible?

Who's taking scripture out of context?

 

[robt.k.fall]

No, we don't agree.
I view Our Lord's command on swords to be that of a soveriegn in his own land. In other words, He was exercising his rights and prerogatives as the lawful King of Israel.
To clarify my statement concerning John the Baptist, I was referring to his arrecst and imprisonment. I was not referring to his preaching ministry.

 

[poncho]

No, we don't agree.
I view Our Lord's command on swords to be that of a soveriegn in his own land. In other words, He was exercising his rights and prerogatives as the lawful King of Israel.
To clarify my statement concerning John the Baptist, I was referring to his arrecst and imprisonment. I was not referring to his preaching ministry.

So Jesus was lying when He said His kingdom was not of this world? I'd have to disagree with you there.

And yet John the Baptist's preaching against the King's sin is what got him arrested. John was protesting against the King and he got tossed in the gray bar hotel and lost his head over it.

According to Romans 13 John the Baptist should have kept his mouth shut and gone along with it because God put the King on the throne.

 

[robt.k.fall]

As a mattter of basic presuppositions, I refer you to

Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

the operative words are in bold.

I believe Jesus as a Person of the Godhead can not lie. So the question is not

So Jesus was lying

but rather How do you square your statement with

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

My first take is His servants didn't defend Him. He defended Himself up to a certain point (rfemember the arresting mob falling to the ground).

So Jesus was lying when He said His kingdom was not of this world? I'd have to disagree with you there.

And yet John the Baptist's preaching against the King's sin is what got him arrested. John was protesting against the King and he got tossed in the gray bar hotel and lost his head over it.

According to Romans 13 John the Baptist should have kept his mouth shut and gone along with it because God put the King on the throne.