Jump to content
IGNORED

Torture by Red Hot Chili Peppers


nebula

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.74
  • Content Count:  45,880
  • Content Per Day:  5.81
  • Reputation:   1,905
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

We are really veering of what the subject at hand is.

The question presented concerns the use of putting a terrorist leader in a freezing room without clothes and listening to annoying rock music as a way of getting him to talk. He wasn't beaten. There was no indication of humiliation by being paraded in front of females. He wasn't forced in painful positions with his hands tied tightly behind his back.

Really, what was so horrible and inhumane about this meathod as to be appalling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest shiloh357
So what exactly has the fact that "our current enemy is quite proficient at causing agonising deaths" got to do with the subject of torture? Are you saying "if they are good at killing slowly and agonisingly then so should we be"?

No, I am drawing a comaparison between genuine torture and your faulty logic which lumps subjecting someone to loud rock music as "torture." I am comparing what constitutes torture according to the correct definition of the term as opposed to things like sleep deprivation to having one's body parts sawed off slowly or being subjected to things like having acid poured on your skin.

Your position is wrong because you attempt lump EVERYTHING as torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
We are really veering of what the subject at hand is.

The question presented concerns the use of putting a terrorist leader in a freezing room without clothes and listening to annoying rock music as a way of getting him to talk. He wasn't beaten. There was no indication of humiliation by being paraded in front of females. He wasn't forced in painful positions with his hands tied tightly behind his back.

Really, what was so horrible and inhumane about this meathod as to be appalling?

The problem is that buckthesystem wants to broaden the definition of "tortue" to include ANY method that makes the terrorist even slightly uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  276
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  7,474
  • Content Per Day:  0.94
  • Reputation:   52
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/25/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/31/1966

As to your first question, ".....how far would you go ....etc...." The answer comes easily: I would go as far as would be morally reasonable. This does not include torture. Mainly because I know that it is wrong to deliberately inflict pain on someone and it is also totally ineffective.

Actually, you are wrong about that last part. I have seen, first hand (but not actually by my hand), on several occasions, where inflicting a little pain on a few people secured us very profitable information which was used to secure the identity and the capture of several high level people in a foreign setting.

In other words, it does produce a limited success in specific situations. Each situation is a bit different, though, so you have to know when and how to use it. Many times, the practice is detrimental to the success, though. There are times when people will simply blurt out anything to get you to stop, which makes it harder on the intel folks to decipher the information.

In other cases, the person simply doesn't know the info you are hoping to get, so it's like squeezing water from a rock.

The morality issue, of course, is another story altogether. In moral or ethical terms, I'm not a big fan of subjecting one to physical pain for the purpose of extracting information. It's too messy, it makes you feel weird inside, and in many cases, it simply the wrong way to do things.

But, the practice itself is not "totally ineffective", as Buck has implied. It does produce results.

I am not guessing, or saying "I think I would, but under these circumstances it might be different" I know exactly how I would react under any circumstances. And I am not being sanctimoneous or "holier than thou", I am simply being honest. Neither is it a case of "being afraid to subject the criminal to.......etc......." You don't have to "have courage, i.e. "not be afraid" to do something evil, all it takes is a lack of moral compunction.

In reality, what it takes is for you to actually be in that situation.

Have you?

Then, my friend, you will truly know for sure. Until then, you can only speculate and give your best educated guess. We like to think that we know ourselves, that's for sure, but in some cases, you would be surprised at what you can do when pressed.

The example that Shiloh proposed is, in today's world, quite a real possibility. It's not far fetched in these times to consider the possibility of one of your loved ones to be abducted by either a common criminal or a terrorist.

If you had unlimited access to one of the ones involved and felt sure that he knew something about his/ her location, would you do what it took to secure your loved one again? Would time lapse of each second draw the matter closer and closer to causing you to step across the moral bridge which is placed before you?

Think about it hard before you answer....would there ever be a justification for violence to secure the information you seek?

We also have to consider the appropriateness of your use of the word "criminal". A person is not a "criminal" until he has been found to be so in a court of law, until then he is a "suspect", and this doesn't address the incompetence of the justice system. How many people have been wrongly tortured or imprisoned for a crime they did not commit? Would you advocate the torture or killing of someone who could turn out to be innocent.

An excellent point! We have to consider this word "criminal" and how it relates to the subject at hand, don't we?

Are the terrorists simply criminals, deserving all of the rights afforded to US citizens? Beyond that, are they even legally covered in the Geneva Conventions? Do you see uniforms on them? Are they of a country which has accepted the terms of the conventions? Do they have a national flag? Who is their Government to begin with? With whom will we negotiate for their release?

Johnny Walker (remember him?) was afforded what was due to him by the premise that he was still an American citizen, but what of the others? Should they have a day in American courts complete with all of the bells and whistles to include lawyers and a jury? You yourself bring up the incompetence of the US courts system, is this where you would have them be tried?

And for which crimes?

The fact is, they are not criminals, nor should they be considered as such. They are enemy combatants in a war which they have chosen to fight without the protection afforded by the Geneva Conventions. They should not even have the protections and status of legal Prisoners of War. What makes it all so hard is the nature of the fight which they bring. They have no nation under which they fight. They have no standard uniforms, weapons, or declared intentions, save for the fact that they wish to kill Americans and Christians and Jews.

There is no established set of rules or laws under which they can claim protection. In reality, they could have simply been killed where they stood on the day they were captured. If it wasn't for the fact that they could have provided information for us, that's just what would have happened.

We've tried to do what we think is best in this matter, but there is no legal precedent to draw from. Should we simply let them go to fight another day until all that stuff is worked out?

Is that the right solution- let them go? If not, would you suggest simple criminal proceedings in our inept courts? How many claims of "not guilty by reason of insanity" would we see each day?

No one is advocating the torture or killings of innocents. The trouble is, we have to sift out the wheat form the chaff, so to speak. I guess it would be only proper to bring up the hundreds, or possible thousands of those which we have already released because we found them to be either innocent, or of no strategic value. What of them? How about a big pat on the back for treating them fairly?

No?

Anyway, you get my point. The ones which remain in custody today are there for a reason. A few more mistakes will spring up, but for the most part, they are there because they either have already given us some useful information and we suspect that they are holding onto more, or they have shown us that they will immediatly go back to the fight upon release.

It's almost too simple to see.

This is a dirty war we are in, and I don't think that you understand the enemy we are up against. I don't think you have a decent grasp of what they intend to do if given the chance, nor do I think that you have the basic information which you would need for ammunition to fight this war. I don't believe that you have an idea of just who these people are which we have in Gitmo and other places. I don't think that you understand the magnitude of what we face, or the importance of the fight ahead.

I know, from other posts which you have written, that you have a mistrust of our Government and could possibly think that everything you have heard is a lie.

The enemy we face is not a lie, nor is it of our invention.

Read up on Bin Laden and you will see the catalyst of his hatred for us, because he sure didn't mind our help against the Russians, did he? He sure didn't feel like his muslim lands were being violated when we sold him Stinger missiles in his cause against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Bin Ladens main beef emerged when he was training his stupid little band of terrorists and offered them to Saudi Arabia to be used against Iraq after it's invasion of Kuwait. The Saudi's, in a rather bold and quite intelligent decision, decided to use the US led UN force instead.

That was the beginning of his real hatred for us. He felt that the Saudi's were now corrupted by us and could not believe that the Saudi Government would turn to us instead of his holy warriors.

From there, he begins his war against us.

Were you aware of any of that?

Stop falling for the pathetic lies of our enemy and understand their culture and why they "hate" us, and why they do the things they do. Try to understand what it is they are trying to accomplish and some of the methods they use. Twisting the world's sympathetic ear toward them is part of it all. It's right there for all of us to see. Why this is so hard to grasp is beyond my ability to understand.

This war has brought us to a point which we have to evaluate how we conduct war, and for which situations. I don't really have a disdain for those that can't understand why we have to fight it. The questions raised are valid. The trouble comes when some people simply don't like the explanations given to them for why we have to do things in a certain way.

You also can see the emergance of news people who's loyalty lies more with getting the scoop on a story, rather than with our country's efforts. Exposing the way we fight for the world to see is a bad thing. The element of surprise is lost, and there are millions of people who will cry and whine if we do things different that they would. The truth is, they do this because they think it will make Bush look bad. Simple as that.

Placing one's desire to win an election above the need to defend the very nation they wish to lead is above treason, and worthy of death by hanging.

There are issues which we must look at, however, and for the issues which are legitimate, solutions will come. real solutions which will help us in the future. These issues are not bad things to discuss and are not "unpatriotic" to raise.

However, using each little piece in an effort to disgrace a sitting President and thwart every effort he undertakes to wage a war like this against an enemy like this is sickening.

It's a war which we have to fight. Despite the negative press, despite the lies, despite the world falling for the whole mess, it's a war we are now forced to fight.

I can only imagine what the same people who are condemning our fight today would say about the invasion of Normandy on June 6th, 1944.

The same very nations we came to save on that day now stand before us and offer us the same blinders which they have chosen to wear.

Our choices are simple: Fight it now, or simply go back home and wait for it to affect us. If you choose to fight this war in the court rooms of America, in the halls of the UN, or on the six o'clock news, then be my guest.

Just don't stand in the way of those of us which choose to do what we know must be done.

In fact, I'd like to invite you to come and join us for a few years. We could use the help. :emot-hug:

Peace,

t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  1,706
  • Topics Per Day:  0.25
  • Content Count:  3,386
  • Content Per Day:  0.50
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/12/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/10/1955

We are really veering of what the subject at hand is.

The question presented concerns the use of putting a terrorist leader in a freezing room without clothes and listening to annoying rock music as a way of getting him to talk. He wasn't beaten. There was no indication of humiliation by being paraded in front of females. He wasn't forced in painful positions with his hands tied tightly behind his back.

Really, what was so horrible and inhumane about this meathod as to be appalling?

This thread morphed. That is what they tend to do. You are right, of course, we should have stuck to the point of the thread to begin with, i.e. "how torturous is it to be subjected to the Red Hot Chilli Peppers' music?" And if we wanted to talk about torture, we should have started another thread, but unfortunately that didn't happen.

Maybe I am to blame, if that is the case I apologise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  1,706
  • Topics Per Day:  0.25
  • Content Count:  3,386
  • Content Per Day:  0.50
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/12/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/10/1955

So what exactly has the fact that "our current enemy is quite proficient at causing agonising deaths" got to do with the subject of torture? Are you saying "if they are good at killing slowly and agonisingly then so should we be"?

No, I am drawing a comaparison between genuine torture and your faulty logic which lumps subjecting someone to loud rock music as "torture." I am comparing what constitutes torture according to the correct definition of the term as opposed to things like sleep deprivation to having one's body parts sawed off slowly or being subjected to things like having acid poured on your skin.

Your position is wrong because you attempt lump EVERYTHING as torture.

No you weren't! You were not trying to draw any comparisons but trying to narrow the definition of torture so that "psychological torture" was thought of as "not real torture". And you were trying to get anyone reading this to "go into emotional overdrive" about "what 'they' are doing to our troops" so they would all have sympathy for your point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  51
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  2,849
  • Content Per Day:  0.43
  • Reputation:   14
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/17/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/17/1979

What exactly constitutes "psychological torture"?

Who gets to decide what's torture and what's merely "uncomfortable"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  1,706
  • Topics Per Day:  0.25
  • Content Count:  3,386
  • Content Per Day:  0.50
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/12/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/10/1955

We are really veering of what the subject at hand is.

The question presented concerns the use of putting a terrorist leader in a freezing room without clothes and listening to annoying rock music as a way of getting him to talk. He wasn't beaten. There was no indication of humiliation by being paraded in front of females. He wasn't forced in painful positions with his hands tied tightly behind his back.

Really, what was so horrible and inhumane about this meathod as to be appalling?

The problem is that buckthesystem wants to broaden the definition of "tortue" to include ANY method that makes the terrorist even slightly uncomfortable.

No I am not trying to do what you claimed. Don't go trying to lay blame on me. The definition of torture (in my dictionary at least) includes "psychological torture". This can take many forms and is often used to "break peoples' spirit" and humiliate them. It is not merely "making people slightly uncomfortable".

Also you have to consider your use of the term "terrorist". Like the word "criminal", somebody cannot be described as a "terrorist" until they have been found guilty of a terrorist act or an act of "association", until then they are (at best) a "suspect".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  51
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  2,849
  • Content Per Day:  0.43
  • Reputation:   14
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/17/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/17/1979

:emot-hug:
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  1,706
  • Topics Per Day:  0.25
  • Content Count:  3,386
  • Content Per Day:  0.50
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/12/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/10/1955

As to your first question, ".....how far would you go ....etc...." The answer comes easily: I would go as far as would be morally reasonable. This does not include torture. Mainly because I know that it is wrong to deliberately inflict pain on someone and it is also totally ineffective.

Actually, you are wrong about that last part. I have seen, first hand (but not actually by my hand), on several occasions, where inflicting a little pain on a few people secured us very profitable information which was used to secure the identity and the capture of several high level people in a foreign setting.

In other words, it does produce a limited success in specific situations. Each situation is a bit different, though, so you have to know when and how to use it. Many times, the practice is detrimental to the success, though. There are times when people will simply blurt out anything to get you to stop, which makes it harder on the intel folks to decipher the information.

In other cases, the person simply doesn't know the info you are hoping to get, so it's like squeezing water from a rock.

So torture is not really effective. If you believe it is, under certain circumstances, and sometimes, then does that justify it being used at all? My view is that it is not acceptable to use torture because it is wrong to do so.

I guess it is my view and although I'd hoped that others might take that on board, I do realise that I seem to be in the minority about this and therefore don't wish to be seen as "pushing it on people").

The morality issue, of course, is another story altogether. In moral or ethical terms, I'm not a big fan of subjecting one to physical pain for the purpose of extracting information. It's too messy, it makes you feel weird inside, and in many cases, it simply the wrong way to do things.

But, the practice itself is not "totally ineffective", as Buck has implied. It does produce results.

I am not guessing, or saying "I think I would, but under these circumstances it might be different" I know exactly how I would react under any circumstances. And I am not being sanctimoneous or "holier than thou", I am simply being honest. Neither is it a case of "being afraid to subject the criminal to.......etc......." You don't have to "have courage, i.e. "not be afraid" to do something evil, all it takes is a lack of moral compunction.

In reality, what it takes is for you to actually be in that situation.

Have you?

Then, my friend, you will truly know for sure. Until then, you can only speculate and give your best educated guess. We like to think that we know ourselves, that's for sure, but in some cases, you would be surprised at what you can do when pressed.

I can't claim to know how I would react in a lot of situations, but I absolutely know that I wouldn't deliberately inflict pain on someone else unless it was a case of self defence or defence of someone else. And only then, for as long as it takes to get away. I would not advocate the use of torture (in any form) "in the hope of getting information out of someone".

The example that Shiloh proposed is, in today's world, quite a real possibility. It's not far fetched in these times to consider the possibility of one of your loved ones to be abducted by either a common criminal or a terrorist.

If you had unlimited access to one of the ones involved and felt sure that he knew something about his/ her location, would you do what it took to secure your loved one again? Would time lapse of each second draw the matter closer and closer to causing you to step across the moral bridge which is placed before you?

Think about it hard before you answer....would there ever be a justification for violence to secure the information you seek?

No! I am absolutely sure of it. There is not ever a justification for violence for what ever "reason".

We also have to consider the appropriateness of your use of the word "criminal". A person is not a "criminal" until he has been found to be so in a court of law, until then he is a "suspect", and this doesn't address the incompetence of the justice system. How many people have been wrongly tortured or imprisoned for a crime they did not commit? Would you advocate the torture or killing of someone who could turn out to be innocent.

An excellent point! We have to consider this word "criminal" and how it relates to the subject at hand, don't we?

Are the terrorists simply criminals, deserving all of the rights afforded to US citizens? Beyond that, are they even legally covered in the Geneva Conventions? Do you see uniforms on them? Are they of a country which has accepted the terms of the conventions? Do they have a national flag? Who is their Government to begin with? With whom will we negotiate for their release?

Have I read you right? Are you saying that only people who wear uniforms and are legally covered in the Geneva Conventions, are entitled to be treated humanely? If someone doesn't have a national flag they're "fair game" to be tortured?

Johnny Walker (remember him?) was afforded what was due to him by the premise that he was still an American citizen, but what of the others? Should they have a day in American courts complete with all of the bells and whistles to include lawyers and a jury? You yourself bring up the incompetence of the US courts system, is this where you would have them be tried?

And for which crimes?

You're being slightly unfair here. I never said that I was talking about the "incompetence of the US COURT SYSTEM". Actually I think that the US court system is one of the better ones in the world. I was talking about the courts system in general.

The fact is, they are not criminals, nor should they be considered as such. They are enemy combatants in a war which they have chosen to fight without the protection afforded by the Geneva Conventions. They should not even have the protections and status of legal Prisoners of War. What makes it all so hard is the nature of the fight which they bring. They have no nation under which they fight. They have no standard uniforms, weapons, or declared intentions, save for the fact that they wish to kill Americans and Christians and Jews.

There is no established set of rules or laws under which they can claim protection. In reality, they could have simply been killed where they stood on the day they were captured. If it wasn't for the fact that they could have provided information for us, that's just what would have happened.

We've tried to do what we think is best in this matter, but there is no legal precedent to draw from. Should we simply let them go to fight another day until all that stuff is worked out?

Is that the right solution- let them go? If not, would you suggest simple criminal proceedings in our inept courts? How many claims of "not guilty by reason of insanity" would we see each day?

Again, are you saying that because someone "cannot claim the protection" of a particular state, they are not entitled to due process?

No one is advocating the torture or killings of innocents. The trouble is, we have to sift out the wheat form the chaff, so to speak. I guess it would be only proper to bring up the hundreds, or possible thousands of those which we have already released because we found them to be either innocent, or of no strategic value. What of them? How about a big pat on the back for treating them fairly?

I wouldn't be very impressed if I'd been falsely accused, tortured, then found to be innocent and subsequently released. The damage has already been done. I wouldn't be patting anybody on the back and saying "gee, you deserve my gratitude for releasing me".

Anyway, you get my point. The ones which remain in custody today are there for a reason. A few more mistakes will spring up, but for the most part, they are there because they either have already given us some useful information and we suspect that they are holding onto more, or they have shown us that they will immediatly go back to the fight upon release.

It's almost too simple to see.

Sure, I get the point".

This is a dirty war we are in, and I don't think that you understand the enemy we are up against. I don't think you have a decent grasp of what they intend to do if given the chance, nor do I think that you have the basic information which you would need for ammunition to fight this war. I don't believe that you have an idea of just who these people are which we have in Gitmo and other places. I don't think that you understand the magnitude of what we face, or the importance of the fight ahead.

I know, from other posts which you have written, that you have a mistrust of our Government and could possibly think that everything you have heard is a lie.

The enemy we face is not a lie, nor is it of our invention.

Read up on Bin Laden and you will see the catalyst of his hatred for us, because he sure didn't mind our help against the Russians, did he? He sure didn't feel like his muslim lands were being violated when we sold him Stinger missiles in his cause against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Bin Ladens main beef emerged when he was training his stupid little band of terrorists and offered them to Saudi Arabia to be used against Iraq after it's invasion of Kuwait. The Saudi's, in a rather bold and quite intelligent decision, decided to use the US led UN force instead.

That was the beginning of his real hatred for us. He felt that the Saudi's were now corrupted by us and could not believe that the Saudi Government would turn to us instead of his holy warriors.

From there, he begins his war against us.

Were you aware of any of that?

Yeah, I had read that somewhere. However, none of this justifies inflicting pain on someone for dubious reasons.

Stop falling for the pathetic lies of our enemy and understand their culture and why they "hate" us, and why they do the things they do. Try to understand what it is they are trying to accomplish and some of the methods they use. Twisting the world's sympathetic ear toward them is part of it all. It's right there for all of us to see. Why this is so hard to grasp is beyond my ability to understand.

Believe me, I am not falling for any pathetic lies. I am well aware of the difficult situation the US faces, I just don't advocate the use of torture.

This war has brought us to a point which we have to evaluate how we conduct war, and for which situations. I don't really have a disdain for those that can't understand why we have to fight it. The questions raised are valid. The trouble comes when some people simply don't like the explanations given to them for why we have to do things in a certain way.

You also can see the emergance of news people who's loyalty lies more with getting the scoop on a story, rather than with our country's efforts. Exposing the way we fight for the world to see is a bad thing. The element of surprise is lost, and there are millions of people who will cry and whine if we do things different that they would. The truth is, they do this because they think it will make Bush look bad. Simple as that.

Placing one's desire to win an election above the need to defend the very nation they wish to lead is above treason, and worthy of death by hanging.

There are issues which we must look at, however, and for the issues which are legitimate, solutions will come. real solutions which will help us in the future. These issues are not bad things to discuss and are not "unpatriotic" to raise.

However, using each little piece in an effort to disgrace a sitting President and thwart every effort he undertakes to wage a war like this against an enemy like this is sickening.

It's a war which we have to fight. Despite the negative press, despite the lies, despite the world falling for the whole mess, it's a war we are now forced to fight.

I can only imagine what the same people who are condemning our fight today would say about the invasion of Normandy on June 6th, 1944.

The same very nations we came to save on that day now stand before us and offer us the same blinders which they have chosen to wear.

I do get what you are up against and I have a lot of sympathy for the US's position and I am definitely no fan of the UN. I just don't think that using torture can solve anything.

Our choices are simple: Fight it now, or simply go back home and wait for it to affect us. If you choose to fight this war in the court rooms of America, in the halls of the UN, or on the six o'clock news, then be my guest.

Just don't stand in the way of those of us which choose to do what we know must be done.

In fact, I'd like to invite you to come and join us for a few years. We could use the help. :laugh:

Peace,

t.

Sure I'd like to come and join you for a while but I'd have to submit to being fingerprinted and be subject to face recognition technology and principles just won't allow me to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 1 reply
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Oy Vey!
        • Praise God!
        • Thanks
        • Well Said!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 231 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
        • Praise God!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
        • Well Said!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 20 replies

×
×
  • Create New...