New US Weapon Aims for MAXIMUM PAIN

[Nicodema]

Cruel and unusual:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1279868#1279870

If clicking the link fails, try cutting & pasting.

I realize this is a site with a radical Dem bias, but there's nothing "biased" about the FACT that the US is developing this type of weapon and intending its use upon our own citizens ("rioters").

So I don't even want to hear it about how this is perfectly OK and anyone who thinks it isn't is buying into some radical left bias. This is NOT OK, no matter who is bringing the story to light (and it was brought to light through official documents uncovered under the remaining shreds of the Freedom of Information Act, by the way; those are not "biased.")

[Rosie]

"Intended for use on rioters"???!!!

That phrase certainly sent chills up my spine. Our tax dollars are being used to develop weapons to pacify crowds. What's America expecting, a revolt? Is there some need to develop weapons against our own that we don't know about?

Or am I reading that incorrectly?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7077

[there buster]

One of the more common problems police departments have encountered is where someone takes another (or several others) hostage, threatening to kill them if certain demands are not met.

Currently, they have two choices. 1) Negotiate and hope the hostage taker calms down. 2) Use a sniper to take him out and save the hostage(s).

Option 2 means the likely death of the hostage taker, and is not without danger to the hostages. Law enforcement people have long been looking for a non-lethal option for dealing with these situations.

I can think of a number of situations where something like this would certainly be preferable to the current options available. Crowds can become mobs when panicked, or even simply trying to move from one place to another rapidly. Young people have been crushed to death trying to get into concerts. Riots occur after Super Bowl or World Serier victories or defeats. Innocent bystanders get killed when the crowd goes out of control.

Having an incapacitating but not lethal option available would ofen have a preventative effect in some situations.

It seems to me it would be progress if police could move entirely to non-lethal methods. Then every accused person would have a chance to stand trial. Removing the likelihood of death or permanent injury from the equation would help defuse many situations.

Of course, these could be misused. But anything can be misused. Automobiles can become bombs, box-cutters can be used by hijackers, ball point pens have been used to deliver ricin and cyanide gas.

[Ron Lambert]

The idea that this weapon is designed "primarily" for use on rioters was made up by someone more interested in propaganda than honest reporting. Since the weapon is a military weapon with a range of about two kilometers, it is obviously intended to be used on massed troops, like an advancing army.

The weapon is described as projecting something like an electromagnetic pulse that affects the human nervous system, and has the effect of producing excruciating, disabling pain. If this weapon is sufficient to incapacitate an enemy without actually killing him or producing permanent injury, then it is virtually a first in military weaponry, and surely is more humane than attacking the enemy with fragmentation grenades, machine guns, or even hacking the enemy to pieces with swords (which also cause considerable pain).

Some people who think it a terribly thing to use in battle a weapon that causes great pain either have no conception of what warfare is, or else are just all-around pacifists anyway. But their argument is against warfare itself, not against this particular weapon.

A weapon that incapacitates the enemy at a range of two kilometers without killing or permanently maiming him, is something like a "humane" weapon of mass destruction. Whoever invented this thing deserves some credit.

As for the possibility that such a weapon might be used against rioters--well, how big a riot are we talking about if a weapon with a range of two kilometers must be used?

I am not sure what "right" critics imagine they might be deprived of unfairly by such a weapon. Is there a Constitutional right to riot? I think the Constitution mentions the right of peaceful assembly.

Is someone planning to riot some time in the future? Is this something that is on the liberal or progressive agenda? If so, this is something the rest of us would like to know.

[Dr. Shane]

Before we worry too much about the rights of rioters we should visit the statistics of how many innocent people are killed by riots and how much personal property is destroyed or stolen during riots.

[Restin]

It would seem that many of us of the SDA church are living in a schism between our beliefs about the end times and what happens in real life of world affairs and politics. Just how do you suppose the American military is going to be the teeth and claws of the dragon (the papacy) in the endtimes? By some kind of magic wand? She will FORCE ALL (all the millions of citizens who live here) both great and small to worship the beast and accept it's mark. Such hesitance that the USA is developing the ways and means to do that!

[Ron Lambert]

Restin, the big problem with your position is presumption. We aren't there at the commencement of end-time events yet, and like many SDAs, you seem to have a mistaken or simplistic view of how various things will develope into end-time conditions and events. You do not seem to appreciate that there will be a process by which we get from here to there, that may be complicated rather than simple and linear.

For example, some SDAs think that because the final persecuting power during the final conflict will be religious-based, therefore they should avoid voting for Republicans now, because the Republican party is more favorable to religion at present. They ignore the many areas where the Republican positions are presently in harmony with Christian values, and vote for Democratic candidates despite their general support for abortion on demand, gay marriage, and for laws that hinder the free exercise and expression of Christian belief.

I have long thought it incredible how some people have let Satan deceive them into voting against those who support right things in harmony with Christian values, and voting in favor of those who are openly opposed to Christian values, as if that could somehow be wise and righteous.

The Bible gives numerous examples that show it is not always wrong to use military force and go to war. On numerous occasions, God commanded Israel to go forth and do battle. For that matter, there was war in Heaven. In a world inwhich good and evil are in conflict, some times it is right to fight, and wrong not to.

Some day the power that the USA will turn into will speak as a dragon, commanding people to worship the Beast. Some day the military will be used to enforce a universal death decree against all who do not join in the apostasy of the end-time. But right now, the USA is using its military to free the formerly oppressed women of Afghanistan, overthrow the religious tyrants who tried to make everyone live like it was the thirteenth century, and encouraged jihad against the West. Right now the USA is using its military to oppose and break up the terrorist organizations that engage in the mass murder of civilians deliberately. Right now the USA is using its military to bring the chance for freedom of choice to the people of Iraq, freeing them of the tyrants that ruled them, holding at bay the violent insurgents who try to resist freedom and democracy, and allowing the people of Iraq to vote for their own government. Right now the USA is using its military to promote democracy, freedom, and religious tolerance throughout the world.

To confuse the USA and its military as they are now with what they shall become in the future according to Bible prophecy, and to support those forces in society that would weaken America's commitment to expanding freedom throughout the world, is to commit the abomination of calling good evil and evil good.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

the USA is developing the ways and means to do that!

---

It seems to me that those wanting to "FORCE" compliance had all the means necessary in ancient Babylon (Dan.3, 6) For thousands of years, oppressors of all stripes have hardly lacked for the means to force compliance.

For too long, SDA's have relied on a mis-interpretation by an 19th century non-SDA to cause them to obsess about the United States.

So concerned about the joining of church and state--which is both dangerous and evil--some ignore the depredations of the anti-church states. The gulag and the concentration camps, the killing fields of Cambodia and the mass graves of Iraq were carried out by anti-religious ideologies. To quote an article on the subject "The evils done in the name of God shrink before the atrocities committed in the name of godlessness."

My local sheriff's department, in a rural county, has little high-tech gear, but they have plenty to arrest and lock up anyone who breaks the law. I've met the sheriff, and he's all right. Could he become the instrument of oppression? Sure. Should I approach him with suspicion now?

It's really interesting. The Romans did some pretty hideous things to Christians, yet we don't see the constant concern about Roman power in the NT that is so common among SDA's today. Maybe that's because they realized that "we wrestle not with flesh and blood." All the powers of this earth can (and someday will) become instruments of the devil, whether high-tech weapons or box cutters.

It's possible I may someday develop an auto-immune disease that will cause me great suffering and even death. In the meantime, I need my immune system and do my best to keep it strong. It's still my best protection against disease.

[Nicodema]

The thing is, these seemingly religious people are just as godless. They merely expend effort to put up appearances to the contrary. The appearance of religion means nothing as to whether they are godless or not. Actual atheism under a profession to the contrary is just as ruthless as the gulags, etc. of real atheism because NEITHER is being held to any higher accountability (the former thinks "god" is a concept they shape and control; the latter discard it entirely -- same difference) and both are without hope.

Think about it ...

[there buster]

I agree with you in substance, Nico, but disagree with one point. No one is truly godless. Stalin was his own god. Most of us are. That's the real struggle of the Christian life: the struggle over the throne.

[Ron Lambert]

No, Nicodema, we are not there yet. It is not right to assume that people of other churches are not sincere and genuine Christians who act conscientiously according to what they understand to be right principles. It is judgmental to say "these seemingly religious people are just as godless." I find plenty of evidence that God is still ministering to people in other denominations, and is demonstrably working through them to oppose evil and promote good. I look at the Christian Creationists of other denominations that now far outshine Adventism in upholding the truth of Creation--frankly, doing the work that God gave to us to do in the first angel's message, and doing it better than we have been.

We need to remember that we SDAs are not all of spiritual Israel. All the other churches of Christendom are a part of spiritual Israel too. Our role as SDAs is to serve our brethren and sisters in other denominations as a prophet within Israel. Ours is an Elijah movement. We cannot fulfill the role the Lord has given us if we call all our brethren and sisters in other churches "godless."

Nor should we cynically assume that all political leaders who profess Christian faith and values are hypocrites. Some of them, many of them, perhaps even most of them, are really sincere, and are seeking to accomplish good.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

No, Nicodema, we are not there yet. It is not right to assume that people of other churches are not sincere and genuine Christians who act conscientiously according to what they understand to be right principles. It is judgmental to say "these seemingly religious people are just as godless."

---

If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it. However, I cannot see any consistency in considering those who are actively engaged in manufacturing weapons of this nature "Christians who act conscientiously according to what they understand to be right principles." It is not rocket science to recognize that the administration of deliberate torture is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, and I will not be shamed out of exercising discernment between truth and error.

Quote:

---

I find plenty of evidence that God is still ministering to people in other denominations,

---

Most assuredly -- and so do I. But they are not people in pursuit of better techniques for torturing their neighbors.

Quote:

---

and is demonstrably working through them to oppose evil and promote good.

---

Yes, through spreading the gospel and living out the love of Jesus Christ in their lives, not killing, maiming, and inventing instruments of cruel and unusual torture.

Quote:

---

I look at the Christian Creationists of other denominations that now far outshine Adventism in upholding the truth of Creation--frankly, doing the work that God gave to us to do in the first angel's message, and doing it better than we have been.

---

I look at them as trying to do that, but totally misunderstanding the reality of Creation as presented Biblically: namely, that science cannot by searching find out the origins of life and it is a denial of faith and of the explicit statements of (the book of) Hebrews in that regard to attempt to use sloppy pseudo-science to construct a case for Creation. The Bible clearly marks this as a matter of faith alone (see Hebrews 11:2). It's a shame their zeal is misplaced and they inadvertently harm the cause they are seeking to uphold. Seems that way with a lot of folks, really.

Quote:

---

We need to remember that we SDAs are not all of spiritual Israel. All the other churches of Christendom are a part of spiritual Israel too.

---

Am I a newcomer here that you do not know me or my posts or my beliefs, Ron? I don't hold these notions you are expending great effort in countering here. I would be one of the first to uphold "other sheep have I, not of this fold..." and probably to extend it further than most would dare or dream. I'm not talking about denominations. I'm talking about the difference between Christianity, in any form, and the lying schemes of a spiritually predatory, political Dominionism. Am I communicating clearly yet? And I MUST make those distinctions, precisely for the sake of those sincere and wonderful Christians who are being sucked into the vortex of the beast because they trust in the lying lips of their leaders and allow themselves to be blinded to the inherent contradictions between faith and love on the one hand and wicked, self-serving, totalitarian, imperialist pursuits on the other. They've been fed eschatological lies to confuse them concerning the aims of these godless machinators, and without a voice in the wilderness to cry aloud and spare not, they will meet with their destruction when it all DOES "go down" in the end.

Laugh if you want, disagree if you must, but I aim to be one such voice, as my Maker, the King of Heaven, has ordained. If you think MY zeal misplaced then I solicit your prayers, but only if you are willing to lay precious, PRECIOUS self and its opinions aside, and plead earnestly that the will of GOD our Commander, and not Ron Lambert (nor any other human being), be fulfilled in my life.

Quote:

---

We cannot fulfill the role the Lord has given us if we call all our brethren and sisters in other churches "godless."

Nor should we cynically assume that all political leaders who profess Christian faith and values are hypocrites. Some of them, many of them, perhaps even most of them, are really sincere, and are seeking to accomplish good.

---

Again, straw men as far as I'm concerned -- or rather, straw men if they are used as arguments against me, for as it happens, I agree with your statements above. You are mistaken if you think I meant anything that would require these things as counter-arguments for they are also part of what I believe. I think you misunderstood me to be talking about "all" political leaders who profess faith and values -- I was not -- and you misunderstood me to be talking about Christians at all -- I was not. I was talking about wolves, not sheep. Tares, not wheat. I know not by name but by fruit. The fruit of bitterness, selfishness, death, warmongering, schadenfreude and pain-dealing comes NOT from the Tree of Life.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I agree with you in substance, Nico, but disagree with one point. No one is truly godless. Stalin was his own god. Most of us are. That's the real struggle of the Christian life: the struggle over the throne.

---

While I agree with you and Nico in substance, I wonder if Nico has the better understanding here...Concider the

problem with this thought- "No one is truely godless"...Ed, Perhaps you can clarify your thought(s) as I present to you some of mine own and we will see if there is some consenses.....

It occurs to me that there are some presumptions [with this-" No one is truly godless."] that are erroneous...For example, Many Christians think that there is a conscious deliberate constant struggle for God and His principles to reign in the human. I think that this is just plain erroneous. Most non-Christians/agnositics/atheists will tell you very plainly, "I don't think about Him constantly. On occassion, as a passing thought, perhaps...but a struggle??? You presume too much!" Maybe there was a struggle for every Christian who be came a Christian, but for the non-christian, except for the intruding thought of God or becoming a Christian, what influence is there to cause the struggle? Sure the Holy Spirit is there, but again, how much is He allowed to intrude upon the non-Christians thoughts?

While Stalin may have been his own god, did he truely believe that he was capable of godlike powers or did he believe

that his responibilitys of goverment allowed him control over who would live and die in his society? IOWs was his thinking centered upon society and it's benefit/threats to it or was he thinking that he was as good as god and could prove it by regiening over his country?

Of course, this depends upon the concept of what a person actually thinks of God and what the principles of God actually are. [Am I confusing you yet?? I think I am confusing myself! ]

And perhaps this is an aside to this discussion. I would like to see a discussion on how the current US would turn into the dragon of revelation and what steps need to be taken to get there....And I do think that we are much closer than we were 10 years ago...in case anyone was wondering...

[Bravus]

I think this point has been made before, but maybe it bears repeating: it could be that thinking about these issues from the prophetic perspective is not the most useful approach.

Does it *matter* if these weapons, and the use of torture, for example, presage the Beast Power? Can't we protest against them *just because they're bad*? In some ways it doesn't matter whether the administration claims to be Christian or not (except to the extent that it brings Christ's name into disrepute). The fact that they go shopping around for countries in which torture is legal (or at least tolerated) and fly people there ought to be appalling to us *in its own right*.

I don't really *care* what the administration is claiming, I care about what it's doing, and what it's doing is eroding some of the progress in outlawing torture that has been gained with incredible pain and cost over the last 50 years or so. What it's doing is making humanity more savage and less civilised *as a matter of policy*.

I see ample reason for protest there.

[Nicodema]

I completely agree with you Bravus -- evil and wrong are evil and wrong, Beast/Beast presage/Beast rehearsal OR NOT. And they are legitimate reasons in and of themselves to hold up the light of truth and oppose the lies of error and evil.

Mr. Lambert mentioned Elijah. Might I point out that Elijah is the one who pushed for the Mt. Carmel showdown between the popular view of God ("Baal" simply means LORD) and the One he knew as the REAL True & Living God. He wasn't out there trying to make the two out to be the same thing. Elijah wasn't preaching "peace and safety, sshhh, go to sleep, all is well." He was stirring the nest bigtime on Who was the real God -- and he was up against all of Baal's priests and apparently felt very alone as God had to come tell him hey kid, you are not the ONLY one! I have My Reserves!

But anyway ...

[there buster]

Quote:

---

What it's doing is making humanity more savage and less civilised *as a matter of policy*.

---

Seems a bit over the top.

[Neil D]

Ed,

quite honesty, I don't think so....

Concider, the OT was into being gracious in thier relationships...It became less during the NT, and nearly non-existant between nations during the 1500 years since the NT, although practiced between people...Now days, between people, there is less curtesy, graciousness being exercised[i see some definate irony as I write this to you ], and now the US has a policy of attacking a country PRE-EMPTIVElY [sp]....Graciousness and curtesy, what little there is, is waining.....

If there is no graciousness and curtesy, what is left but to be less civilized and more savage and to show 'one-up-manship"?

[Bravus]

Using torture as a matter of policy counts as making humanity less civilised, in my opinion. (It grows out of an us-and-them mentality and out of dehumanising the enemy and out of aboslute confidence that one is right and out of a sense of manifest destiny.)

When this administration upholds human rights and due process for *everyone* I will acknowledge any of their other claims. As long as they use torture, and prolonged detention without the right to counsel, they are eroding civilisation.

[Nicodema]

I totally "second" what Bravus posted. It's not about what they are claiming are their aims but what they are actually doing, and we can see this with our own eyes. Our nation is in a unique position to set the world standard for humane treatment and instead we (the nation) are fooling ourselves about what's right, and hoping the rest of the world will be fooled with us if we just keep beating the broken-record drum long enough and loudly enough. We seem to think we can drown out truth doing that. We need to think again.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Using torture as a matter of policy counts as making humanity less civilised, in my opinion.

---

I would tend to go further than characterizing it as "less civilised"...brutal is more to my liking...but that I think is an judgement call. The lack of common curtesy is 'less civilised' in my opinion....The fact that our language is less than gracious, more raw and cruel shows a 'less than civilized' nature. But again, these are judgement calls.

Quote:

---

. As long as they use torture, and prolonged detention without the right to counsel, they are eroding civilisation.

---

No arguement here...In fact, I am in agreement with you...

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Concider, the OT was into being gracious in thier relationships...It became less during the NT, and nearly non-existant between nations during the 1500 years since the NT

---

If you're serious about that reading of history, then there's no point of continuing this discussion. The Assyrians, just as one example of the ancient world were as rapacious a culture as ever existed.

When Recab and Baanah brought David the head of Ishbosheth, they expected they would be rewarded, that was the gracious sort of relationship they had in ancient times.

If you think it more civilized to let a hostage taker kill his hostage than take out the hostage taker, then we revert to ante-deluvian chaos. If you think it's more humane to shoot that hostage taker, risking permanent injury or death, rather than cause him temporary pain but spare his life, please don't practice such compassion on me.

And if your reading of current events is as accurate as your history, no wonder we disagree. You confront me with a choice, what you say about the past vs. the written record.

Clearly, one of us is out of touch with reality. At which point, discussion is useless. I make it a point not to waste time.

[Dr. Shane]

Christians of other denominations do not get a fair shake with many Adventists. Many Adventists have a supiority complex and view other Christians with great suspiction. This is especially true when they speak out on political matters. It seems many Adventists in North America are actually embarassed for being Adventists and appaulled when those of other denominations speak freely about their faith.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

If you're serious about that reading of history, then there's no point of continuing this discussion.

---

Hmmmmm...first words out of your mouth, and already you are out to undermine any sort of discussion and any sort of friendly relationship.....

Quote:

---

If

you think

it more civilized to let a hostage taker kill his hostage

---

Quote:

---

And if

your reading

of current events

is as accurate as your history, no wonder we disagree

. You confront me with a choice, what you say about the past vs. the written record.

---

Quote:

---

Clearly, one of us is out of touch with reality. At which point, discussion is useless. I make it a point not to waste time.

---

In the course of disagreeing, it appears that I have pushed a button on you....again...Such was not my intention.

I was trying to be as friendly and hold a friendly disagreemnet....but it appears that again, I have pushed a button. I am sorry for trying to hold a discussion with you. I am obviously in error in attempting to have a friendly discussion and attempt to bridge the gap for any decent relationship.

Since I obviously push your buttons, please let's just not attempt to disscuss anything. Life is just too short for me to be as argumentative as I have been in the past, and I just plain don't want to do that any more....

I am sorry for disagreeing with you....and attempting to be nice during my discussion with you....

[there buster]

You don't push my buttons.

But if man tells me the moon is made of green cheese, and means it, I can't take him seriously.

If you really believe that ancient times were more "gracious," well, you can't expect me to take you seriously.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

If you really believe that ancient times were more "gracious," well, you can't expect me to take you seriously.

---

There are a lot of different ways to inquire as to how a person arrived at a conclusion without being abusive or talking down to him, Ed. You are a writer and you know this, or at least I assume you do....

I have obviously pushed those buttons again, Ed and released the worst part of you on to this forum. For this, I appologize. But I refuse to take part in being arguementative again...Again, I appologise for pushing your buttons. I know, you don't think I do, but obviously when you can not post to me as an equal adult member of the human race,..well as you have said...there is no reason for us to talk to each other...

Again, I am sorry I bring out the worst in you.....I hope that someday, you can overcome this defect in your character...

And as an aside, check the SDA commentary on 2 Kings 4:29. You might get a different perspective.

Have a nice day...