Al Qaeda Serves Baked Boys To Their Families For Lunch

Originally posted by stumason

Dj, you and others are MISSING THE POINT. The debate has no gone so far off on a tangent I gave up.

The bottom line is (and why I personally don't believe it) is that it claims AQ was in Baghdad in 1991 conducting the same level of intimidation and tactics as it does now.

BO XIAN and others argued the toss with me over this, yet none of them could offer any credible evidence AQ was in Iraq in 1991.

But, no one listens to me anyway.........

I think folks MIGHT pay more attention if you had your facts straighter. Though hereon, probably not. Facts are not facts hereon unless they fit a certain majority narrow rigid bias, it seems. Sheesh.

Actually, There is considerable proof that Saddam was aiding Al Qaeda--or whatever the group was called at the time--with training camps in Iraq for quite a number of years before the wars. Such info has come from high ranking Saddam loyalists as well as Kurds and others.

And, there is even a credible report that Osama Bin Laden came with great pomp and circumstance (in terms of quality transport) to review the training camp(s) at one point in time--with Saddam as host.

But I realize such evidence can't be true because the majority group-think hereon declares it false in their great blind wisdom.

I realize that down thread from the post I'm replying to, you finally realized that you were arguing against a straw dog because you misperceived what was stated in the article.

Originally posted by djohnsto77

I don't see any reason to not believe the story, given the history of what al Qaeda has done, it doesn't seem farfetched at all.

This fact--vividly reinforced and repeatedly demonstrated fact--seems to be totally absent from the mass majority's group-think awareness hereon.

How do you explain that?

Please avoid saying I'm the psychologist/sociologist . . . regardless of all that training, it's a bit mystifying to me at some level . . .

What triggers such blindness?

What reinforces it?

How are so many redundant facts and to much redundant evidence from such an enormously wide diversity of sources seem to be so TOTALLY missed by so many otherwise sane and bright folks?

Is the puppet masters passivity mind control electronic waves or toothpaste or whatever . . . REAL? and THAT effective?

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I believe he reported on a source whom he thought was credible.

Thought. Thought

Thats the key word here.

Since when has factual news reporting been about what the reporter thinks?

Isn't news reporting supposed to be about facts?

This story was presented as fact. Its no such thing. Its even turned out that the guy who reported it says it could be an urban legend for all he knows.

So what makes this story more valid than other various Urban Legends of lore?

[edit on 22/0707/07 by neformore]

WHAT BRAZEN HYPOCRISY!

WITHOUT A SHRED OF SOLID VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION

YOU

merely

THINK

that it CANNOT be true!

What brazen absurdity.

1. Iraqi investigatory official is BRIEFING AMERICAN MILITARY OFFICIALS ON WHAT THE INVESTIGATOR DISCOVERED ABOUT THE CASE.

2. THAT is CONSIDERABLY above neighborhood gossip commonly considered equal to an urban legend.

3. You show not a remotest whiff of a Phoenix fog's worth of evidence that your THOUGHT processes are

AS

BASED ON REASONABLE EVIDENCE AND FACT

AS Yon's story is.

You were not there. You were not on the scene. You did not personally investigate the story . . . etc.

yet

YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! being the massively lofty expert that you are on such matters--from EXTENSIVE INCOUNTRY experience and training . . .

YOU

just . . .

THINK

it absolutely is impossible . . .

YOU

merely THINK that it absolutely CANNOT BE TRUE and MUST be rubbish, BS etc.

Color me underwhelmed by your THOUGHT processes.

When one considers the tons of

MUSLIM DOCUMENTS

DOCUMENTING a similar level of brutality and gore

FROM THE FIRST YEARS of Islam . . .

such a brazen silly "THOUGHTless" ASSUMPTION on your part is all the more

SHOCKINGLY MYSTIFYING.



[edit on 22/7/2007 by BO XIAN]

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Still though, the bottom line here is the tremendous logical fallacy of intimidating someone into being a freedom fighter. Terrorist/freedom fighter groups are only effective when they have a passion for what they are doing, not when they've been scared into it.

This issue wasn't handled well in brief quotes. Reading extensively on the website etc. it seems clear

that the families involved had refused to have their boys recruited.

So, Alqaeda chose to make a vivid example of them for other families--as to what's likely to happen if your family refuses to allow their children to become warrior Jihadi's or even suicide bombers.

This sort of tactic to intimidate whole villages and tribes is commonplace there as a means of heavy handed coercion as well as to intimidate whole neighborhoods, groups, villages into compliance or at least passive acquesence.

Jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that it was a critical issue of a "fact destroying" logical fallacy is nonsense.


[edit on 22/7/2007 by BO XIAN]

OK.

Lets get some stuff clear.

I'm not a Muslim. I'm not a Christian. I don't subscribe to any particular religion. I actually believe its all superstitious nonsense, and that living life based on whats written in a book is nuts. I don't see people living their lives based on Jeffrey Archer novels.

I don't "apologise" for people who do blatantly vicious and horrific things in the name of their supposed religion, be they christian or muslim.

Terrorists are terrorists. They do not represent a whole section of a particular population. If that were the case then all Christians would be terrorists because of the actions of the IRA/UDF/UVF etc, and all Muslims would be terrorists because of Al-Quaeda.

And plainly they are not.

No particular religion is more vicious than another. If you believe that then as far as I'm concerned you live in la-la land with the fairies. The focus may be on the muslims now, but christianity, and people of the christian faith has committed more than its fair share of atrocities over the years, as I've detailed previously. If you can't see that, or wish to try and paint those people as none-christian then you are in denial and trying to re-write history.

In essence you are judging by "standards" today, without looking at a truly historical perspective.

Now onto this story - again.

I'm not a journalist. I'm not in a position to write a story and send it out onto the Associated Press circuit and see if someone picks it up. I'm a person writing on a messageboard and giving my opinion. As such I don't have a responsibility - although I do try my best - to establish the facts of a situtation before I release something.

And yet, heres this guy - this Micheal Yon, he IS a journalist. And yet he released a story that he admits might be urban legend.

Thats not factual reporting. Thats reporting something he believes might be true.

Its not News Reporting, its Views reporting.

If you can't see a problem with that, then what more can I say?

I'm offereing my opinion. My opinion is that the story is not valid. Sorry if you don't like that, but then I don't like your hysterical typing style, I think its over dramatic and pointless.

Now, some facts. Firstly, lets deal with your repeated claims that Hitler was not a Christian.

He was baptized a Catholic, attended a monastery school early in life, and was a communicant and altar boy as a youth. During his years as Chancellor and then dictator of Nazi Germany, he was never excommunicated or condemned, even though the Vatican knew much of his policies and activities. The only major complaints from Rome regarded interference in Church matters. And those were largely silenced by the 1933 Concordat with the Vatican, under Pope Pius XII, which to Hitler meant that the Catholic Church recognized the Nazi state.

taken from

Adolph Hitler

Adolf Hitler was brought up in his family's religion by his Roman Catholic parents. According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father, though nominally a Catholic, was a freethinker, while his mother was a practicing Catholic.[2] In his childhood, Hitler had admired the pomp of Catholic ritual and the hierarchical organization of the clergy. Later, he drew on these elements, organizing his party along hierarchical lines and including liturgical forms into events or using phraseology taken from hymns

taken from

Adolph Hitlers Religious Beliefs

Theres more, but I'm sure you can use Google. You might not like the fact that Hitler was baptized as a Christian, but he was, and if you wish to imply that - because of the actions of Al-Quaeda - all muslims are savages then you need to take a long look at the Christian faith because of Hitlers very existence.

Now for Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, who you stated to have been in co-operation.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Taken from Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

Osama bin Laden swore vengeance against America if Iraq was attacked, and demanded that the Muslim world stand in solidarity with the Muslim people of Iraq. In very clear words, Osama bin Laden told the people of Iraq to rise up against both American aggression and against "socialist" Saddam Hussein. If the translations that were provided were reliable, there is no ambiguity in bin Laden's words on the matter. So much, it seems, for Powell's case that Hussein and bin Laden are working together.

Taken from Osama Rallies Muslims, Condemns Hussein

It is unlikely that the decidedly secular Baathist regime--which has savagely suppressed Islamists within Iraq--would be able to maintain close links with Osama bin Laden and his followers. In fact, Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal, his country's former intelligence chief, noted that bin Laden views Saddam Hussein "as an apostate, an infidel, or someone who is not worthy of being a fellow Muslim" and that bin Laden had offered in 1990 to raise an army of thousands of mujaheddin fighters to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.

Taken from Wait a sec, Bin Laden hates Hussein

Again, I'm sure you can use Google. I'd point you particulalrly at the 9/11 commission that also drew the conclusion that there were no ties between the two.

You will note that in both cases, I have provided links from differing sources. There are more I could quote.

Finally,

The assertion that someone who lives in England and had grandparents and relatives who fought and died against the Nazis might actually prefer to have lived under such a regime is a blatant smear, totally ludicrous and is taken with the utter contempt it deserves.







[edit on 23/0707/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by neformore

I'm not a Muslim. I'm not a Christian. I don't subscribe to any particular religion. I actually believe its all superstitious nonsense, and that living life based on whats written in a book is nuts. I don't see people living their lives based on Jeffrey Archer novels.

Actually, it appears that your RELIGION IS much more in the ball park of fierce atheistic hostility to all OTHER RELIGIONS--what the researchers have come to call--indiscrimminently anti-religious. And, actually, you do seem to demonstrate, depict the typical stances and intensities with those stances of such INDISCRIMMINENTLY ANTI-RELIGIONISTS. Given that my dissertation was in this ball park . . . you are welcome to cite this as a personal communication etc. sort of REF, if needed.

I don't "apologise" for people who do blatantly vicious and horrific things in the name of their supposed religion, be they christian or muslim.

Could have fooled me. I read a ton of your writings hereon as an apology for the Jihadi's. Your words seem to be fiercely in defense of them and their perspective--at least of their very sympathetic and supportive cohorts. AND, your words seem to be fiercely hostile to all those who OPPOSE them.

Evidently, you are using a RUBBER DICTIONARY when you declare that you "don't 'apologise' for . . . " such people. Your writings persistently demonstrate and read otherwise.

But, it seems that you may prefer that I classify such rants as merely hostility to Christianity. I can certainly add that into the data base but it's not an adequate explanation by a long shot.

Terrorists are terrorists. They do not represent a whole section of a particular population. If that were the case then all Christians would be terrorists because of the actions of the IRA/UDF/UVF etc, and all Muslims would be terrorists because of Al-Quaeda.

Well, that's a relief of a paragraph.

So many of your rants seem to be decidedly of a quite different ilk. I suspect if we ran them through a dozen independent blind assessors or maybe a Martian computer program . . . the verdict would come out contrary to the above paragraph.

The tone, word choices, sentence structures often depict SEEMINGLY ALMOST ALL CHRISTIANS as more or less uniformly and outrageously horrid and the Jihadi's as a microscopic small minority of an enormously peace loving philosophical system. This rather contrary to the vast majority of historical and currently available evidence.

And plainly they are not.

No. Not so fast . . . there's no 'plainly' to it when it comes to your writings on that issue. You MAKE IT 'SOUND' LIKE virtually all Christians past, present and probably future are horrific and virtually all Jihadi's are MERELY a handful of misunderstood young adult horny men with a desperate need to let off steam. Admittedly, that's a very rough paraphrasing from my perspective. However, not without tons of cause.

No particular religion is more vicious than another.

Then quit writing about Jihadi's and Christians as though you fiercely believe otherwise.

If you believe that then as far as I'm concerned you live in la-la land with the fairies.

I've had no delusions about where you thought I lived for a long time.

The focus may be on the muslims now, but christianity, and people of the christian faith has committed more than its fair share of atrocities over the years, . . . .

Hmmmm . . . 'more than it's fair share . . . '

Uhhhhh, just who is it that has judged, assessed, decided what a "fair share" of atrocities would be?

The New Testament Scriptures are rather clear--ANY would be too much. Yet you seem to have determined--to insist--CONTRARY TO THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT--that anyone who labels themselves a Christian or who is even temporarily labeled as a Christian by any other group--must be a Christian for the purposes of your diatribes.

That's utter HOGWASH.

If you can't see that, or wish to try and paint those people as none-Christian, then you are in denial and trying to re-write history.

Evidently you are unaware of what the word CHRISTIAN even means--it's etiology, origins, primary, first, most important meaning.

It means "Christ-like."

And you insist that HITLER was CHRIST-LIKE???????

And you want me to consider such assertions rational and HISTORICALLY FACTUAL????

Oh dear!

You probably expect one to gullibly swallow that blathering UNfactual HOGWASH with a straight face???

I think guffawing to the max is a MOST inadequate response.

As to your relatives fighting and dying against Hitler. Wonderful. Congrats and thanks tons. No small number of my cohorts did, too--in behalf of good old Mother England, I might add.

However, not so fast . . . you were WHOLESALE SLAMMING THE USA AND BRITAIN AS CHRISTIAN NATIONS FOR THEIR 'BLOODY' 'HORRIFIC' FIGHT AGAINST HITLER!!!

Seemed rather logical to me that the only logical conclusion was that you were mystifyingly in support of Hitler and thought that WWI and WWII were horribly UNjust wars that Britain and the USA should not have fought. I don't know what OTHER logical conclusion you'd hoped such a sentence might trigger.

Words have consequences. That was a reasonably logical conclusion from what you wrote. But you are welcome to retract it. It sounded rather . . . beyond . . . absurd, at the time.

But one should not jump mental tracks willy nilly. It can lead to the funny farm. One can't have it both ways on such clear-cut matters as more or less pure horrific evil and survival against that evil.

Either Hitler was horrific or the "Christian" Nations fighting against him were MORE horrific. Which was it in your mind?



[edit on 23/7/2007 by BO XIAN]

Check this site for photos of Hitler and Nazi Germany as it relates to Christianity.

Nazi Artifacts

One of Hitlers Watercolors

It doesnt really matter if we regard Hitler and the Nazis as Christinas what is important is that the regarded themselves that way.

The same goes for any group of people acting in the name of Christ throughout history and the same goes for Islam and Judaism as well.

Nutter Jihadis of today as just the same as Nutter Christians in the past.

[edit on 7/23/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

No particular religion is more vicious than another.

Actually, that's not historically nor currently nor objectively true.

That's either a blatantly uninformed wholesale bias or a deliberate falsification of facts.

There is NO comparison to the wholesale good (such as hospitals, schools, community development around the world over the centuries and especially the last 200 years--by AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY--absolutely NO comparison.

Jihadi driven Islam has been rapidly building schools since the Saudi's earned so much oil moneies courtesy of Nixon . . . and the puppet masters . . . but those schools were not set-up primarily to benefit the populace as much as--certainly not more than--they were set up to RECRUIT more blood-letting Jihadi's.

Basically, there is NO comparison.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Will and Ariel Durant's life long summarizing of all recorded history. There's a slight chance it would be very educational for you to familiarize yourself with such factual data.

If you believe that then as far as I'm concerned you live in la-la land with the fairies.

Uhhhhh, not really. In terms of factual evidence and awareness of factuall evidence and support of same . . . I think that slam would more logically adhere to someone else.

but christianity, and people of the christian faith has committed more than its fair share of atrocities over the years, as I've detailed previously.

NO! As you've distorted and falsely accused previously.

If you can't see that, or wish to try and paint those people as none-christian then you are in denial and trying to re-write history.

In essence you are judging by "standards" today, without looking at a truly historical perspective.

NOT AT ALL. The historical FOUNDING DOCUMENTS lay out quite clearly--as they have for 2,000+ years . . .

WHAT IS CHRIST-LIKE OR "CHRISTIAN" AND WHAT IS NOT.

YOU are attempting to rewrite history by insisting that your RUBBER DICTIONARY daffy-nitions should hold sway for the purposes of very lopsided, UNfactual, UNhistorical diatribes.

I'm not a journalist. I'm not in a position to write a story and send it out onto the Associated Press circuit and see if someone picks it up. I'm a person writing on a messageboard and giving my opinion. As such I don't have a responsibility - although I do try my best - to establish the facts of a situtation before I release something.

Ahhhhhh, but your word choices, the intensity of your flat, consistently unqualified-absolutist statements indicate otherwise. They seem to indicate that you expect us to treat your rants as factual--VERY factual, in fact. LOL.

And yet, heres this guy - this Micheal Yon, he IS a journalist. And yet he released a story that he admits might be urban legend.

What a misleading assertion.

MIGHT be an urban legend. That is, in terms of proof vs non-proof. He's merely affirming that he REPORTED what he was told--and that he personally did not go to each principal in the situation and veryify each data point. That's all that assertion of his means.

The FACTS of his reporting remain--that the MOST PROBABLE, MOST ACCURATE, SIMPLEST OCCAM'S RAZOR sort of conclusions that one would MOST LOGICALLY draw--are that

1. The Iraqi investigator had investigated a true and repeated sort of phenomena.

2. The Iraqi investigator was very soberly and with dismay telling the facts as he knew them to his Iraqi and USA military superiors--not folks one would want to be caught lying to.

One can deny the above--but such DENIAL is the OPPOSITE OF DENIAL OF IGNORANCE.

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me. luke 19-27


[edit on 7/23/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

[edit on 7/23/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow

Check this site for photos of Hitler and Nazi Germany as it relates to Christianity.

It doesnt really matter if we regard Hitler and the Nazis as Christinas what is important is that the regarded themselves that way.

Oh really?

It does NOT matter?

To whom?

To Christ?

I beg to differ. He's a Friend of mine and I assure you it matters to Him enormously.

The FOUNDING DOCUMENTS are quite clear on the matter. Folks who persistently behave in a deliberately UNChrist-like way--UN-CHRISTIAN WAY--are to be forceably removed from the fellowship.

Now all kinds of such groups AVOID OBEYING THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS for various sociological and political reasons. But that does not change the facts of the FOUNDING DOCUMENTS AND THEIR EMPHATIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS. Nor does it change Christ's perspective as Almighty Founder of said faith.

But, you will discover His perspective on the matter in due course.

Do you REALLY believe that Hitler considered himself an authentic Christian???? Or even that the Roman political system considered him an authentic Christian????

And you want me to think of your postulations as logical and true! LOL.

Hitler worshipped satan, according to a number of experts.

That is rather 100% mutually exclusive with being a CHRISTIAN.

Regardless--HE BEHAVED THE OPPOSITE OF THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS' STANDARD.

His behaviors excluded him from the class of CHRIST-LIKE folks regardless of the labels.

Again--standing in a garage does NOT make you a car.

I beg to differ. He's a Friend of mine and I assure you it matters to Him enormously.

Oh great! Next time you talk to him, tell him he owes me 5 Bucks!!
That guy is always running around taking money from people!!
Oh and all your posts on here made my head spin!! I dont know where to start with you! Lets just say this, Hilter was doing the dirty work of the church. And they loved him for it, and still do. And umm Hilter wasnt a Satanist, he was christian just like you!! Seems most you christians are satan worshippers, oh but you call Satan God, and Jesus...

Originally posted by zysin5

Lets just say this, Hilter was doing the dirty work of the church. And they loved him for it, and still do. And umm Hilter wasnt a Satanist, he was christian just like you!! Seems most you christians are satan worshippers, oh but you call Satan God, and Jesus...

Some assertions are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

outrageously absurd . . .

That the most fitting response is . . . uhhhh . . .



and/or



or perhaps



It appears that I do not have sufficient shared vocabulary or experiences with you to have a very meaningful dialogue.

I would suggest fairly strongly that . . . use of George Kelly's construct grid might be of value in helping sort out your construct system more meaningfully and productively, effectively.

It currently appears to be in such a chaotic homoginized disarray as to be close to useless. That can get dangerous relatively fast if uncorrected for very long. On the other hand, sometimes it merely means that a group of folks will come around and take wonderful care of such a person in a very sheltered context.

A good website to sort out one's construct system on, for free is:

tiger.cpsc.ucalgary.ca...

It can be a bit complex and intimidating at first but is well worth persevering with.

Basically, when a construct system becomes so muddled that black = white; up = down; left = right etc. . . . the construct system--that value system with which we construe reality in the most basic of terms . . . but never with more than 26 constructs in any culture anywhere . . . and usually less than 15 . . .

anyway--when a construct system becomes so confused and muddles as the post I'm responding to indicates that the posters' construct system may well be, likely is . . .

then that construct system is in urgent need of revision, overhaul, recalibrating.

the WEBGRID III site is a great place for doing so. Just complete the grid as instructed and merely the doing of it will be a significant enough experience as to helpfully recalibrate your construct system. It won't quite force it--it would still be possible to come out with a very muddled system. But it would make it less likely that the muddled confusion of basic reality would endure quite so horribly and impractically.

Raud the Strong: Raud was a landowner in Norway who was put to death by (St.) Olaf Tryggvason for his loyalty to The Old Gods by having a snake forced down his throat. Rauds lands were then confiscated in the name of the king and his monks.

Eyvind Kinnrifi: Olaf tortured him to death by placing a bowl of red-hot embers on his stomach until his body burst open. Eyvind’s crime was a steadfast loyalty to the Old Gods.

Guthroth: One of the upland minor kings. Guthroth had to the audacity to make a speech opposing the policies of Olaf Tryggvason, who at the time was busy killing people who did not want to become Christian. For exercising his Gods given rights to worship his tribal Gods, Guthroth was captured and his tongue was cut out.


If your ancestors came from Northern Europe you are a Christian because you ancestors where tortured or starved into conversion, to believe otherwise is a foolish and a whitewash of history.



[edit on 7/23/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

I've just re-read all of this thread.

So far I have been told that I am the following

In Denial
Anti-christian
A Terrorist Appeaser
I'm akin to a Nazi
I'm a muslim
I need my belief system changing
I need to review how I assimilate evidence.
My aethisim is a religion (I was a muslim not long ago!)
I've been told that I hate/loathe and wish to eradicate from the planet people with a certain perspective.

All in glorious hysterical periodic caps, repeatedly and at long length. And I'm tired of it.

So I'll summarise and then be done.


Michael Yon reports that he has been told that some kids were baked by Al-Quaeda. He doesn't know if its a Urban Legend or not.

I happen to believe that the essence of good journalism is hard evidence and multiple independant corrobarative sources. This hasn't been provided in this case. I also believe a story of this magnitude, were it true and could be proven as so, would be all over the mainstream media. As such I think the Urban Legend hypothesis fits the story nicely.

My opinion on that does not fit into other peoples sense of reality, and as such that - combined with my views that the major religions are as bad as each other when it comes to blood letting, and that no individual or group is better than another - apparently makes me all of the above.

Originally posted by neformore
I've just re-read all of this thread.

So far I have been told that I am the following

In Denial
Anti-christian
A Terrorist Appeaser
I'm akin to a Nazi
I'm a muslim
I need my belief system changing
I need to review how I assimilate evidence.
My aethisim is a religion (I was a muslim not long ago!)
I've been told that I hate/loathe and wish to eradicate from the planet people with a certain perspective.



My opinion on that does not fit into other peoples sense of reality, and as such that - combined with my views that the major religions are as bad as each other when it comes to blood letting, and that no individual or group is better than another - apparently makes me all of the above.

I guess I will have to join you in all this.. The way BO XIAN puts it, I am all the above too..
When it comes down to it, BO XIAN is a bully who likes pushing people around with his/her intellect. I find most christians to be this way, as its why I can never have a peaceful discussion. Im always turned into the evil lover, or the person who harbors the vile, when honestly its not like that but so be it. I will be done here too, the thread is getting off topic and I dont want to derail this any further.. As its shown to me over and over agin, those who claim to follow the word of God, follow satan without even knowing it...

So far I have been told that I am the following

In Denial
Anti-christian
A Terrorist Appeaser
I'm akin to a Nazi
I'm a muslim
I need my belief system changing
I need to review how I assimilate evidence.
My aethisim is a religion (I was a muslim not long ago!)
I've been told that I hate/loathe and wish to eradicate from the planet people with a certain perspective.

I try hard, and USUALLY succeed at avoiding flat statements--especially that a given individual IS XYZ. What do I really know way across the electronic ethers.

I do, however try and be vivid enough about how a particular prose and perspective come across to me.

If folks wish to avoid coming across that way, they are certainly welcome to write differently or from a different perspective.

But it's . . . how was it put . . . a crock . . . to write fiercely with absolutist statements right and left (actually rather left) chronically in a particular direction of a particular type and intensity--all rather consistently

and THEN

WAIL AND WHINE when someone else notes that

that particular bent, direction, perspective IS that particular bent, direction, perspective.

I realize it's much more fun to throw rocks, rants and rubbish with impunity and irresponsibly with no resulting fitting "ouch" from the victims; no attribution and/or labeling for one's throwing. But it's not the way the universe works.

I think it's also slick to avoid the additional evidence that Michael Yon's report was consistent with similar other reports from a diversity of other sources.

I don't think it's good reality testing nor a good survival habit but it's . . . certainly sociologically slick to slip and slide around the facts of the evidence that way.

I see the mass group-think troup is in great form. Was it Mark Twain or Eleanor R who said something about that. I should check the hall wall at the college. I sometimes mix them up.

Ahhhh welllll . . . guess folks gotta be in practice to be nice compliant globalist serfs . . . or maybe globalist gestapo-in-training?? And group-think is certainly a key part of such training and roles.

I do find it extremely disingenuous for anyone on such forums to chronically throw very sharp rocks and rusty steel spikey things toward a given perspective and value orientation. . . and then for such a person to get all haughty and self-righteous about someone else from said value orientation responding in ANY forceful kind of way.

I guess the globalist mentality is that victims should just rollover and die a quiet death like "good little out-group nothings." Not really sorry to disappoint--but I wasn't made nor reared that way.

Besides, I want to be very sure to provide sufficient evidence for a trip to the guillotine, should Christ tary that long. I don't want any doubt of where I stand on such issues.

I have no intention of being on the side of the dastardly, evil, extrinsic-"so-called-believer" pseudo-Christians y'all wail and whine about so much.

I prefer to avoid offense. But I know that the truth IS, inherently, by nature offensive--especially to some perspectives and mentalities.

And, the truth is tooooo priceless to avoid. Besides, there's always that chance that eventually it will be lifegiving for those viewing it.

I can certainly understand from hard experiences of my own . . . sometimes, the truth is hard to take.

I almost missed this:

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me. luke 19-27

Those unfamiliar with Scripture--especially the Gospels, might miss that this verse is from a parable. It's called The Parable of the Ten Pounds.

The point of the parable is that Christians are to use the gifts and talents that God gives them--not squander them or avoid to use them; to invest them; multiply them etc.

In terms of any of the 'slaughter' mentioned in the New Testament . . . and Revelation has plenty . . .

Christians of my perspective construe that as slaughter by the Angelic forces of God--particularly slaughter of evil forces.

If one has a problem with that, I suggest that they take it up with THE BOSS.

There's still NO New Testament mandate for Christian believers slaughtering other humans in my repeated reading of the text.

Try again, hotshot.

Luke 19,11-27
The parable of money represents 2 principle ideas

1 Jesus is the Messiah-King: he understands his office to be a religious one despite the opposition of his contemporaries Luke 19, 12-15.
The reign of God is actually present in his person and teaching.
2 In exercising his Messianic kingship Jesus demands the response of men to the gifts of God.

When God/Jesus gives gifts, (the money) he expects something in return
(the slaying of his enemies) which would be anyone who does not acknowledge his kingship.

When God/Jesus gives gifts, (the money) he expects something in return
(the slaying of his enemies) which would be anyone who does not acknowledge his kingship.

Interesting.

IN 60 years of active Christianity . . . more or less . . . I've never come across that perspective or anything close to it.

I think Revelation, Daniel and Ezekiel make clear that God's angelic forces are going to be in charge of cleaning up the planet from the evil rebels.

Twisting and convoluting the Luke Scripture doesn't cut it, for me.

I still see that parable as basically one message--use what God gives you. Don't sit on it. Don't fail to improve it, multiply it. Use it. End of msg.

Of course, all manner of characters have been reading all manner of things into Scripture for centuries.

Bo Xian,

You criticise me for having my beliefs. At the same time you push yours all over everyone else.

You believe that your right-wing Christian view is the only one worth having.

My post above was not a concession of defeat, or remorse. It was merely meant as a summarisation and my intent to withdraw from the topic, because, to be honest, I'm sick of the subject.

When you have finished judging people and describing them as you have described me - and if you ever get round to finally stopping proclaiming yourself and your opinions to be superior to those of your fellow contributors, then maybe, just maybe you will actually be fitting of the term Christian in the true terms of it as you seem to want to define it.

And thats me done with this whole thread.