On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 12:31:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 3/6/2023 9:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 09:09:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/5/2023 8:46 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 11:16:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/4/2023 8:29 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 11:29:24 -0800 (PST), Andrew McDowell
>>>>>> <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 5:05:05?PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2023 20:20:24 GMT, Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snippo mucho>
>>>>>>>>>> So that statement by Ratcliffe wouldn't have been reported on major news
>>>>>>>>>> websites like:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> USAToday:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CNN:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <hhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index..html>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Washington Post:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like those?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep. It was then buried in favor of the 50 former intelligence agencies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll ask the readership here:
>>>>>>>>> How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
>>>>>>>>> the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
>>>>>>>>> Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?
>>>>>>>> I never understood why something Biden's son did when Biden was VP was
>>>>>>>> of any significance whatsoever. We no longer hold parents responsible
>>>>>>>> for their children's actions; indeed, God Himself disavows this policy
>>>>>>>> in the Bible, so the Republicans, being so religious, should certainly
>>>>>>>> not have been trying to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (trimmed)
>>>>>>> Ted Cruz spent some time on this, and you can look at old episodes of his podcast "Verdict" to hear it for yourselves. Cruz claimed that he was never interested in Hunter's less than exemplary behaviour for itself. His argument was that the foreign businesses paying Hunter for his supposed skills were not really buying his skills, but his influence with Joe Biden. Cruz tried to show that there was evidence of money transfers from Hunter to Biden passing on these payments. There is also the question of how Joe Biden might support Hunter if Hunter wasn't making all of this money. Cruz also got hold of a report that Hunter had produced I think as a combined initial piece of work and sales brochure. Cruz claimed that the language and general professionalism of the report suggested that this was in fact a cut and paste job from something like a background briefing given to Joe Biden. The classification or otherwise of the report and of any sections cut and pasted was a subject of
>>>>> Cruz's
>>>>>>> surmise, but he had no real evidence for the report's existence, least of all its classification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of which suggests that the "story" is worth pursuing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is pursued because they are throwing rotten spaghetti at the wall
>>>>> trying to get anything to stick. Hunter Biden's behavior isn't the
>>>>> point of the exercise, the damage to their opposition that they can use
>>>>> the appearance of it to cause is the point.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with that analysis of the situation.
>>>>
>>>> But /is/ there any damage to their opposition? Or are they shooting
>>>> themselves in the foot, so to speak?
>>>
>>> Depends on who you ask. The MAGA base believes them but then the base
>>> believes anything they say and already hates "outsiders" so doesn't need
>>> to be whipped up to vote Republican. The main effect appears to be
>>> whipping them up to do more than just vote.
>>>
>>> Everyone else? Probably very little effect other than the casualties
>>> suffered from the "more than just vote" MAGA contingent.
>>
>> Who may, eventually, move into the category "domestic terrorist".
>>
>> This isn't the 80's. And Ronnie isn't in charge to claim it's only a
>> local problem.
>
>What's this "may, eventually" bit? Right wing extremist groups have
>long since moved into the #1 domestic terrorist problem in the US and
>are responsible for over 90% of all terrorist caused deaths in the US.

I was trying to not be attacked for exaggerating. Thanks for taking on
that burden.

My last line, of course, only makes sense if you remember Ronnie's
reaction to the early abortion clinic bombings.

As to the statistic ... I'll see how the discussion develops.

It reminds me of a claim that came out, once again, with 6 months of
the 9/11 catastrophe -- that air travel was the safest mode of travel
and most deaths occurred from problems when landing or taking off.

The problem was, of course, that the "safest mode" only makes sense if
the 3K or so who died in the buildings are somehow not attributed to
the fact that flying bombs (aka airplanes) were flown into them. and
the second part only makes sense if the planes were trying to land.

Of course, the claim came out because it came out periodically and it
was time to put it out again, being basically propaganda promoting air
travel by brainless persons, now revealed to be tactless as well.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 06:33:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31?PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist
>> techniques are not anathema when in support of their
>> religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out
>> one or the other.
>
>This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic
>terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the
>context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and
>numerous other incidents of that nature.

Only if the statement "cats can be trained to use litter boxes" is
relevant to the topic "how to housebreak your dog".
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
>> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wro=
>te:=20
>> >=20
>> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
>> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
>> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out=20
>> > > one or the other.=20
>> >=20
>> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
>> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
>> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
>> > numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
>> >=20
>> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
>> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
>> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith=20
>> > for quite some time now.=20
>> >=20
>> > John Savard
>> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&=
>=20
>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boi=
>l=20
>> over again.=20
>
>Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, kil=
>ling
>386 people.=20
>
>Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.

One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
east by the USA.

On 3/7/2023 8:57 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 12:31:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/6/2023 9:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 09:09:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/5/2023 8:46 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 11:16:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/4/2023 8:29 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 11:29:24 -0800 (PST), Andrew McDowell
>>>>>>> <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 5:05:05?PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2023 20:20:24 GMT, Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snippo mucho>
>>>>>>>>>>> So that statement by Ratcliffe wouldn't have been reported on major news
>>>>>>>>>>> websites like:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> USAToday:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CNN:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <hhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Washington Post:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Like those?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep. It was then buried in favor of the 50 former intelligence agencies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll ask the readership here:
>>>>>>>>>> How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
>>>>>>>>>> the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
>>>>>>>>>> Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?
>>>>>>>>> I never understood why something Biden's son did when Biden was VP was
>>>>>>>>> of any significance whatsoever. We no longer hold parents responsible
>>>>>>>>> for their children's actions; indeed, God Himself disavows this policy
>>>>>>>>> in the Bible, so the Republicans, being so religious, should certainly
>>>>>>>>> not have been trying to do so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (trimmed)
>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz spent some time on this, and you can look at old episodes of his podcast "Verdict" to hear it for yourselves. Cruz claimed that he was never interested in Hunter's less than exemplary behaviour for itself. His argument was that the foreign businesses paying Hunter for his supposed skills were not really buying his skills, but his influence with Joe Biden. Cruz tried to show that there was evidence of money transfers from Hunter to Biden passing on these payments. There is also the question of how Joe Biden might support Hunter if Hunter wasn't making all of this money. Cruz also got hold of a report that Hunter had produced I think as a combined initial piece of work and sales brochure. Cruz claimed that the language and general professionalism of the report suggested that this was in fact a cut and paste job from something like a background briefing given to Joe Biden. The classification or otherwise of the report and of any sections cut and pasted was a subject of
>>>>>> Cruz's
>>>>>>>> surmise, but he had no real evidence for the report's existence, least of all its classification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of which suggests that the "story" is worth pursuing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is pursued because they are throwing rotten spaghetti at the wall
>>>>>> trying to get anything to stick. Hunter Biden's behavior isn't the
>>>>>> point of the exercise, the damage to their opposition that they can use
>>>>>> the appearance of it to cause is the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with that analysis of the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> But /is/ there any damage to their opposition? Or are they shooting
>>>>> themselves in the foot, so to speak?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on who you ask. The MAGA base believes them but then the base
>>>> believes anything they say and already hates "outsiders" so doesn't need
>>>> to be whipped up to vote Republican. The main effect appears to be
>>>> whipping them up to do more than just vote.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone else? Probably very little effect other than the casualties
>>>> suffered from the "more than just vote" MAGA contingent.
>>>
>>> Who may, eventually, move into the category "domestic terrorist".
>>>
>>> This isn't the 80's. And Ronnie isn't in charge to claim it's only a
>>> local problem.
>>
>> What's this "may, eventually" bit? Right wing extremist groups have
>> long since moved into the #1 domestic terrorist problem in the US and
>> are responsible for over 90% of all terrorist caused deaths in the US.
>
> I was trying to not be attacked for exaggerating. Thanks for taking on
> that burden.
>
You are welcome. ;)
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
> so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
> east by the USA.

The United States of America helped Kuwait defend itself
from aggression, and helps Israel defend itself from aggression.

If people are angry about that, clearly they're perverse, and
something is wrong with them.

Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?

It stems from their concept of "dhimmi". In Egypt, for example,
Coptic Christians don't have equal rights. If the United States
were to empower the Coptic Christians to enjoy full equality
by making them citizens of a sovereign state, strong enough
to resist any potential attack by Egypt, I'm sure that this, too,
would be considered objectionable.

Or look at the blasphemy law in Pakistan.

Basically: a lot of the Muslims living in majority-Muslim countries
see nothing wrong with a situation where if a Muslim commits
a crime there against a non-Muslim, he can get away with it,
and if the non-Muslims resist, it's a crime against nature!

So the fact that the Jews of Israel successfully resisted, by
armed force, an attempt to put them under Muslim misrule of that
sort... instead of being accepted as getting what they deserved,
and resolving to do better and wipe out discrimination against
non-Muslims in their countries in future... resulted in them
doubling down on their wrong thinking.

This led to further losses of territory to Israel after subsequent
attempts to commit aggression against it.

If only the Soviet Union could have fallen back in 1973, just
after the Yom Kippur War had started, instead of much later.

There would have been an end to the oil embargo, and all the
countries that participated in the attack on Israel, or the breaking
of contracts for export of oil... would have ended up under U.S. or
Israeli occupation. Peace in the Middle East would then have
resulted.

After the Holocaust, only a truly sick evil person wants to kill
Jews. We just have to get the entire Muslim world agreeing
with this sentiment the same way people in the Northeastern
United States do.

And, of course, when the Soviet Union did fall, China didn't have
nuclear submarines yet. So the U.S. could have destroyed its
nuclear capability, and carried out regime change - giving the
mainland back to Taiwan, except for Tibet and Uighuristan,
which would become independent. Then Russia would no longer
have any need of nuclear weapons to defend itself from China.

And so with an agreement to impose a Peace Constitution on
Russia like that of Japan, the current issue in Ukraine would
no longer have happened.

Instead, we have a world order that, as dramatized in Ukraine,
still holds the possibility of war that the world's sensible
democratic nations can't simply say "Stop right now, or else"
to and get immediate results.

John Savard

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 1:20:30 PM UTC-7, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> > Give an example.

> I overstated it a bit. Twitter didn't remove the tweets, they merely
> blocked the account until the user removed the tweets themselves.
> If you want a high profile example:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101
> The president also told a rally that Twitter had locked the
> personal account of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany
> "for reporting the truth" after she shared details of the New York
> Post's article.
> Twitter confirmed that it had required Ms McEnany to delete a
> tweet to regain access to her account.

And how is that misconduct on the part of Twitter?

They have a perfect right not to allow their social media platform
to be misused for spreading lies with the intent of causing harm.

> I'll ask the readership here:
> How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
> the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
> Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?

I'll have to look up the details to see if this is genuinely trustworthy.

However, it's still disinformation. That the Republican Party,
or QAnon, or somebody else is at fault doesn't change it from
being a lie.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote=
>
>
>Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?

Ask Lord Balfour.

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 12:12:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
> >> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
> >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wro=
> >te:=20
> >> >=20
> >> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
> >> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
> >> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out=20
> >> > > one or the other.=20
> >> >=20
> >> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
> >> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
> >> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
> >> > numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
> >> >=20
> >> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
> >> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
> >> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith=20
> >> > for quite some time now.=20
> >> >=20
> >> > John Savard
> >> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&=
> >=20
> >> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boi=
> >l=20
> >> over again.=20
> >
> >Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, kil=
> >ling
> >386 people.=20
> >
> >Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.
> One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
> so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
> east by the USA.

One could argue that, but OBL and others in his group explicitly
linked 9/11 to the blasphemy of non-Muslim soldiers being
present in the land of the Two Holy Mosques.

Pt

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 08:44:58 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20?AM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote
>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
>> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31?PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> >
>> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist
>> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their
>> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out
>> > > one or the other.
>> >
>> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic
>> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the
>> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and
>> > numerous other incidents of that nature.
>> >
>> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists
>> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized
>> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith
>> > for quite some time now.
>> >
>> > John Savard
>> Only if you don’t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&
>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boil
>> over again.
>
>Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, killing
>386 people.
>
>Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.

That's because we aren't going out of our way to antagonize them.

It's still the terrorists who are responsible for the deaths, to be
sure.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 17:12:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
>>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
>>> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wro>>te:=20
>>> >=20
>>> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
>>> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
>>> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out=20
>>> > > one or the other.=20
>>> >=20
>>> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
>>> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
>>> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
>>> > numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
>>> >=20
>>> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
>>> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
>>> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith=20
>>> > for quite some time now.=20
>>> >=20
>>> > John Savard
>>> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&>>=20
>>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boi>>l=20
>>> over again.=20
>>
>>Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, kil>>ling
>>386 people.=20
>>
>>Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.
>
>One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
>so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
>east by the USA.

Ah, blaming the victim.

Sorry, no sale!

And, besides, what was /actually/ cited by Bin Laden was the Crusades.
The USA had nothing to do with the Crusades.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 15:37:42 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you want to extend the time period to 100 years then we can talk
>about Pearl Harbor.

I well remember the morning of 9/11/2001 when my wife asked me who I
thought might have done it.

I said there were really only 2 groups of people who had done suicidal
attacks "and the Japanese haven't done too many since 1945..."

(I was specifically thinking of the attack on the Beirut embassy but
there were of course plenty of other potential examples)

On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:12:54 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 3/6/2023 2:31 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2023 9:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 09:09:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>
>>>>> Depends on who you ask.  The MAGA base believes them but then the base
>>>>> believes anything they say and already hates "outsiders" so doesn't need
>>>>> to be whipped up to vote Republican.  The main effect appears to be
>>>>> whipping them up to do more than just vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone else?  Probably very little effect other than the casualties
>>>>> suffered from the "more than just vote" MAGA contingent.
>>>>
>>>> Who may, eventually, move into the category "domestic terrorist".
>>>>
>>>> This isn't the 80's. And Ronnie isn't in charge to claim it's only a
>>>> local problem.
>>>
>>> What's this "may, eventually" bit?  Right wing extremist groups have
>>> long since moved into the #1 domestic terrorist problem in the US and
>>> are responsible for over 90% of all terrorist caused deaths in the US.
>>
>>Those numbers are patently false.
>
>Only if you don't actually read _WHAT WAS WRITTEN_. "#1 domestic terrorist problem"
>is what was written; as 9/11 wasn't a domestic terrorism event, it's not
>relevent to WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOVE.

Actually "90% of all terrorist caused deaths in the US" doesn't filter
out terrorist caused deaths done by foreign nationals in the US.

One definition includes 9/11 (done by foreign nationals but definitely
taking place in the US). You've muddied the waters by limiting things
to domestic terrorists on the one hand and not the other.

A good example being the Boston Marathon bombers - who were definitely
mass murderers (or trying to be - and I'd argue an unsuccessful
attempt should also count) though not native born Americans.

(Heck if I drive my car into a crowd of people in Seattle vs
Vancouver.bc.ca is it fundamentally different aside from the police
force that is involved?)

(In the unlikely event you've forgotten about Boston I'm talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing )

>All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist
>techniques are not anathema when in support of their
>religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out
>one or the other.

On 2023-03-08, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 17:12:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>>"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>>>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
>>>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
>>>> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wro=
>>>te:=20
>>>> >=20
>>>> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
>>>> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
>>>> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out=20
>>>> > > one or the other.=20
>>>> >=20
>>>> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
>>>> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
>>>> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
>>>> > numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
>>>> >=20
>>>> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
>>>> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
>>>> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith=20
>>>> > for quite some time now.=20
>>>> >=20
>>>> > John Savard
>>>> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&=
>>>=20
>>>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boi=
>>>l=20
>>>> over again.=20
>>>
>>>Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, kil=
>>>ling
>>>386 people.=20
>>>
>>>Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.
>>
>>One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
>>so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
>>east by the USA.
>
> Ah, blaming the victim.
>
> Sorry, no sale!
>
> And, besides, what was /actually/ cited by Bin Laden was the Crusades.
> The USA had nothing to do with the Crusades.

Do you have a cite for that? I haven't seen that before!

He said on several occasions, both before and after, that he was going
to attack the US to drive it off its military bases in Saudi Arabia.
He also had mentioned the Iraq sanctions and Israel and other
interferences in the Middle East by the USA. Sounds pretty
consistent to me!

Chris

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 11:22:55 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 17:12:31 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
> >"pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
> >>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
> >>> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wro=
> >>te:=20
> >>> >=20
> >>> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
> >>> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
> >>> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out=20
> >>> > > one or the other.=20
> >>> >=20
> >>> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
> >>> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
> >>> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
> >>> > numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
> >>> >=20
> >>> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
> >>> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
> >>> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith=20
> >>> > for quite some time now.=20
> >>> >=20
> >>> > John Savard
> >>> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&=
> >>=20
> >>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boi=
> >>l=20
> >>> over again.=20
> >>
> >>Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, kil=
> >>ling
> >>386 people.=20
> >>
> >>Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.
> >
> >One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
> >so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
> >east by the USA.
> Ah, blaming the victim.
>
> Sorry, no sale!
>
> And, besides, what was /actually/ cited by Bin Laden was the Crusades.
> The USA had nothing to do with the Crusades.

OBL regarded non-Muslim armies in KSA as new Crusaders.

Pt

On 2023-03-07, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 1:20:30 PM UTC-7, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> > Give an example.
>
>> I overstated it a bit. Twitter didn't remove the tweets, they merely
>> blocked the account until the user removed the tweets themselves.
>> If you want a high profile example:
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101
>> The president also told a rally that Twitter had locked the
>> personal account of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany
>> "for reporting the truth" after she shared details of the New York
>> Post's article.
>> Twitter confirmed that it had required Ms McEnany to delete a
>> tweet to regain access to her account.
>
> And how is that misconduct on the part of Twitter?
>
> They have a perfect right not to allow their social media platform
> to be misused for spreading lies with the intent of causing harm.

What lies were being spread? Be precise. What harm is being caused?

>> I'll ask the readership here:
>> How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
>> the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
>> Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?
>
> I'll have to look up the details to see if this is genuinely trustworthy.
>
> However, it's still disinformation. That the Republican Party,
> or QAnon, or somebody else is at fault doesn't change it from
> being a lie.

Who is it fault for this disinformation? What is the disinformation
being spread? My claim was that this time it was the Democrats
spreading it, and the liberal press was supporting them. Yes, it was
a lie.

I don't understand your point.

If you look at the post-last-debate factchecks from the liberal press,
they don't generally mention Biden's lie at all.

Chris

On 10/03/23 01:11, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-03-07, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
snip
>> They have a perfect right not to allow their social media platform
>> to be misused for spreading lies with the intent of causing harm.
>
> What lies were being spread? Be precise. What harm is being caused?

You are addressing Fourbricks-In-An-Otherwise-Empty-Skull who fervently
subscibes to the belief that anything that questions US propaganda is by
definition a lie and harmful to World Peace and Freedom.

On 3/8/2023 11:32 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 11:22:55 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 17:12:31 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
>>>>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wro=
>>>> te:=20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
>>>>>>> techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
>>>>>>> religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out=20
>>>>>>> one or the other.=20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
>>>>>> terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
>>>>>> context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
>>>>>> numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
>>>>>> have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
>>>>>> countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith=20
>>>>>> for quite some time now.=20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&=
>>>> =20
>>>>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boi=
>>>> l=20
>>>>> over again.=20
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, kil=
>>>> ling
>>>> 386 people.=20
>>>>
>>>> Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.
>>>
>>> One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
>>> so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
>>> east by the USA.
>> Ah, blaming the victim.
>>
>> Sorry, no sale!
>>
>> And, besides, what was /actually/ cited by Bin Laden was the Crusades.
>> The USA had nothing to do with the Crusades.
>
> OBL regarded non-Muslim armies in KSA as new Crusaders.
>
> Pt

My thought also.

Lynn

On 3/9/2023 12:31 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/8/2023 11:32 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 11:22:55 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 17:12:31 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
>>>>>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott
>>>>>>> Lurndal wro=
>>>>> te:=20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
>>>>>>>> techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
>>>>>>>> religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single
>>>>>>>> out=20
>>>>>>>> one or the other.=20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
>>>>>>> terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
>>>>>>> context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
>>>>>>> numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
>>>>>>> have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
>>>>>>> countries than terror attacks related to any other religious
>>>>>>> faith=20
>>>>>>> for quite some time now.=20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say,
>>>>>> the IRA&=
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can
>>>>>> easily boi=
>>>>> l=20
>>>>>> over again.=20
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during
>>>>> 2014-2020, kil=
>>>>> ling
>>>>> 386 people.=20
>>>>>
>>>>> Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.
>>>>
>>>> One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
>>>> so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
>>>> east by the USA.
>>> Ah, blaming the victim.
>>>
>>> Sorry, no sale!
>>>
>>> And, besides, what was /actually/ cited by Bin Laden was the Crusades.
>>> The USA had nothing to do with the Crusades.
>>
>> OBL regarded non-Muslim armies in KSA as new Crusaders.
>>
>> Pt
>
> My thought also.
>
And of course OBL's objection to the Crusades completely ignores the
Muslim invasions of the Balkans and Iberia a few hundred years prior.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 5:11:15 AM UTC-7, Chris Buckley wrote:
> My claim was that this time it was the Democrats
> spreading it, and the liberal press was supporting them.

That is unsupported by any credible source of information.

Of _course_ it helps if one defines the liberal press as
trustworthy, and the Republicans as worthless liars whose
words hold no weight whatever.

Explaining _why_ I came to such a conclusiion, however,
in a convincing manner, might well be difficult. If it was
easy, both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden would have won
their respective elections in landslides, and today the
Democrats would control 80% of both Houses of Congress.

I was just reading an article in the Washington Post, that
bastion of anti-Republican and pro-Democrat sentiment.
I don't think the statements of fact in that article were
falsified.

What it said was that, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,
several U.S. states - and they're all, no surprise, states controlled
by Republicans - have passed laws stripping their public health
officials of the power to order mask mandates, to quarantine
people, to require proof of vaccination to engage in certain
activities with the potential to spread disease, and so on.

Which means that, if there is another pandemic, it won't be
possible to react in time to prevent it from spreading
catastrophically.

So I have reached the conclusion that Republicans are a danger
to my life, and my objectivity has been skeweed accordingly.

And then there's January 6th.

A violent mob tries to prevent the will of the American
people in selecting their next President from being
carried out.

But that's not what they believe they're doing. They believe they're
instead _defending_ the will of the American people, because
the votes had been counted fraudulently.

Americans who had enough courage to be heroes, but,
unfortunately, not enough brains to avoid being made dupes
of by the real villains.

But why did it look convincingly like the election was stolen?

Because the results that time were unusual. Thanks to the
pandemic, a lot of the votes were sent in by mail-in ballots.

And that let black people vote, without having to stand in line
for hours and hours - because in some states, the Republicans
deliberately ensure there aren't enough polling stations in
neighborhoods where black people live.

The Republican Party today has fallen far from the days of
Abraham Lincoln. Today, it is the party of lies and racism.

As far as Hunter Biden, the information that I have is that he
was acting properly on the behalf of the Obama Administration,
and the claims otherwise by Republicans haven't been substantiated
with a shred of evidence - and those claims also keep
contradicting each other as well. And the liberal press has
maintained that story consistently, without contradicting
themselves.

Which, of course, doesn't prove it's the truth.

But given that it's the *Republican* Party that contains those who would
obstruct and hinder aid to the heroic defenders of Ukraine,
why anything they might say is even worth a few seconds of my
time to listen to is a mystery.

John Savard

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:59:15 PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> And of course OBL's objection to the Crusades completely ignores the
> Muslim invasions of the Balkans and Iberia a few hundred years prior.

It's certainly true that the Muslims were fundamentally the aggressors
in the overall conflict.

That doesn't mean, though, that the Crusades weren't questionable.

The original Muslim aggression was beaten back. Peace treaties were
signed.

Then, fifty years later, the Pope decided that invading the Muslim world
would be a salutary exercise for Christendom, and the Crusades started.

Thus, to view the Crusades as a subsequent aggression by the Christian
world, rather than a defensive action against Muslim aggression... is not
a point of view that exactly puts any strain on credulity.

John Savard

On 3/9/2023 2:59 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/9/2023 12:31 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/8/2023 11:32 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 11:22:55 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 17:12:31 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
>>>>>>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott
>>>>>>>> Lurndal wro=
>>>>>> te:=20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
>>>>>>>>> techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
>>>>>>>>> religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single
>>>>>>>>> out=20
>>>>>>>>> one or the other.=20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
>>>>>>>> terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
>>>>>>>> context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
>>>>>>>> numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
>>>>>>>> have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
>>>>>>>> countries than terror attacks related to any other religious
>>>>>>>> faith=20
>>>>>>>> for quite some time now.=20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say,
>>>>>>> the IRA&=
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can
>>>>>>> easily boi=
>>>>>> l=20
>>>>>>> over again.=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during
>>>>>> 2014-2020, kil=
>>>>>> ling
>>>>>> 386 people.=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.
>>>>>
>>>>> One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
>>>>> so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
>>>>> east by the USA.
>>>> Ah, blaming the victim.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, no sale!
>>>>
>>>> And, besides, what was /actually/ cited by Bin Laden was the Crusades.
>>>> The USA had nothing to do with the Crusades.
>>>
>>> OBL regarded non-Muslim armies in KSA as new Crusaders.
>>>
>>> Pt
>>
>> My thought also.
>>
> And of course OBL's objection to the Crusades completely ignores the
> Muslim invasions of the Balkans and Iberia a few hundred years prior.

Don't forget the muslim attempted invasion of Austria, under 400 years
ago in 1683.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Lynn

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:38:22 AM UTC+11, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> > One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
> > so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
> > east by the USA.
> The United States of America helped Kuwait defend itself
> from aggression, and helps Israel defend itself from aggression.
>
> If people are angry about that, clearly they're perverse, and
> something is wrong with them.

You really should look at what's happening in Israel and Palestine before you go off on a bullshit rank

>
> Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?

Because Israel is killing Palestinians, destroying their housing, blocking medicines, supplies etc...

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 3/9/2023 2:59 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/9/2023 12:31 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>> And of course OBL's objection to the Crusades completely ignores the
>> Muslim invasions of the Balkans and Iberia a few hundred years prior.
>
>Don't forget the muslim attempted invasion of Austria, under 400 years
>ago in 1683.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Which was far more about territory than religion.

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 12:12:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
> >> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
> >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wro=
> >te:=20
> >> >=20
> >> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
> >> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
> >> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out=20
> >> > > one or the other.=20
> >> >=20
> >> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
> >> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
> >> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
> >> > numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
> >> >=20
> >> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
> >> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
> >> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith=20
> >> > for quite some time now.=20
> >> >=20
> >> > John Savard
> >> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&=
> >=20
> >> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boi=
> >l=20
> >> over again.=20
> >
> >Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, kil=
> >ling
> >386 people.=20
> >
> >Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.
> One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
> so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
> east by the USA.

Even if we don't blame it on Islam, per se, there is the political
doctrine known as "Islamism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Sorta like the difference between members of mainstream Christian sects
and the Rushdoonian Dominionists/Theonomists/Reconstructionists..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

--
Kevin R

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 05:08:11 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:38:22?AM UTC+11, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35?AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> > One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
>> > so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
>> > east by the USA.
>> The United States of America helped Kuwait defend itself
>> from aggression, and helps Israel defend itself from aggression.
>>
>> If people are angry about that, clearly they're perverse, and
>> something is wrong with them.
>
>You really should look at what's happening in Israel and Palestine before you go off on a bullshit rank
>
>>
>> Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?
>
>Because Israel is killing Palestinians, destroying their housing, blocking medicines, supplies etc...

Israel's behavior has indeed become unacceptable and ultimately
suicidal. And stokes well-motivated hatred.

But Israel was hated before it was born. It was hated because it was
for Jews, and a lot of Muslims can't have that. Nice, quiet,
self-effacing, extra tax-paying Jews they can stomach, but not Jews
strutting about as if they were actually human beings.

An article in /Smithsonian/ about 3 decades ago was by a truck driver
who worked in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. One of the books he found
was titled "Saddam -- the New Hitler". Adolf was a hero to these
people; their only compaint was that he didn't finish the job.

But, as I say, Israel has long gone down a path of repression which
will eventually result in its own destruction.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."