Posts by Seeker

21

How was the WTC attack any different than...

by Seeker in

jw
friends

...the attack on jericho by the israelites?.

yes, i know, this is controversial, but let's think about it.

we've been saying all week how the jw concept of armageddon is so horrible, for it teaches that god is about to do on a large-scale what we saw in new york and washington last week.

Seeker

Right, God judged Jericho, and Allah judged America (according to the terrorists). Same thing.
Rex: Simplified beyond belief.

Simplified, but not inaccurate. If you disagree, please explain where you think my statement was wrong.

Rex: No, we are attacked for supporting the U.N. establishment of the nation of Israel. If we abandoned Israel, we would not be a target. Are we men or weasels? Here is what begins the anti-Semitism.

Wrong. We are infidels, and bin Laden thought that from the moment we entered Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Israel could be abandoned and he would still hate us. I merely identified the root cause, not an additional cause that you brought out.

Not in Jericho's case, nor in America's. There was little warning, and in Jericho's case there was no possibility for a changed outcome. Only Rahab's family was given a chance.
Rex: You didn;t read the history here.

Who else was given the chance other than her household?

In Jericho, only Rahab was warned, and she immediately acted accordingly. No other adults were given even a chance, let alone a way out. Same thing with the WTC.
Rex: The account is somewhat limited in scope, is it not? You cannot say for certain and again, you did not read the history.

I thought all scripture was inspired of God so that we could be completely equipped. I've read the history, that's what it says. If you know otherwise, say so.

Would be nice if God could have allowed more to escape...
Rex: Who are YOU to judge God?

So you feel those who died at the WTC deserved it?? Wouldn't it have been nice if God allowed more to escape?

So it's OK to commit VERY, VERY few murders? Or VERY, VERY few rapes?
Rex: No, this shows the mercy God extends even to the most vile that humanity has to offer. You again failed, this time skipping the example of Nineveh.

Don't jump around the way he did -- stick with Jericho. The guy made a point that God doesn't do these atrocities that often, as if frequency makes a difference.

Rex: READ the info, open your mind, quit with the generalizations.

Provide me with specific rebuttals for the case of Jericho, and maybe we'll have something to talk about. That web page, even though I dealt with it, meandered over various slaughters. Let's stick to just this one, and you tell me how the Israelite view of those in Jericho was fundamentally different than the terrorist view of America.

24

So Whats Your Choice Of News Info?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

seeing all these different people on this board, together with varying personalities, thoughts and opinions, makes me wonder about our reading and viewing material.. take the daily news.

if you watch tv, which news programme do you spend most time viewing and why?

the same question as to which daily newspaper you read, plus, does your newspaper have a political bias that attracts you?

Seeker

Fox news is an absolute disgrace, for they don't just report the news, they often tell you how to think about it by the way the newscopy is written. They use slanted words designed to propagandized. Note, this is NOT a conservative versus liberal thing I'm talking about. I've noticed it in news stories that would be agreed upon by both conservatives and liberals, such as, say, when talking about Saddam Hussein. Murdoch has a viewpoint, and he makes sure all his properties carry that viewpoint. That is an absolute disgraceful thing for any news organization to give in to.

I can't speak for O'Reilly specifically, as I've only seen him a few times, and he does less news stories and more opinions on the news, and there is more room for that kind of stuff then. For all I know, he's fine, but I can't comment on it myself. But the organization he works for is the worst news organization I've seen outside of the London tabloids or the New York Post (saaay, doesn't Murdoch also own the Post...)

I use a myriad of news sources, way too many to mention. I prefer news feeds from AP and Reuters and AFP and BBC, newspapers of record such as the Times (with all it's flaws nowadays), African news sites, Asian news sites, tech news sites, etc. etc. etc.

Always check different versions of an important story. See what the conservative press says, see what the liberal press says, see what the paranoid press says, see what the loony press says -- then make your own judgments.

69

DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN

by Amazing in

jw
friends

some of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.

during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.

' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?

Seeker

TR,

Are you referring to Bush's seeming inarticulate?

Nope, malapropisms aren't a sign of intelligence, or lack thereof. And a small vocabulary could be a sign of a lack of educational opportunities, not necessarily an inherent lack of intelligence. Although, come to think of it, he did go to Yale, didn't he? Hmmm....well, he has said it is Laura who is the one who like books in the family, a very scary thought to express in someone who is supposed to be the leader of the free world.

No, when I say I think Bush is dumb, I say so because of his ideas. He seems to have no clear picture of what to do, no matter what the subject is. Maybe it's a learning disability or something, but there is something about him when he speaks that exudes a lack of deep thinking. I felt that way the first time I focused on him, years ago, when he became part owner of the Texas Rangers. This was long before the media began noticing how dumb he is, so you can't say I was merely influenced by the media. He just strikes me as not very bright.

21

How was the WTC attack any different than...

by Seeker in

jw
friends

...the attack on jericho by the israelites?.

yes, i know, this is controversial, but let's think about it.

we've been saying all week how the jw concept of armageddon is so horrible, for it teaches that god is about to do on a large-scale what we saw in new york and washington last week.

Seeker

Rex,

Thanks for responding. I went to your web site and read what he said. Here are his summary points, with my comments:

a. The annihilations are judgments.

Right, God judged Jericho, and Allah judged America (according to the terrorists). Same thing.

b. These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.

Right, God said those in Jericho were committed heinous crimes, and the terrorists feel that America is the Great Satan, full of infidels who violate Allah's laws.

c. These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").

Not in Jericho's case, nor in America's. There was little warning, and in Jericho's case there was no possibility for a changed outcome. Only Rahab's family was given a chance.

d. Innocent adults are given a 'way out'

In Jericho, only Rahab was warned, and she immediately acted accordingly. No other adults were given even a chance, let alone a way out. Same thing with the WTC.

e. Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).

True in Jericho, true for any family members in the WTC.

f. Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)

Would be nice if God could have allowed more to escape...

g. These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.

So it's OK to commit VERY, VERY few murders? Or VERY, VERY few rapes?

I dunno, I don't see how his points excuse the slaughter. It really boils down to what I originally said, that those people had it coming because of their way of life. But that's precisely how the terrorists feel about America and Americans!

69

DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN

by Amazing in

jw
friends

some of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.

during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.

' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?

Seeker

Those who see Bush as a dummy, need to look in the mirro and ask themselves where they are in life. The way I see it, Bush is President, and they are not.

You make that sound as if being president is a good thing! It is not. You couldn't pay me enough money to take that job. Most persons who are truly qualified want nothing to do with the dirty political process. That's why you see so few intelligent politicians. The few there are really stand out (and are often looked down upon for being, ewww, intellectual).

Where I am in life is far superior to where Bush is. I can sleep at night, and I can look in the mirror without regret. I'm also smarter than he is, and that genetic gift is far better than power to me.

I am not suggesting that Bush is the brightest candle on the block,

OK, fair enough, that's all I'm saying too.

but he did not get where he is by luck.

Nope, by connections. A year-and-a-half before the election I knew he would be the next president. Why? He already had, by far, the biggest war chest. End of story, he'll be elected.

Even at that he failed, but became president anyway, but boy is that another thread entirely.

And the losers in any election always accuse the other side of 'buying' the election with special interest money.

And they always do. Every time. Which is why men of honor stay out of politics.

So tell me, who did Bush write check to so that they would vote for him and assure his election?

The oil companies, judging by his presidential appointments and favors ever since becoming president.

And, if you watch old videos of Harry Truman, he could not put two words together to make a sensible sentance. Yet, he was effective and the right man at the right time.

Yes, he did OK for himself.

Maybe GW Bush will not go down in history as the most eloquent and bright man - but he is honorable so far

I'll strongly disagree with that statement, but I weary of the inevitable "prove it" cries that will result, so I'll leave that as something we shall agree to disagree on.

, and seems like the right man at the right time.

I can't think of a worse man for this time, but I'm hoping he will surpass his reputation and prior track record and truly surprise us all. Certainly the nation could use a good leader. I hope Bush turns out to be one in the end. You don't necessarily need intelligence for that, just leadership qualities. Bush hasn't shown it yet, but I'm ever hopeful.

And, I also contend that big filthy rich conservative corporations do not control the media -- at least not according to the left-winged conspiracy theorists.

Of course they do, just look at the ownership records of the media corps. All big, filthy rich corporations are conservative. That is their nature. They exist for one purpose, and one purpose only: to increase shareholder wealth by increasing profits. If the news will hurt profits, it gets gutted. That's why the network news, and the newspapers, are shells of their former self. The corps came in and bought them and gutted the news organizations in a rush to increase profitability. Talk to old newspeople who remember the old days, and they will shake their heads at what happened. I am personally shocked at the shabbiness of today's news -- very pretty graphics, not much of value to say, and often dead wrong, provably wrong, but who cares as long as they keep people in line?

17

to Utopian Reformist re: the Black Panther Party

by reagan_oconnor in

jw
friends

<i posted this on the "two down and counting" thread, but figured it would be seen here.. for those of you who did not see the thread, utopian reformist said:.

earlier reagan o'connor stated that internal and external terrorist groups should be examined equally and treated in the same manner.. while i agree with the statement, i disagree with the sampling of internal terrorist she included in her statement.. the kkk and aryan nation can and should be considered terrorists.

burning crosses, public lynchings and hate mobs should be obvious to all.

Seeker

Part of the problem here is semantic. "Terrorist" is a loaded term, like slinging "cult" at a member of a fringe religion. As with "cult", "terrorist" is all a matter of perspective. Were the Americans who fought against the British in the 1770s:

a) Revolutionaries
b) Traitors
c) Terrorists

Depends on who you asked at the time.

Are the people who destroyed the WTC last week:

a) Terrorists
b) Heroes

Depends on who you ask now.

Were the Black Panthers

a) Helpful for the black community
b) Radicals who inspired terror in white America

Both, actually. But option b above is hardly a hard thing to accomplish -- white America is jumpy about everything it doesn't understand, and the Black Panters is one movement white America never "got."

One further complication is that most radical movements have a tendency to arc toward violence eventually. Radicalism has a hard fight against the conservative base, and often meets with failures. These failures typically cause the more hotheaded elements within the radical groups to begin to advocate more violent methods, to "force" things to get done. I have no doubt Black Panther members did engage in violent acts over time. I have no doubt that these acts were widely trumped up in the press far beyond the reality. It is remarkable how often the mainstream press gets things wrong. Mischaracterization of the Black Panthers was merely par for the course, no matter if some violent acts actually did take place.

69

DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN

by Amazing in

jw
friends

some of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.

during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.

' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?

Seeker

P.S. There no longer is a liberal bias to the media. Regardless of how reporters vote, huge multinational corporations have a chokehold on all major media outlets. It is not good to the bottom line of these corporations for their media outlets (now all profit centers) to lean in any controversial way. That automatically makes the media outlets produce more conservative copy -- it's a process that is automatic. Anything that might hurt the bottom line gets killed (such as if ABC news wishes to report problems at Disney -- they won't do that, says the head of ABC news, because it would hurt their parent).

The media used to be liberal. Many of the people who report for the media still is liberal. Now that conservative corporations bought up the media, the output is no longer liberal. This is an old myth still being promulgated by the far right for whom anything short of ultraconservatism is 'liberal.'

69

DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN

by Amazing in

jw
friends

some of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.

during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.

' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?

Seeker

You have GOT to be joking! Bush really is dumb. Every time he opens his mouth he sounds dumb, no further evidence needed. Let alone the idiocy of announcing last week that he is determined "to rid the world of evil-doers."

Every time I see Rudy Guiliani (who certainly has his flaws), I am reminded of how a real leader acts, and of the natural shortcomings inherent in Bush in that department. Like it or not (I don't), Bush is my president, and I support him. But let's not pretend that he suddenly got smart for the first time in his life. His family always viewed him as the less-successful one, and he has demonstrated that non-ability all his life by stumbling through one failed venture after another. This is the guy who bragged to the graduating Yale students about his C-average while in school. This is the guy who did not distinguish himself in school, the business world, or the sports world.

It's no crime being dumb -- it's genetic, and can't be helped. Bush is dumb.

And no, I'm not saying this from a partisan persepective. I'm no Gore supporter who, although you were wrong to say he said he invented the Internet (he didn't -- that's an urban legend that grew out of a misunderstanding of something he did say), would probably do a very efficient and micromanaged to the point of death job as president while boring us all to tears and selling us out to corporate interests. The only person I thought worse to be president than Gore was Bush, truly a Tweedledee and Tweedledum choice facing the nation. A testament to the power of special interests to get elected who they want to get elected, and how politics tends to self-select out anyone actually qualified to run.

So I'm no Democrat, nor am I a Republican. What I am is an intelligent man who knows a dumb man when I see him. Every time Bush opens his mouth (sadly, including all last week), I see a dumb man. Can't be helped. Hope he gets through his term without doing too much damage.

21

How was the WTC attack any different than...

by Seeker in

jw
friends

...the attack on jericho by the israelites?.

yes, i know, this is controversial, but let's think about it.

we've been saying all week how the jw concept of armageddon is so horrible, for it teaches that god is about to do on a large-scale what we saw in new york and washington last week.

Seeker

...the attack on Jericho by the Israelites?

Yes, I know, this is controversial, but let's think about it. We've been saying all week how the JW concept of Armageddon is so horrible, for it teaches that God is about to do on a large-scale what we saw in New York and Washington last week. Yes, it is a horrible teaching. But let's think backward, to Bible accounts of slaughter. Was it really all that different?

bin Laden warned America weeks ago that this was coming. He has long been an enemy of this country, and made no secret of his disdain for our 'infidel' status in his eyes. The loss of life last week, so awful to us, was cheered by bin Laden's supporters, who view this country as the Great Satan, and condemned by their God. We are dogs in their eyes, deserving of death.

We rightly are repelled by such thoughts, for they are inhuman and inhumane. But consider the account of the destruction of Jericho, just one of many such accounts in the Bible.

Israel sent spys warning Jerico that destruction was coming. They were Jericho's enemy, and made no secret of their disdain for their pagan status in their eyes. When the walls of Jerico fell, the loss of life was cheered by the Israelistes, who viewed Jereico as deserving of destruction, and condemened by their God. They were dogs in their eyes, deserving of death.

Serioulsy, what is the difference? In each case you had religious extremists who used their religious ideas to condemn someone else, attack them in God's name, and rejoice at their destruction. You can imagine neighboring nations back then looking on in horror at this attack on innocent people.

Today, the Christians will viciously condemn what happened last week in this country, and vow revenge. But they will also support and defend all the atrocities that the Israelites did in the Bible. "That's different," they say, "God was behind them." Yeah? Well that's what bin Laden says today, so skip the excuses. Nobody wants to hear about a bloodthirsty God who supports the death of innocents.

(Ignore that there is no archaeological support for the fall of Jericho -- assume it is true. Also, if you claim that the Jerichoites, or Canaanites, deserved to die for their lifestyles, just remember that many of the innocents who died in the WTC probably did things that Christians would condemn. Did that justify their fiery death last week?)

So? How do Christians defend the Bible when it contains accounts of atrocities very similar to what happened last week? How can anyone be horrified by last week's events, and discuss Bible events in a calm voice over breakfast?

35

American Witnesses face difficult time over flag

by ozziepost in

jw
friends

reports are coming from the united states that small flags and flag badges are being distributed at schools and other public places.. many are refusing to take a flag and this is causing resentment and hurt feelings.

not wishing to offend, witnesses are asking their elders what they should do.. cheers,.

ozzie.

Seeker

teejay,

The next time you rebut one of my posts, or we engage in an argument, I will think back to this reply of yours with fondness. Thanks!

It's not easy expressing an unpopular idea in public. Right now, it's unpopular not to be very publicly patriotic in a conformist way. I am anything but a conformist, and groupthink always gives me the chills. I support and appreciate my country, and will help out as I can, but stay away from my mind. That's mine, thank you very much.