Venandi

Well, I went looking for an online source that either shares or defends your particular spin cycle approach to scripture and established doctrine... except for a lunatic on youtube, it appears you're an army of one; like a blind man in a dark closet looking for a black cat that isn't there. In any case, the wisdom contained in Zabberwocky Chapter 1 verse 1 seems appropriate here because it clearly disputes your assertion that Moses is the False Prophet, and it does that with the same level of clarity you do: ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe

This is 2000 year old heresy resurrected, dusted off and rebranded.... it's not a fresh new perspective. Jesus repeatedly states that his father is God and he consistently speaks of him approvingly... you would therefore have to believe that Jesus is a liar. In short, your ability to Invert the meaning of a tetragram whilst spinning scripture in a blender to the point of standing doctrine on its head makes me dizzy. In another thread you asserted: I know the jinn quite well because I am a portal of jinn, the jinn pass through my body to have access to our world, they come from parallel worlds. You're so deep in the weeds on this that even a tow truck isn't going to help... there's Jinn and then there's gin. Since I think what's actually passing through you is the latter I'll leave you to it.

I'm not going to drag this any further off topic, I'll simply suggest that you read all of chapter 8 because in your quote Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. It was after they brought out the women they intended to stone for adultery. The point being made is that when Jesus tells them truth they refuse to believe him, they twist his words for their own purpose (a bit like cherry picking random verses out of context). He's suggesting that the reason they do that is because they are liars and have an agenda that they support with lies. .... here's your quote.... Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Were I you, I'd be more concerned about: If a person turns to mediums and necromancers, whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.

OK, I have to ask... do you know what the bible says about mediums and necromancers? Or for that matter, what it says about those who curse Israel? Here's a sample, lot's more where this came from: - “If a person turns to mediums and necromancers, whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people. Speaking of Israel: - I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” And on the off chance that you're simply abiding by your own interpretation of scripture and redefining doctrine in the process, there's gems like this you may want to consider: -Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

We eagerly await repairs to the time machine. In the interim though I have a few questions. We're 40 pages in here and If you're arguing for leaving Hamas as a functioning entity I don't see how they can be avoided.

And it seems those commodities remain in short supply even as those who lack them proclaim their wealth in both. Maybe equilibrium is attained when the woke left and hard right both disagree with you.

Ya, in 624AD it was the talk of the town in Ottawa and Washington.

Not a lot of hard study like you obviously have, but most of my extended vacations were in Muslim desserts. I turned 19 in the Sinai on UNEF2 while attached to the Swedish Contingent in a place called Baluza. More importantly though, when on the road I always stay at a Holiday Inn Express. First up on a search of the Islamic Golden Age... lots of links to explore if you're so inclined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Here's a hint.... the question was rhetorical. That said, it doesn't mean that a country like Canada CAN"T make it work, it's just that I don't see it happening.

Raises a few questions doesn't it... Like: My answer is that it isn't. In the broader issue of integration into a secular, democratic society I would suggest: I think you missed my point and The level of tolerance required to allow fundamental Islam to peacefully coexist in a secular democracy is a two way street and it will not be forthcoming from any side anytime soon. The story below speaks to the very lack of tolerance and the integration problems I refer to.... proceed with caution or expect scenes like this to become more common in your own backyard. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/anti-israel-protesters-pledge-support-to-houthi-militants

Islam is more than just a religion IMO, it's a complete system that includes religion, laws, customs and traditions. And it works. From about 610AD its contributed literature, architecture, universities, medicine / hospitals, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics etc to the world. The question remains though, is fundamental Islam compatible with secular democracy? That's not to say it can't be, only that it takes more tolerance (on all sides) to achieve than what I perceive as being likely... especially if the tenants of secular democracy are held to be desirable and beneficial for all. The same might be said about Christianity, particularly Catholicism. But again, haven't we already determined that secular democracy is what we want? Don't we go to some pains to separate church and state? Woke ideology has become another form of religion (again IMO). Turn it on its head for a moment and imagine the howls of indignation if schools were conducting bible story time instead of drag queen story time. Imagine them holding after class bible studies and secret baptisms without parental permission. I'm guessing you would object to that. So before screaming "Islamaphobia" and "hate speech" on any number of topical issues, I'd invite you to substitute the same issue under consideration to one of a Christian action of similar flavour and deed; as opposed to Islamic in flavour and deed. If you can do that with impartiality you may come to see that the objections to overt, in your face Islamic actions are not so different than what I perceive your own might be if Christianity was captured in the same reticle.

By "you people," I'm guessing you include those who have actually been there for a sufficient amount of time to form opinions based on blue hat observations. So here's the questions that beg thoughtful consideration:: "Do you really believe that Hamas will rise to the occasion? Will they address those legitimate grievances on behalf of the Palestinian people and negotiate a peaceful resolution to them?" Nothing in my experience suggests that they will. I think they'll fight themselves to a standstill, kill a bunch of people in the process, then regroup, rearm, and fight themselves to a standstill over and over again in perpetuity. If you can propose a path to peace that includes Hamas as partner in that endeavour there's a Nobel Peace Prize with your name on it. So, if you have a plan to morph a radical religious ideology into political objectives that can be negotiated in good faith then I'm all ears...please bring it on. This is why most veterans sporting blue berets and lots of medals at the Legion's Remembrance Day reception only discuss these things amongst themselves. By saying "you people," we know exactly where you haven't been. If all you have is T-shirt slogans and rhetorical comments then all you're likely to achieve here is a collection of"likes" from Mr Hardner.

And I'd like to know if you've stopped beating your wife? IMO, you've deliberately framed the question in a manner that fails to acknowledge Israeli efforts to minimize collateral damage. Like it or not, they have established a new standard that will become the model for other nations involved in high population density theatres. Apparently I'm not the only one who sees it that way: https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286 Hamas has a religious ideology... not a political one. They are not advocating for the Palestinian people, their political aspirations or even trying to address legitimate grievances. You can negotiate with that. What you can't negotiate with is the Hamas objective to kill Jews, annihilate the Jewish state and rebuild on the rubble. Given the inherent bias in your question, the only answer I can offer you then is YES. I support the subjugation of Palestinians... as much subjugation as it takes for as long as it takes to subjugate Hamas and remove it (for the sake of clarity I'll say CRUSH IT) as a governing entity. How do ya like me now? Must have missed that part... I'm all ears. If it doesn't involve removing Hamas from power then don't bother reiterating it. I always ask people who don't support removing Hamas as an entity a simple question, so far no one has answered it: How would you negotiate with the murderous neighbour next door who just got out of jail for poisoning your dog and fire bombing your house. He wants you out of the neighbourhood because you happen to be gay (or have blue eyes, what ever). To appreciate the magnitude of the problem, simply look at the people (right here) who can't even discuss this topic (or any other topic for that matter) politely on a political forum, using an anonymous screen name, with zero accountability for outcomes and/or unintended consequences... how exactly do they plan to achieve world peace? Or any other negotiated outcome on any other issue? How are you going to smooth things over with that neighbour when you can't even get through Christmas dinner with your in-laws? From what I've seen, people with the strongest opinions of what others should be doing can't seem to muster the will power it takes to lose 10 pounds... they make the same resolution every January, they flood into the gym, they tie up equipment playing on their phones, and come Feb 15th... POOF, they vanish. During their brief yearly tenure, the number one question these folks have is: "what supplements should I be taking? And the worst part of it is they're actually serious.

Getting off topic now but here's the thing... none of us smoking a cigarette while we watch the kids play with the new soccer ball knows what hell you're talking about. Please wait by the jeep....

Historical symbols, political science, decolonization, totalitarian communism (and the like) doesn't usually resonate with villagers who live with (what I call) the concept of nothing. Where life is hard outlooks and basic needs become pretty simple. The immediate problem is things like potable water, cattle stealing, basic medical supplies and broken promises. There's more humour here than might be apparent at first glance though. The idea that a man, who thinks he's a women, is being paid $35K in compensation because a girl in a beauty salon wouldn't wax the hair off his balls would likely be viewed as a Jurassic Park level of entertainment, but IMO there's more milage to be had in sticking with cigarettes and soccer balls. The kids never seem to view that new soccer ball as an expression of colonial oppression either. Your milage in such things may vary.

It goes way beyond simple perspective now... Take a moment and Imagine yourself trying to explain this to village elders in Africa in a manner that doesn't trash your credibility with them. If nothing else, the mental exercise alone offers some perspective on our trajectory. Before you do take the Canadian flag off your shoulder... somehow it makes you feel less silly You would probably have to start by explaining the waxing process itself and move on from there. IMO, it's a conversation best avoided by deflection and passing out a few cigarettes... even if you don't smoke you might want to choke one down. It's the perfect time to pass out that new soccer ball to the kids... donated by your church back home BTW. Try to visualize it in the context of a Monty Python sketch. Sometimes you only realize how silly you look when you have to explain this sort of stuff in detail to people with real problems.

If it's classified as TS then the media most definitely isn't in on it. They shouldn't be in on it either, and if they are then the information was leaked to them illegally and the leaker should be held to account. So, nothing to do with partisanship, it's simply the classification of the docket and the law of the land as it presently exists. The media failure here ((IMO anyway) is in its "shoulder shrugging" absence. How is it possible that they aren't asking the questions I (meaning you, me, we and us) would be asking if we had the platform to do so? Isn't that a reasonable expectation? Wouldn't that qualify as a basic measure of journalistic integrity? Why aren't they chasing the PM down the street (Rebel News style) shouting tough questions at him? If journalistic competence is now defined as something that only proceeds from the heat oppressed brains of "cuckoo land partisans" then we deserve what we get. What we don't want (I hope) is a media that thinks: And/or a public that somehow deems that to be OK.

And I'm pretty sure I know who the sales team is working for. The media have become willing participants and there's financial motivations at play now too. But regardless of motivations, shrugging and simply accepting "I'm just the messenger" as a substitute for journalistic integrity is a problem that more people should "freak out" over IMO. Maybe they aren't because they've tuned out. Judging by casual conversations at the bank, grocery store, gym etc. I'm constantly amazed at how little people know about what's going on in the world, and (AND), more to the point... how little they seem to care. Cool, your's for action then. In the mean time, if wishes were places we would be where we are not.

The Catholics progressing are likely the same ones not practicing...

Far be it for me to argue with wisdom from the spirit world....

The children of elderly parents who stand to inherit cottages / recreational properties (which are not primary residences) will soon discover who the wealthy are. As the boomers die off, arguably the largest wealth transfer in human history looms on the horizon. JT wants (actually needs) a piece of that action and selling this tax grab as only affecting the "Beamer driving rich" is a great tactic. Millennials wearing "make the rich pay" t-shirts may soon be wearing matching jackets that say "i didn't mean me." And I"m just cynical enough to believe that "liberal lite" Conservatives won't be walking this back anytime soon... even if/when they say they will. When they don't they'll be wearing t-shirts of their own that say "we didn't know things were this bad".

And avoiding It is probably why they sent their kids to a Catholic school in the first place. That's my problem with all of this, and frankly, the arrogance of it is breathtaking. People used to say "well, if you don't like it send your kids to either a Catholic or a private school, now they seem to be saying "FU, if you don't like it don't look." That's why I feel duped, it's as if I helped them do this. Too much of too much for me, it's all over now. That's why the hard right turn and the resolve to support no further DEI type initiatives. It's a hard nonnegotiable no... and they worked hard for that no. Sometimes all ya have to do to get along with people is nothing. Mind your own business, live your own life and extend that self same courtesy to others... especially those who signed your damn petition in the first place.

They're not read in. They have no access to classified documents or investigative findings... and rightly so. Their job is to ask obvious questions, hold the government to account, dig around, search out facts independently and report them. Just like they used to do back when they were largely considered to be a trusted institution.... remember those days? Your question itself shows how much we've slipped and how readily we've come to accept a new (and IMO dismal) standard of journalistic integrity. It's gotten to the point that consumers of news (especially partisan consumers of partisan news) are justifying the very biases in reporting that leave them ill informed in the first place.

When all of this gets analyzed after the fact, I think we'll see that Hamas casualty numbers were overly padded and that they routinely included combatants, foreign fighters, and civilians who were actually killed by them (meaning Hamas themselves). The events of Oct 7th and all of the lead up to it (including targeted training and support) will become front and centre too. This was a significant intelligence failure in arguably the most surveilled real-estate on the planet. Lots of lessons there. In fact, if you want to blame Israeli military/civilian leadership for something, blame them for missing the signs (which were reported and highlighted according to open sources) and not nipping this in the bud. As to Hamas actions the day of, at best going door to door systematically killing and raping all occupants was a limited ethnic cleansing effort, they planned it, trained it, and rehearsed it. On a larger scale we would call it genocide. We will also come to realize the extent of Israeli efforts to limit collateral damage in high population density operations where the use of human shields is systemic. I suspect it will set a new standard for other nations who may be faced with conducting similar operations in the future. At some point we will also (hopefully) come to see Hamas as primarily an ideological (religious) movement. As with some posters right here, that makes negotiations virtually impossible. Only the total destruction of Israel and rebuilding on the rubble is acceptable to them. If Hamas were a political entity with political goals/objectives put forward on behalf of the Palestinian people there would be something to negotiate. If the eventual goal here is peaceful negotiations it simply won't happen with Hamas at the helm Criminality has been bandied about here as well with little consideration given to the horror (and premeditated effort) behind the systemic employment of human shields. For the record, human shields are legally protected persons, either protected civilians or prisoners of war who are either coerced or volunteer to deter attacks by occupying the space between a belligerent and a legitimate military target. The use of human shields is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. It is also a specific intent war crime as codified in the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Lots more in the same book that came from too IMO, it either takes a herculean effort or unwavering narrative to be so legally, morally, doctrinally, and scripturally off base here. Something to be said for consistency though I guess.