Aleppo

[Pluto]

This reads like a bedtime story for children:

"The 2003 invasion was in response to 9/11. 9/11 changed a lot of minds about how safe the world was and Bush sold the war in Iraq as a way of making the world safer because he believed they would supply WMDs to the types who were responsible for 9/11. If you're referring to the first war in Iraq, that was a response to the invasion of Kuwait"

[Gary Childress]

No I will not, but what I will do is explain to you that each and EVERY one of those sentences I write to you that end with a question mark are clarifying questions posed to you awaiting an answer.

Thanks for the favor, ken. In any case I dug through your post and came up with the following questions you appear to be asking (I've tried to discern what exactly the questions are and apologize if I got any of them wrong):

1. "Unless you know every one of us, then how are you so sure of this answer?" [I assume your question here is how do I know none of us know for sure what are "true" and "false" scriptures, prophets etc.]

ANSWER: I only know what you know through my own experience and I can say for a fact based on my own experience that when it comes to things concerning "gods" there are few if any "facts" out there to be apprehended in any kind of concrete manner. Therefore what is "true" or "false" scripture is ultimately only conjecture. For all we know God could be a completely indifferent and uncaring being and all the various "scriptures" are just pipe dreams arrived at from eating too many magic mushrooms.

2. "How do you know none of us know what scriptures are false or not?"

ANSWER: By "knowledge" I take it you mean knowing something is true as opposed to being correct by guessing. Is it possible that some have guessed correctly what scriptures or prophets are false and which are true? Sure. But that is not knowledge that is a guess.

3. "Why do you (whoever) refer to and picture God the way you do? Is solely because that is what you have been previously exposed to or because you somehow KNOW what is so accurately right and true?"

ANSWER: I believe here you are referring to my use of the word "s/he" meaning of undetermined gender. I used it because English doesn't have a neuter personal pronoun. Unless you prefer I use the term "it", then I'm not sure what you want me to do here.

4. "How do you KNOW this?"

ANSWER: I believe here you are asking "how do I know I have no clue or idea at all about God (however, I'm not entirely sure if that's what you are asking). Suffice to say I'm pretty sure I don't know much of anything about God, anymore than I know what color your underwear is since you haven't disclosed it to me. I also don't know what God thinks. Since there are allegedly false prophets and scriptures out there, it would be like asking me what you think based on what a third party told me and after someone told me that there were people out there who misinterpreted what you said to them or even made things up incorrectly.

5. "How did God supposedly do this?"

ANSWER: I'm not sure what you are asking here. Would appreciate a clarification.

6. "Also, let me guess you believe that you, yourself, are not gullible, and that only other people are gullible, am I right?"

ANSWER: Wrong. I am just as gullible as anyone else may be out there when it comes to matters concerning God and what are or aren't God's intentions. I admit it. You, on the other hand, seem to think you possess some special ability to know things concerning what are or aren't false scriptures or prophets because you literally claim so in your post.

BTW: I'm agnostic so my views concerning God and our relevant knowledge about him/her/it come with the caveat that there even exists a God to begin with.

[Gary Childress]

This reads like a bedtime story for children:

"The 2003 invasion was in response to 9/11. 9/11 changed a lot of minds about how safe the world was and Bush sold the war in Iraq as a way of making the world safer because he believed they would supply WMDs to the types who were responsible for 9/11. If you're referring to the first war in Iraq, that was a response to the invasion of Kuwait"

Your response reads like an ad hominem that is irrelevant to the discussion.

[ken]

No I will not, but what I will do is explain to you that each and EVERY one of those sentences I write to you that end with a question mark are clarifying questions posed to you awaiting an answer.

Thanks for the favor, ken. In any case I dug through your post and came up with the following questions you appear to be asking (I've tried to discern what exactly the questions are and apologize if I got any of them wrong):

Firstly I will have to apologize for not listing what my questions were. I have to admit I did not follow my own advice and I made an assumption myself, which turned out to be totally wrong. Based on my previous experiences only on the very rarest of occasion has any one ever really bothered to answer my clarifying questions. I obviously made the wrong assumption here. Apologies again gary.

1. "Unless you know every one of us, then how are you so sure of this answer?" [I assume your question here is how do I know none of us know for sure what are "true" and "false" scriptures, prophets etc.]

ANSWER: I only know what you know through my own experience and I can say for a fact based on my own experience that when it comes to things concerning "gods" there are few if any "facts" out there to be apprehended in any kind of concrete manner. Therefore what is "true" or "false" scripture is ultimately only conjecture. For all we know God could be a completely indifferent and uncaring being and all the various "scriptures" are just pipe dreams arrived at from eating too many magic mushrooms.

AND, for all we know one person might know what God really and truly is, and thus also knows what scriptures are false or not.

For starters the assumption you made in brackets was correct, but unfortunately your ANSWER had nothing at all to do with that assumption nor with answering my question. Your answer actually jumped straight to the wrong conclusion based on and from another assumption of yours, which was incorrect this time, this assumption was in regards to yourself: If I do not yet know something, then no one else could know it also. You begin, "I only know what you know", which I think you will find is also totally incorrect. You then go on wrongly to pose this incorrect assumption as a fact, which it obviously is not.

This is your second post in this thread;

Don't blame God, blame the false scriptures and false prophet that has mislead the masses.

How do you know what scriptures, and prophets are "false". Answer, none of us do.

You proceeded to directly answer your own question with; "None of us do". Since your question was posed to hex, I posed my question towards you regarding your answer; "Unless you know every one of us, then how are you so sure of this answer?" Which, literally, means what it is I am asking, How do you know that none of us do know what scriptures and prophets are false? Forget about whether scriptures and prophets are false or not, and forget about whether god/s exists or not, I was, literally, asking you, how are you so sure that "none of us do" know? In other words how are you so sure that you know what each and every one of us does know or does not know?

JUST MAYBE there is one human being, somewhere, who does KNOW. That one, however, may not yet be able to express this knowledge, or maybe this one is just not willing to share and express this knowledge yet. I was just questioning your apparently rigid answer and response of: None of us do know, that is all. You can not know what knowledge another human being has or not if they have not yet shared what they, themselves, know.

2. "How do you know none of us know what scriptures are false or not?"

ANSWER: By "knowledge" I take it you mean knowing something is true as opposed to being correct by guessing. Is it possible that some have guessed correctly what scriptures or prophets are false and which are true? Sure. But that is not knowledge that is a guess.

For starters this time your assumption is completely wrong. You even made the mistake of using the word "knowledge" when I NEVER even referred to the word 'knowledge' and this led you onto making the assumption about "guessing".

Thus we have to come back to my original question of, How do you KNOW? How do you know what another human being knows or does not know?

Just maybe one human being has not made a guess but actually does HAVE the knowledge, and, is just maybe learning how to express exactly how they gained that true and right knowledge. You certainly do not have the "knowledge" of what knowledge ALL other human beings have. At the very best you, yourself, are making a guess, which obviously you may be correct or incorrect.

By the way I actually wrote both the number 1. and 2. questions, to the one quote, in two slightly different ways because I knew my question would not be understood and would be misinterpreted just as you have proven here successfully. HOW I knew this before it even took place can and will only be able to be understood after what it is that I am actually questioning you about is fully understood.

Do you fully understand what I was and am asking of you yet? If not, then I will try again.

How do you KNOW what others do know or do not know? There can only be roughly two answers. Either;
1. Your answer is, "I do not know". Or,
2. You start by explaining, "How i know this is ..."

3. "Why do you (whoever) refer to and picture God the way you do? Is solely because that is what you have been previously exposed to or because you somehow KNOW what is so accurately right and true?"

ANSWER: I believe here you are referring to my use of the word "s/he" meaning of undetermined gender. I used it because English doesn't have a neuter personal pronoun. Unless you prefer I use the term "it", then I'm not sure what you want me to do here.

Your assumption here is correct, I was referring to the s/he comment but I was also referring to what I wrote; that is the picture a person paints of God. I was asking in general to whoever wants to answer the general question; Why do people refer to and paint a picture of a thing, of which they really have absolutely no idea about other than what they have been told or have experienced but not seen, yet refer to that thing as some certain thing. I was asking why do they do that, THE WAY THEY DO? In other words what mechanisms in them makes them do that and why do they do it?

You could have used the english word 'God' as neuter personal pronoun. You could have used the word God seeing that God does not have a gender. By the way, and on a side note, I just noticed will I was looking up the definitions of some of the words you use that it is alleged that the 'Spirit' is a neuter word in greek, which will come in very handy as more evidence and proof for what I actually want to express. These very deep and delving into discussions always lead Me on to learning more and more. Thanks for this gary.

I do not understand what you are getting at with your third sentence; "Unless you prefer I use the term "it", then I'm not sure what you want me to do here." Obviously, IF, and only, if I prefer you to use the term "it", the that is what I would prefer, so surely you could be sure what I want you to do here. That is IF I wanted to use the term "it", which I do not. I WANT you to use whatever words and terms you like and want to you use. You are free to do whatever you like and that is the way that I truly prefer. I, however, can and will question human beings WHY they use the words and terms they use if I think they are not correct. I do this in a truly open manner in order so that they gain a better perspective of where they are actually coming from.

4. "How do you KNOW this?"

ANSWER: I believe here you are asking "how do I know I have no clue or idea at all about God (however, I'm not entirely sure if that's what you are asking). Suffice to say I'm pretty sure I don't know much of anything about God, anymore than I know what color your underwear is since you haven't disclosed it to me. I also don't know what God thinks. Since there are allegedly false prophets and scriptures out there, it would be like asking me what you think based on what a third party told me and after someone told me that there were people out there who misinterpreted what you said to them or even made things up incorrectly.

Exactly.

So, the real and true answer IS "I do not know". Nothing to be ashamed about in answering that way to absolutely any question, because how could any human being KNOW something, for sure, if they have not learned it nor have not had first hand experience of it? No human being is born with conscious knowledge of any thing, therefore absolutely ALL knowledge is learned 'along the way'. And, if a human being has not been exposed to some thing, then there is no way that they could, literally, know (of) it nor have knowledge of it.

By the way your assumption here is wrong, although what you wrote in brackets is right. Here is a bit of advice that you can take or leave but instead of trying to guess and assume what my questions are actually referring to, I find it much quicker, simpler, and easier to just remain completely by (and) asking clarifying questions. That way I can never be wrong. I can only become wiser, much quicker, simpler, and more easily.

I wrote, "How do you KNOW this?" directly under your rigid quote, "God created gullible people." So, what I was asking here is, How do you KNOW, for sure, God created gullible people? Surely, I thought it would be much more obvious that if I ask a clarifying question DIRECTLY UNDER another's quote, then I am asking the question in reference directly to that quote than to anything else. Making assumptions, which can and do end up being wrong, ends up take up so much more time than is really necessary.

5. "How did God supposedly do this?"

ANSWER: I'm not sure what you are asking here. Would appreciate a clarification.

Thank you so much for that. This is so refreshing to actually be asked for clarification my Self. Also did you notice how much quicker, simpler, and easier that was? Anyway, this question was also directly under your quote "God created gullible people" SO again this question was directly in response to your quote. Beside that I thought what I was ACTUALLY asking here was given as a clue in my next and directly following paragraph;
"If you can answer both of those questions with a sound, valid argument explaining both of them thoroughly, then I will accept that you do KNOW that God created gullible people. Until then I will just remain open to the fact that you may not actually know this to be true and that you are just assuming and/or believing this to be true, based solely on your own past previous experiences and what you, yourself, have been exposed to. By the way that is not to say it is not true. I am just open to all that you have to say."

Are you sure of what I am asking here now?

6. "Also, let me guess you believe that you, yourself, are not gullible, and that only other people are gullible, am I right?"

ANSWER: Wrong. I am just as gullible as anyone else may be out there when it comes to matters concerning God and what are or aren't God's intentions. I admit it. You, on the other hand, seem to think you possess some special ability to know things concerning what are or aren't false scriptures or prophets because you literally claim so in your post.

Thanks for admitting that.

You are partly right and partly wrong here. Yes I did literally claim to know things concerning what are or are not false scriptures or prophets, but it certainly did NOT claim that I posses some "special ability". The only thing that is 'special' about this ability that I have is it is unique to only the human species. No other animal possess this ability. Also, this ability is uniquely special in that each and EVERY human being shares this ability equally. I do not personally possess more of this ability. I just have, because of what I have been exposed to previously, stumbled upon and learned a way to change the way I look and see things now from the way I used to look and see things previously. This is nothing that no other human being can not learn also.

BTW: I'm agnostic so my views concerning God and our relevant knowledge about him/her/it come with the caveat that there even exists a God to begin with.[/quote]

'i' am a 'person', which is the thoughts and feelings within a human body, and is sometimes also referred to and known as a 'human being'. 'i' do not label this personal self as anything else than that. 'i' also (try to) remain completely open always so that i can continually keep on learning and becoming wiser.

'I', on the other hand, am some thing different, which is for a much later discussion.

Again, thank you so much for the effort in finding my questions and answering them. That really surprised me, quite pleasantly, and I have gained a lot more insight and knowledge from this.

Also, I noticed you wrote an apology thread to two others regarding this thread, which you posted just after your reply to me here. Just out of curiosity, while you were reading, tediously I am sure with the way I write, and going through my writings looking for my questions, (again apologies for that), did my response to bobevenson trigger anything at all regarding that apology? You may not have even read that post but I am just wondering.

[Gary Childress]

Ken, it's not just that I don't know anything about God, it's that NO ONE CAN know anything about God (as far as I can tell). But here are some questions to you:

1. How do you know anything about God--as in what sources or evidence are you using for whatever information you believe you possess about God?

2. Tell me something about God that is true--anything you want.

3. Can you give an example of a "true" scripture and one example of a "false" scripture and give whatever evidence you possess that demonstrates the truth and/or falsity of those scriptures?

4. Can you give an example of a "true" prophet and a "false" prophet and why you think they are a true or false prophet?

Regarding my apology, it had nothing to do with your response to bobevanson.

[Pluto]

This reads like a bedtime story for children:

"The 2003 invasion was in response to 9/11. 9/11 changed a lot of minds about how safe the world was and Bush sold the war in Iraq as a way of making the world safer because he believed they would supply WMDs to the types who were responsible for 9/11. If you're referring to the first war in Iraq, that was a response to the invasion of Kuwait"

Your response reads like an ad hominem that is irrelevant to the discussion.

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
Origin

Latin, literally ‘to the person’.

Translate ad hominem to

What you said, not you personally

[bobevenson]

Can you give an example of a "true" scripture and one example of a "false" scripture and give whatever evidence you possess that demonstrates the truth and/or falsity of those scriptures?

A true scripture is the entire book of Revelation. A false scripture is the other 65 books of the Bible, which merely serve as wrapping paper for Revelation, the 66th. My evidence is divine inspiration, guidance and intervention, supported by a myriad of mystical credentials.

[Walker]

“It’s called deterrence. Yet Obama never had the credibility to deter anything or anyone. In the end, the world’s greatest power was reduced to bitter speeches at the United Nations. ‘Are you truly incapable of shame?’ thundered U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power at the butchers of Aleppo. As if we don’t know the answer. Indeed the shame is on us for terminal naivete, sending our secretary of state chasing the Russians to negotiate one humiliating pretend cease-fire after another.”
- Krauthammer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

[tbieter]

“It’s called deterrence. Yet Obama never had the credibility to deter anything or anyone. In the end, the world’s greatest power was reduced to bitter speeches at the United Nations. ‘Are you truly incapable of shame?’ thundered U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power at the butchers of Aleppo. As if we don’t know the answer. Indeed the shame is on us for terminal naivete, sending our secretary of state chasing the Russians to negotiate one humiliating pretend cease-fire after another.”
- Krauthammer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Aleppo is Obama's legacy. The Trump administration must put much of Obama under erasure.

[Greta]

It's all GW Bush's legacy. Without the Iraq invasion things would be very different.

[Walker]

“It’s called deterrence. Yet Obama never had the credibility to deter anything or anyone. In the end, the world’s greatest power was reduced to bitter speeches at the United Nations. ‘Are you truly incapable of shame?’ thundered U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power at the butchers of Aleppo. As if we don’t know the answer. Indeed the shame is on us for terminal naivete, sending our secretary of state chasing the Russians to negotiate one humiliating pretend cease-fire after another.”
- Krauthammer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Aleppo is Obama's legacy. The Trump administration must put much of Obama under erasure.

Out playing golf again. Happy as a lark.

If he was trying to screw the pooch what would he do differently?

[Walker]

It's all GW Bush's legacy. Without the Iraq invasion things would be very different.

Interesting reading ... WWI, discovery of oil in the region, the three big tribes, the British involvement for the oil, post 911 destabilization leading up to Obama's ineptitude for whatever reason that has made the region worse off than eight years ago, which isn't to say it was good but now it's worse, and he wasn't elected to make things worse for folks. You might say, he's got the anti-Midas touch, as the Democratic Party and many he has endorsed can attest.

[Greta]

It's all GW Bush's legacy. Without the Iraq invasion things would be very different.

Interesting reading ... WWI, discovery of oil in the region, the three big tribes, the British involvement for the oil, post 911 destabilization leading up to Obama's ineptitude for whatever reason that has made the region worse off than eight years ago, which isn't to say it was good but now it's worse, and he wasn't elected to make things worse for folks. You might say, he's got the anti-Midas touch, as the Democratic Party and many he has endorsed can attest.

He did not actively create mayhem as GWB did. He, Blair and Howard should have been in the Hague answering for their war crimes.

The Afghanistan invasion was understandable and sanctioned. The Iraq invasion was not and, further, it prematurely weakened the allied efforts in Afghanistan and allowed fundamentalists to regain control. Obama couldn't work through the mess, struggling with a hostile Republican-dominated Congress. Not ideal, but at least he didn't commit any war crimes or create new military disasters. Let's hope that Trump doesn't start any either. Trouble is, Syria is strategically important due to the oil lines, hence Russia's interest. There doesn't seem to be much that the US could have done there anyway - certainly not with the lost goodwill due to the destructive Iraq invasion.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

The idea --- the fantasy --- that Obama could have done something different, is absurd. The US can be visualized as a vast and complex machine which has been set in motion. The machine is one that has been running for all of the 20th century. It is absurd to imagine, and it only can be imagined in a disconnected, idealistic, unschooled mind, that someone can appear at the control terminal and make the machine do something different.

Further, the whole idea of 'make America great', when you break it down, means and can only mean to rev up the same machine engine which was built and designed, and then put in motion, when the US broke out of its *isolation* and became an imperial player. The Philippines and the entry into WW1 seem to represent the total shift and a radical new direction for the Republic.

I cannot, right now, see any way round this analysis. In my view therefor the only 'way forward' is a dramatic shift in the policy-structure and also the political structure of the US itself. How could that possibly come about? It likely cannot, and yet the speculation is valuable. It is a willingness to surrender imperial ambitions and a return, or a retreat, into the fortification and protection of individual states. That is, to disempower a Federal government which has exceeded, astoundingly, the natural inhibitors built into the executive office by the Founders. That does mean of course leaving the (world) field and leaving other players to play out their giant games.

It has taken about 100 years for things to develop to this point. It is folly to imagine that anything at all will be suddenly changed simply on the basis of a whim.

From the look of it Trump is assembling around him the exact sort of cabinet that one would imagine when one imagines how a Make America Great again project would be undertaken. According to the old terms of understanding. What he likely means, and what he likely visualizes, is the aftermath of the unprecedented success when the US marched into the ruins of Europe, victor.

[BradburyPound]

Very disturbing what is going on in Aleppo. Also saw where the Russian Ambassador was shot yesterday. Not a good thing to kill an ambassador but it seems difficult to blame Muslims for being incensed over what is happening in Syria. When in distress, kill someone I guess.

Personally I think Muslims need to abandon Allah. Any God who created and presides over such a messed up world doesn't deserve worship. But the more some people suffer the more they embrace the holy abomination that is God.

Are you also willing to abandon your god? And to what degree do you consider co-called "christian" countries are responsible for the mess in the Middle East?