Aleppo

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Aleppo

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Odd that you should blame 'God' for the mess and misery, unless of course you are using it as a euphemism for 'USA'.
If anything I'd be using God as a euphemism for Russia. Is the USA bombing Aleppo, right now?
Last edited by Gary Childress on Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Aleppo

Post by Gary Childress »

bobevenson wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:It seems difficult to blame Muslims for being incensed over what is happening in Syria.
Do you think it's difficult to blame the world for being incensed over Muslim terrorism?
Absolutely correct, Bob. I find both sides pretty embroiled in a senseless, self-perpetuating struggle. Both sides believe they are 100% justified in their actions.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Aleppo

Post by Gary Childress »

ken wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
HexHammer wrote: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".
Very easy once you know how to. I have learned a way to look at any thing from a completely objective perspective, which shows what is true and what is false, that is how I know what scriptures, and prophets are false.

If you like provide some examples and I will show you which ones are true and which ones are false. But be for warned that you will on most occasions need to change the actual way you are looking at the scripture to be able to understand fully what I will say.

By the way every human being can be and is a prophet, to some extent, and every one of us adults has expressed falsehoods without even knowing they are false. In fact we have actually believed the falsehood to be true, right, and/or correct.
Gary Childress wrote: Answer, none of us do.
Unless you know every one of us, then how are you so sure of this answer?

How do you know none of us know what scriptures are false or not?
Gary Childress wrote: If there's a God then s/he created a world of confusion.
Why do human beings persist with the notion that God is a he or a she? Talk about trying to metamorphos God into a human being like thing. Trying to change the form or nature of God into a human like thing will never ever work.

One example of a false scripture is that God is a he.

One reason God was, and still is maybe, referred to as a "he" is because when the bible was written men were, so wrongly, seen as superior to the women. The image of God is devised within a human brain and the way the brain works it can only "paint a picture" from what it thinks it knows. The human brain can only express what it has been exposed to, which brings us back to the good question of, Why do you (whoever) refer to and picture God the way you do? Is is solely because that is what you have been previously exposed to or because you somehow KNOW what is so accurately right and true?

If human beings ever remotely questioned themselves about what they know what God actually is or is meant to be, the most common answer would be similar to, "I have absolutely no clue or idea at all".
Gary Childress wrote:God created gullible people.
How do you KNOW this?

And,

How did God supposedly do this?

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.

Also, let me guess you believe that you, yourself, are not gullible, and that only other people are gullible, am I right?
Gary Childress wrote:This world has problems only God can fix and s/he ain't doing it.
Just maybe human beings prefer to listen to themselves instead of listening to Me, ah I mean God.

To fix any problem the problem has to be exposed.

To Me, a problem, is just a question posed for a solution, which is the answer. To find the answer and solution to any problem is really very easy, once you know how to.

Name some of the problems, in their correct form, that is in a questioned form, then I can answer or fix them for you. But are you really prepared to listen to the answers?

By the way there is only really one problem in life for human beings, that problem is What is the solution that will solve/answer all of our problems? Learning how to discover that answer by yourself is really rather enlightening.
If you want to claim I can't know that no one knows then you can't claim I don't know that either. The door opens both ways I'm afraid.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Aleppo

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Immanuel Can wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:...his loathing for all 'Atheists...
Pure projection: your own feelings transferred, not a reality.

Yes, I "loathe" Atheists so much that I'll stand in the wind of their contempt on the off chance that one of them will see the dark hole into which they are precipitating themselves, and escape. I "loathe" them so much I keep trying, even though they don't want me to, and even when they swear, they bellow, they rant, they grind their teeth and declare undying hatred for everything I love. I "loathe" them so much that while they curse me I keep trying to be of some service to them before they face the justice of God.

Yep, that's "loathing" alright; and would that everybody "loathed" each other that way.

But I'm just fine with it if you don't like me. In retrospect, that's a very good thing.

God bless America.

And God save our Queen.
Contempt and loathing ooze out of you. Save your bullshit hypocrisy for your fellow religio retards.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Aleppo

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Odd that you should blame 'God' for the mess and misery, unless of course you are using it as a euphemism for 'USA'.
If anything I'd be using God as a euphemism for Russia. Is the USA bombing Aleppo, right now?
Umm. Who created the mess? Are you really that thick? The US just couldn't leave Syria alone to have its civil war. It had to go blundering in there and make everything a thousand times worse as usual. The US started it all when it attacked Iraq. I have no idea why Russia had to poke its nose in too. As far as I could tell, warmongering yanks were cheering Russia on for 'helping' the US. See what happens when you have a country of 300 million morons?
None of you have a clue about anything. The US dislikes Assad because he's not a malleable puppet.
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Aleppo

Post by bobevenson »

Gary Childress wrote:
bobevenson wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:It seems difficult to blame Muslims for being incensed over what is happening in Syria.
Do you think it's difficult to blame the world for being incensed over Muslim terrorism?
Absolutely correct, Bob. I find both sides pretty embroiled in a senseless, self-perpetuating struggle. Both sides believe they are 100% justified in their actions.
Wouldn't you say bringing down New York City's twin towers is a little less justified than anything the other side has done?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Aleppo

Post by Gary Childress »

bobevenson wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
bobevenson wrote: Do you think it's difficult to blame the world for being incensed over Muslim terrorism?
Absolutely correct, Bob. I find both sides pretty embroiled in a senseless, self-perpetuating struggle. Both sides believe they are 100% justified in their actions.
Wouldn't you say bringing down New York City's twin towers is a little less justified than anything the other side has done?
Iraq didn't bring down the Twin Towers, though. Saudi citizens did. This war has spiraled out of control. People are killing each other and when they miss and hit someone else they're bringing new people into the fight. Wouldn't you agree?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Aleppo

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:[The US started it all when it attacked Iraq.
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.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Aleppo

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:[The US started it all when it attacked Iraq.
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.
The 2003 invasion was never a 'war'. It was an arrogant bloated bully picking on the weakest target. The US never declared 'war' on Iraq. It had some bullshit story about WMDs. When it was proven Iraq didn't have them it still attacked anyway (for the hell of it). They then claimed it was to 'save' the Iraqis from Hussein, but when he was 'removed' the US stayed and kept bombing and killing anyway (for the hell of it). Ever seen photos of US soldiers in Iraq? Always with huge grins on their stupid, McDonald's-soaked faces, enjoying themselves immensely.
A-US-soldier-poses-with-d-007.jpg
A-US-soldier-poses-with-d-007.jpg (39.64 KiB) Viewed 3380 times
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Aleppo

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The 2003 invasion was never a 'war'. It was an arrogant bloated bully picking on the weakest target. The US never declared 'war' on Iraq. It had some bullshit story about WMDs. When it was proven Iraq didn't have them it still attacked anyway (for the hell of it). They then claimed it was to 'save' the Iraqis from Hussein, but when he was 'removed' the US stayed and kept bombing and killing anyway (for the hell of it). Ever seen photos of US soldiers in Iraq? Always with huge grins on their stupid, McDonald's-soaked faces, enjoying themselves immensely.

A-US-soldier-poses-with-d-007.jpg
An evasion of the point. You said the US "started it all by attacking Iraq". I responded with the reasons for the invasions. Were the invasions justified? Probably not. Not anymore than a bunch of Saudis were justified in flying planes into an office building killing 3000 people who had nothing to do with their problems. It doesn't do any of us much good to point fingers and scream "monster!". What the world needs is people to put away the guns. (BTW I was against the Iraq war but as it turned out it wasn't my decision to make, hotter heads prevailed.)
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Aleppo

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The 2003 invasion was never a 'war'. It was an arrogant bloated bully picking on the weakest target. The US never declared 'war' on Iraq. It had some bullshit story about WMDs. When it was proven Iraq didn't have them it still attacked anyway (for the hell of it). They then claimed it was to 'save' the Iraqis from Hussein, but when he was 'removed' the US stayed and kept bombing and killing anyway (for the hell of it). Ever seen photos of US soldiers in Iraq? Always with huge grins on their stupid, McDonald's-soaked faces, enjoying themselves immensely.

A-US-soldier-poses-with-d-007.jpg
An evasion of the point. You said the US "started it all by attacking Iraq". I responded with the reasons for the invasions. Were the invasions justified? Probably not. Not anymore than a bunch of Saudis were justified in flying planes into an office building killing 3000 people who had nothing to do with their problems. It doesn't do any of us much good to point fingers and scream "monster!". What the world needs is people to put away the guns. (BTW I was against the Iraq war but as it turned out it wasn't my decision to make, hotter heads prevailed.)
I just said it wasn't a war. And just how much were you 'against' it? Your pathetic use of 'probably' says it all.
Talk about evading the point, bringing up 11/9. What does that have to do with the price of fishcakes?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Aleppo

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The 2003 invasion was never a 'war'. It was an arrogant bloated bully picking on the weakest target. The US never declared 'war' on Iraq. It had some bullshit story about WMDs. When it was proven Iraq didn't have them it still attacked anyway (for the hell of it). They then claimed it was to 'save' the Iraqis from Hussein, but when he was 'removed' the US stayed and kept bombing and killing anyway (for the hell of it). Ever seen photos of US soldiers in Iraq? Always with huge grins on their stupid, McDonald's-soaked faces, enjoying themselves immensely.

A-US-soldier-poses-with-d-007.jpg
An evasion of the point. You said the US "started it all by attacking Iraq". I responded with the reasons for the invasions. Were the invasions justified? Probably not. Not anymore than a bunch of Saudis were justified in flying planes into an office building killing 3000 people who had nothing to do with their problems. It doesn't do any of us much good to point fingers and scream "monster!". What the world needs is people to put away the guns. (BTW I was against the Iraq war but as it turned out it wasn't my decision to make, hotter heads prevailed.)
I just said it wasn't a war. And just how much were you 'against' it? Your pathetic use of 'probably' says it all.
Talk about evading the point, bringing up 11/9. What does that have to do with the price of fishcakes?
You said the US started it all by starting the invasion of Iraq. Why not accuse whoever was responsible for 9/11 of "starting it all"? 9/11 was no more just than invading Iraq. However, you seem to reserve a special place for the actions of the US.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Aleppo

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
An evasion of the point. You said the US "started it all by attacking Iraq". I responded with the reasons for the invasions. Were the invasions justified? Probably not. Not anymore than a bunch of Saudis were justified in flying planes into an office building killing 3000 people who had nothing to do with their problems. It doesn't do any of us much good to point fingers and scream "monster!". What the world needs is people to put away the guns. (BTW I was against the Iraq war but as it turned out it wasn't my decision to make, hotter heads prevailed.)
I just said it wasn't a war. And just how much were you 'against' it? Your pathetic use of 'probably' says it all.
Talk about evading the point, bringing up 11/9. What does that have to do with the price of fishcakes?
You said the US started it all by starting the invasion of Iraq. Why not accuse whoever was responsible for 9/11 of "starting it all"? 9/11 was no more just than invading Iraq. However, you seem to reserve a special place for the actions of the US.
Iraq had nothing to do with 11/9. That was a crime committed by a small handful of people (who incidentally were trained by the US). And yes, it does seem incredible when you see the bungling incompetence of the US Intelligence agencies and military. If it had been an 'inside job' then they would probably have all tripped and broken their necks before even boarding the planes.
The US was determined to attack an Arab country after 11/9. It didn't really care which (it couldn't be Saudi Arabia because Saudi and the US were too busy sucking each other's dicks), so it picked the weakest target. After all, muslims are 'all the same' so one muslim country is as good to fuck over as any other.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Aleppo

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I just said it wasn't a war. And just how much were you 'against' it? Your pathetic use of 'probably' says it all.
Talk about evading the point, bringing up 11/9. What does that have to do with the price of fishcakes?
You said the US started it all by starting the invasion of Iraq. Why not accuse whoever was responsible for 9/11 of "starting it all"? 9/11 was no more just than invading Iraq. However, you seem to reserve a special place for the actions of the US.
Iraq had nothing to do with 11/9. That was a crime committed by a small handful of people (who incidentally were trained by the US).
So what would you have done after 9/11? A small band of people who hate the US flew some planes into buildings killing 3000 innocent people for apparently no good reason. What do you do? Wait for the next time?

Just to bring things back to the OP, we are talking about Aleppo here. Do you think Russia is justified in bombing Aleppo?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Aleppo

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
You said the US started it all by starting the invasion of Iraq. Why not accuse whoever was responsible for 9/11 of "starting it all"? 9/11 was no more just than invading Iraq. However, you seem to reserve a special place for the actions of the US.
Iraq had nothing to do with 11/9. That was a crime committed by a small handful of people (who incidentally were trained by the US).
So what would you have done after 9/11? A small band of people who hate the US flew some planes into buildings killing 3000 innocent people for apparently no good reason. What do you do? Wait for the next time?

Just to bring things back to the OP, we are talking about Aleppo here. Do you think Russia is justified in bombing Aleppo?
What would I have done? Not attack a fucking country and destabilise the entire ME! And why would I even need to answer your fucking stupid question? Do I seem like a warmonger who believes in bombing children to you???
Post Reply