you make up your own story. no one cares.
then you should at least admit that you, yourself, made it up, or is there a source for your scripture?
>8274835 (lb)
partial repeat of a post from yesterday.
Yesterday links were dropped about this.
Did you determine if the dead guy was related to the Uber person?
this was all posted yesterday:
did you see the link about the law suit with the dead guys name on it?
Digs on Iranian exAmbassador to the Vatican
someone with the same last name was a major player in founding Uber:
article about uber:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90245381/how-dara-khosrowshahi-iranian-heritage-shapes-how-he-leads-uber
Hadi was a defendant in a lawsuit:
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-00377/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-00377-0
how would one verify if it's the same guy?
from 2014 this article ties the Hadi to Middle-east Antifa (the MB):
https://eng-archive.aawsat.com/amir-taheri/features/iran-and-the-ikhwan-the-ideological-roots-of-a-partnership
parsing words to mean other things is called conflation. Thinking for myself has benifits.
read notables. Started earlier in the week.
you give partial history.
Christ came for all mankind.
'destroy them all': to the contrary they showed great restraint for a long period of decades.
sounds like what the Euroasian mafias want to do to all English and Western countries, and books writting in langauges that they don't like of people who they want to dispose of.
Google is doing this right now, not 1800 years ago.
and you're here why?
there is a view of history that doesn't take sides over stuff that happened 2000 years ago, but merely presents an idea of what was, and what pepole were modivated to accomplish. In this kind of view, a discussion of, for example, the distruction of the temple, is not talking about a modern happening, or modern people.
A discussion of the Colleseum would be very solumn due to the nature of what went on there, but we could still marvel about the inventions that are disclosed by the evidence wihtin the architecture. We can see Jerusalem as a wonderful City on a Hill, a bright beacon which can not be hidden, and owned by no one, but just there, and pepole live there, not representing a political movement of the present day, but a marvel of the use of water and space to have a city in which people could sometimes be safe.
but no, it's about 'now' to a lot of these people. They have their grudges in the now, they extend them to the past.
let me remind of an aphorism: those who do not understand History are destined to repeat the mistakes of History
I'm sure there is a better quote of this, and I supposedly should know who said it. But it's not really true. You can not understand stuff ,and still not be a jerk and get ahead and do good for the world, and have a happy and good life, helping others.
but what does that aphorism say: study history. Learn the failings.
when we grudge it all, I first saw it with the Civil War where people would take sides over a 100 year old crisis. I remember a kid in 6th grade saying he wanted to kill racists. I asked him if it wouldn't be better if we could teach racists to not be that way, and repent and let them live? He was in that mode where you don't back down so he said something stupid then. Maybe later he figured out my message.
So all that.
so we have these pepole in this bread who are larping supremicism. The show an old pope during the Nazi era when there was not really a choice except for civil war that the pope could make . . .
or they start talking shit about Saul of Tarsaus.
the really ignorant ones will say something like 'King David was a sinner' and my thought is 'ya, daahhh' but he was a holy man of God and loved by the people and by . . .
these binary-minded viewers of History don't see King David as a person.
they don't see Jesus Christ as a Person.
they don't see any of it like that: to them it's an allegorical battle that they are fighting between the demons of their own mind, internally. and to get past their rampent psychophrenic behavior, the lash out at anon here with their gloss of history as a point of view.
Saul did both good and evil
King David did both good and evil
Popes have done both good and evil
every person has done . . .
so you can (except for Jesus Christ) so you can either open up your mind and accept that these Histories we read were about real people, or you can pretend that it's a battle between anjels and demons in your head, for some virtue that makes you ? ? ?
better than others?
smarter?
more hip?
better saved?
ya, you shill kids, when you study and learn the ancient texts, you might some day feel the fool for being here amoung us today, with so much love in our hearts for even you, but you are blind to it and spit on us, and piss on us, and treat us like we should carry a heavy cross and drag it to the hill top where you will repeat the cruxifiction.
well hopefull you wont take it that far.
here is a point for you one-liners about history: go read and study and make some thoughts first.
then come here and share with us.
For me studying ancient technology is a fun hobby. It replaces my need for situation comedy, which is so very hard to watch.
and I've tried to add some stuff to be educational.
at least do that, shill-kids.
now people are saying it didint' happen?
I thought that the best anyone could claim is that it was about 1/20th of the people.
that would still be a lot of teeth!
Isn't there a
War in Heaven?
explain that part to me, because I've always had a very limited understanding on that topic.
what does that mean?
the proof isn't there.
how can we just accept a narrative from pepole who have no credibility in the modern day?
Why do you trust that narrative?
We know how that generation behaved, we saw what they did first, to Poland, and then onward.
did you not see how they destroyed so much of the Soviet Union?
the burdan in on the other side to prove it and they can't.
but the rub is that it's used to shake down for monies.
is that OK?
or this one: no one ever has names of those relatives?
why is that?
It's funny that the revolt against parents started with Communists and Marixsts, who were mostly Eastern European Bolshivick types, and yet that class never ever discounted all the tainted stories that they heard from their creepy grand parents.
So, no, the term 'denier' is an operational word.
you can not be clear what it is that you claim the other denies.
the danger is the hyperbolic false accusers. they will quickly call you something like denier, and then want to put your before a marxist kangagroo judge, and into gulog.
and call you a hater, saying you hate . . . .
etc etc.
Orwell didn't have the half of it.