The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Free Speech

And what is the point of this list of alleged insurrections that were done without weapons or barely used? Unfortunately the vast majority of atrocities which history has recorded where millions upon millions were killed and slaughtered by tyrants were done with weapons upon unarmed people. Yes, they were unarmed in the majority of cases because the Tyrant/tyrannical government confiscated the means which the citizens once owned for protection. IF the point your "friend" sent to you was that owning and using so-called weapons (which FYI could be a spoon depending upon how it is being used) is unnecessary, then I must insist that he is naïve of he has possibly embraced some form of pacifism. However, biblically pacifism is not taught but contrariwise Scripture is clear that defending oneself is not only allowed by encouraged. Even Jesus told his disciples to bring swords with them for protection. There is no honor in allowing someone to take your life or the life of your family or the life of your neighbor or anyone else. Those who do such things, i.e., murderers are to receive the death penalty (Gen 9:6) which is a creation ordinance and which has never been rescinded. IF, again IF your friend is again trying to prove that resistance must always be "peaceful", aka: unarmed, I guess he would have grave objections to the American Revolution and the Civil War of the United States and WWI, WWII, the Korean War, etc. where better people resisted those who were guilty of godless acts against humanity. In the case of the Revolutionary War, the armed resistance came at the exact time the British armed forces were ordered to march on all the peoples of this new country and disarm them. If a mere 3% of the teachers, pastors, farmers, bakers, tailors, and those of all walks of life had not taken up their arms and resisted, there would be no "United States of America" but simply another servile nation under the thumb of some 'royal-blooded' monarch on another continent whose sole goal was to dominate all of mankind.

It’s all about emphasis and what gets covered and promoted. If there were news coverage of innocent women and children being slaughtered in Palestine would that have an affect on your sympathies? I bet it would. There’s many things that the media can cover. Who determines what is most vital and why? What news sources do you seek and why? The world is filled with injustices- take your pick. Don’t just pick a tribe, a side or a mantra. If a narrative exaggerates the importance of a local episode over all others, that’s for you to decide.

Can you provide me with a story covered by Rebel News that is ever critical or skeptical of Israel?

https://www.rebelnews.com/caught_hi...o_with_questions_at_world_economic_forum

The news is merely conditioning us and shaping the narratives to get ahead or redirect and often distract- half truths and delayed truths are not helpful in our day of limited justice.

RN seems pretty tabloidish to me - where do they get their funding?

Anthony, those two last posts you gave in my opinion are silly.
However, I think Pilgrim dealt with them more that adequately,

Tom

“(Levant) He identifies as a Zionist and supporter of Israel.”

There’s your bias/slant…
https://forward.com/fast-forward/36...ounder-of-canadas-alt-right-rebel-media/





I submit that if God wants a people slaughtered then His will is just.

But men who look for an excuse to do so for corrupt motives ? I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.