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i.e., murderers are to receive the death penalty (Gen 9:6) which is a creation ordinance and which has never been rescinded.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.

Anthony,

What is that link supposed to accomplish?? IF it is to discredit Levant and thus convince me or others that he should be totally dismissed as a biased nut-case then it failed miserably to do so. I have only listened to probably 4 or 5 of his reports and they all appeared to be solidly true. I am a unwavering Christian and among the few who defend the 5 Solas, moral purity, holiness of life, biblical worship, etc.,, etc., and therefore by your constant ranting about "bias" people and agencies who report alleged news, then you should therefore look upon me in the same vane and dismiss all my defenses of biblical Christianity and Calvinism as 'slanted' and not worthy of any attention, in fact thus my explanations and defense should also mean Christianity as a whole should be rejected due to my 'bias'... right? Alan Dershouwitz is a pagan Jew who is likewise a staunch Democrat, at least until just recently having disowned the Democratic Party due to its pro-Hamas stance, defends Israel and its military defense of its nation. Does that mean because he loves his heritage and the right of his people to defend itself against all terrorists foolish bias rhetoric and false on its face? Yet this same famous jurist has defended Donald Trump against the indefensible charges against him by the Left and corrupt justice system of the Democratic Party, so should his scholarly observations and conclusions based upon the Constitution, of which he is again a renown conservative scholar be dismissed out of hand because he is 'biased' (if so, which bias does he hold that would disqualify him as a reliable source of truth on these matters?) BIAS is NOT a disqualification of anyone's views. The views held and expressed must be judged on their own merits and not necessarily on the messenger alone. NO ONE stands neutral on any matter!!! That Scripture clearly teaches. One is either for or against someone, some thing, some view, etc. Some main claim they are "on the fence", but they are either lying or are self-deceived.

So, after reading dozens and dozens of your posts lambasting nearly everyone and every news agency, ad nauseam accusing such as bias and purveyors of their own 'agenda(s)'... what of YOUR bias and what agenda are you trying to promote?

1. Nation of Israel was formed under false and deadly prestenses with sinister motives. Regular Jews were and have been put in harms way and many, including Muslims, have been put down in various ways - displaced, possibly slaughtered- to establish the state - which was a secular, not a religious- power grab - known as Zionism which has enabled perpetual destabilization and unrest.

2. Levant is a Zionist and his mission is to condition and propagandize to that end. Cries of anti-semitism provides cover and distraction to that end. The news is typically 1 year too late, cause they are typically funded to be so.

But if Tom wants to stress about Canadian Jews based on RN reporting I support his freedom to do so. I’m just sharing my opinion, no worries….

Unfortunately, the power brokers will play both sides. Democrats act antisemitic while funding and supporting Israel without question. I just think we’re easily fooled by these double-speakers.

This would probably be a good watch to get a more well rounded picture of current events and recent history since the last century….

“Two young American Jews travel to Israel seeking a deeper understanding of the country they were raised to love. What they encounter profoundly impacts them, leading them to join a growing movement to redefine their community's relationship with Israel in this challenging and emotional journey.”

https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Israelism/0LWMGHATTHAZ62W48B6F1JOSEJ

“The film, which follows two young American Jews as they contrast the version of Israel they learned about in school and at home with the violence they encounter in the West Bank, is critical of several major American-Jewish organizations.”

https://forward.com/culture/film-tv...alestine-documentary-campus-antisemtism/