The international crimes of the United States and its partners are on such a huge scale that they don’t bear comparison with any other country, Russia included. We are talking about hostile blockades of nearby countries (Cuba), instigating violent coups against elected leaders (Chile, Venezuela and elsewhere), wars of aggression under false pretences (Iraq), use of military to grab resources of other countries (Iraq, Libya, Syria, elsewhere), interfering in internal affairs of other countries including bombing, funding, military training, agitation, etc. (Serbia, Ukraine, China, and many other countries). The United States president sits down every week (Obama did it on a Tuesday morning) and decides on a list of people to kill with drones in various countries including but not confined to Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia. These drones often hit civilians who were not the intended targets including wedding parties and groups of children. It is estimated that a million people died in the war of aggression against Iraq in 2003 alone. The town of Fallujah was hit with depleted uranium weapons and children are still getting sick from the radiation.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
94
Will Ukraine win?
by Fisherman ini was under the impression that it was going to be a short war, that russia’s military would indeed subdue ukraine’s forces quickly but that is not happening.
seems that russia’s military power is much less than it’s reputed to be.
no guess how it will all end..
-
-
-
22
My mom died.
by noni1974 init's been years since i posted here.
my jw mother died july 5th.
it was quite honestly not that emotional for me.
-
-
slimboyfat
Was your mum a member of the forum?
-
94
Will Ukraine win?
by Fisherman ini was under the impression that it was going to be a short war, that russia’s military would indeed subdue ukraine’s forces quickly but that is not happening.
seems that russia’s military power is much less than it’s reputed to be.
no guess how it will all end..
-
-
slimboyfat
the reality is NATO is not a military force that attacks first.
That’s actually wrong. It may surprise people to find out (it certainly shocked me) but NATO have a first strike policy for their nuclear arsenal if they believe nuclear war is imminent. They were invited the join a pact that committed to “no first strike” and they refused because they want to keep the option of first strike open. Russia’s policy is no first strike unless they face an “existential threat”.
Not only does NATO have a first strike policy with nuclear weapons (and lets be real, by NATO we mean the United States, as others have no say in the matter) but some American strategists are now arguing that they can win a nuclear war with Russia if they do strike first.
So while we are all worrying about the “crazy” Russians starting a nuclear war, are we really sure that the United States won’t “preemptively” strike Russia instead? The US of course is the only nation crazy enough thus far to have used nuclear weapons in war.
https://tnsr.org/roundtable/its-time-for-a-u-s-no-first-use-nuclear-policy/
-
20
The position of Christ in the Godhead
by JW Answers inwhat is your views on christ?.
do you hold to the view that christ and the father are the same person?
do you hold to the view that jesus is a lesser god than the father?.
-
-
slimboyfat
New Testament scholar James McGrath explaining that Jesus is not God according to the New Testament authors
-
94
Will Ukraine win?
by Fisherman ini was under the impression that it was going to be a short war, that russia’s military would indeed subdue ukraine’s forces quickly but that is not happening.
seems that russia’s military power is much less than it’s reputed to be.
no guess how it will all end..
-
-
slimboyfat
Absolutely. All the “military experts” they have on US networks with undeclared interests.
-
94
Will Ukraine win?
by Fisherman ini was under the impression that it was going to be a short war, that russia’s military would indeed subdue ukraine’s forces quickly but that is not happening.
seems that russia’s military power is much less than it’s reputed to be.
no guess how it will all end..
-
-
slimboyfat
The United States invades Iraq on the other side of the planet, under false pretences, and western opinion is: that was unfortunate, but we had the best of intentions.
Russia warns for decades about NATO expansion, and that Ukraine is absolutely a red line for them, and western opinion is: this is a complete shock, they won’t leave any other country in peace unless we stop them now.
-
94
Will Ukraine win?
by Fisherman ini was under the impression that it was going to be a short war, that russia’s military would indeed subdue ukraine’s forces quickly but that is not happening.
seems that russia’s military power is much less than it’s reputed to be.
no guess how it will all end..
-
-
slimboyfat
No, because ultimately Russia has nuclear weapons, and won’t accept defeat.
-
68
Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford
by LoveUniHateExams ini was thinking a bit about this the other day.
ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.
some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....
-
-
slimboyfat
This forum was not “established to expose” Watchtower. It started out as a place for JWs to meet and discuss. The founder was a JW at the time and initially not vocal about doubts in the organisation.
-
-
-
slimboyfat
On Friday I was in another city and I noticed a couple of JWs at a cart, so I thought I’d challenge them on whether it’s correct to pray for the monarch. I went up to them and smiled and they said hello. It was an older sister in her 60s and a younger sister in her 20s. I asked if they have prayed for the new king. They said no. I said don’t you think we should pray for the new king. The older sister said no because she looks to Jesus as the king of God’s kingdom and we are taught to pray for God’s kingdom to come. I said but don’t you think we should pray for the king of the country as well? She said you can pray for anyone but he is a man just like everyone else. She said they are JWs, and asked do I believe in God. I said yes. Then I said, can I read you a scripture? She said, is it from the Bible? I said yes, and I’ve got it here ready because I spotted you earlier and looked it up. She said okay. I showed and read 1 Tim 2 from the NWT on the JW website, where it says we should pray “concerning kings”. Then I asked her, don’t you think we should pray for the king because of what it says in the Bible. She took a moment to think about it and then she said that scripture says we are to pray that the rulers will give us a peaceful life and not persecute us. It doesn’t say to pray for the king himself. I read the scripture again, and I had to admit that’s what it says, “so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life“. I thought about it for a minute and said I thought that was a good answer. She said she was relieved that was a good answer. I didn’t know what else to say, so I smiled and turned and said bye. The way she said she was “relieved” I said it was a good answer, sounded a bit like she was being evaluated for a meeting part. I don’t know if she thought I was a JW “testing” her, an apostate, or just a member of the public who knows something about JWs.
When I approached them, I thought I was going to show the JWs something from the Bible that they didn’t know: that they should pray for the king. But in the end the sister gave a better understanding of the text than I had in mind. I think she’s right that the text doesn’t really advocate praying for the king as such. Later Christians who believed in the divine right of kings probably read the verse that way, but the first Christians probably understood it like JWs do, that they pray that the ruler allows them to practice their religion, not that they pray specifically for the king’s health or administration or anything like that. I was in the wrong and she was in the right. It made me realise that opinions are weak until they are tested by talking to those with another viewpoint. It also made me wonder what else JWs have got right that I have already dismissed in my own mind.
-
68
Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford
by LoveUniHateExams ini was thinking a bit about this the other day.
ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.
some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....
-
-
slimboyfat
My impression of Russell is that he was a likeable and sincere person. He got on well with his family and with others and people were drawn to him. That counts for quite a lot in my opinion. This is in contrast with Rutherford who was feared rather than loved, although it’s possible he grew to be a harsher person following his imprisonment and illnesses.
Russell seems to have been a genuine theological seeker who was at first put off Christianity because of the idea that God punishes people in hell. When he realised that scripture did not need to be read that way he developed a deep interest in the Bible. He read extensively in the Bible and about the Bible and used his own reason to try to work out the best interpretation of scripture. He was studious in his own way, and as many ordinary people are who try to understand the Bible. He was influenced by ideas that where popular in his time, including questioning the Trinity, immortal soul, and focus on chronology and the return of Jesus. He was convinced that God had a plan for humanity to live on earth forever and he devoted his life to spreading that message.
I don’t think he can be faulted for his sincerity or the effort he put into understanding the Bible and spreading the message about the future for mankind.