Christian Persecution

Do not also overlook that many of us quit going to Pride parades 25 or more years ago because it had turned into a corporate sponsored show of degenerate behaviors that didn't represent those of us just getting on with life.
This prompted a ‘like’ from me for some reason.
 
Those of us paying attention saw the tranny push 30 years ago. It just wasn't mainstream and we didn't have social media contaminating children.

By 2015, we were well into the 'a man is a woman if he says he is' crap, not to mention the cotton ceiling *******...that was where the troons claimed lesbians were bigoted if we didn't want to sleep with a dude in a dress.

The 'push' on gay and lesbian 'interests' was primarily about what got termed 'gay marriage.' To this day, I don't think mom knows how close I was on the Texas same-sex divorce case- I dated one of the parties for a while. There were valid issues in that arena that went beyond asset distribution at death. Granted, I knew attorneys who made good bank drawing up contracts, but it shouldn't have required such in order to protect the estate of a couple.

Remember also that, even now, few take issues with lesbians who mind their own business. It is and was the notion of two dudes that gave people the heebie-jeebies.

Do not also overlook that many of us quit going to Pride parades 25 or more years ago because it had turned into a corporate sponsored show of degenerate behaviors that didn't represent those of us just getting on with life.

Leftist vs conservatism takes far more space and time than I deign to undertake on a cell phone keyboard. That said, many of the 'left' from 30 years ago have more in common with today's GOP than the party they were affiliated with back then...the freaks weren't running the show.
Well said mb!
 
I might regret asking, but what does this lovely term mean?
At its most basic level, some of the porn-addled tranny brigade actually held a seminar in the late aughts/early teens about trying to guilt lesbians into sleeping with them, nevermind that we don't sleep with males. They labeled it as the cotton ceiling, a reference to the cotton underwear.
 
Think about then vs. Now.. Gay people who were in a committed relationship just trying to live life had to fight like hell and fight public up roar just to get same relationship rights.
Contrast that with what trannies are doing today including what is happening with kids to young to understand what is being done to them.
 
Holy - whatever - that is a point of mind adjustment I never thought I’d see on normal tv. We have reached a point no longer possible to overcome - - - imho.
 
I never liked the phrase "saying the quiet part out loud" because it was usually followed by a 10 second clip that the writer then tries to explain what they're really saying. But this is the epitome of "saying the quiet part out loud."

Amazon Prime has a new animated series about heaven, hell, and how the devil is actually the good guy | Not the Bee

Surely to be followed in season 2 by Amazon showing the Prophet Muhammad (yes showing) and how he's part of the bad guys too.
 
"
The journal entry reveals disdain for Christianity, and specifically her parents’ alleged attempts to maintain religion in her life.

“It’s total ignorance when parents step in and try to change their child’s environment,” the shooter wrote. “Make them go to youth group and force Christian friends in their life because the old ones were a ‘bad’ influence, I can’t f***ing stand that sh**.”

“Parents actually believe religion can change nature,” the shooter wrote. “That could explain why I don’t practice religion anymore. Let kids think for themselves, listening to parents does no damned good but to mold their premature minds into a pre-formatted program.”

Officials have denied that there was evidence suggesting that The Covenant School, a private Christian school that the shooter attended as a child, was targeted because of animus toward religion.
"
Oh, okay... :rolleyes1:

COVENANT JOURNAL REVEALED: Shooter Said Being Female Was A ‘F***ing Curse,’ That She’d ‘Kill’ To Have Had Puberty Blockers
 
It's funny. Somebody who thinks religion can't change nature thinks turning a piece of her arm into a fake schlong will change nature.
 
Of course, they make it about "gun violence."
Then, of course, we'll give lip service to "mental health" care which our politicosbfind preferable to gun control. Alas, delivering on mental health is also expensive, complicated and will continue to be done poorly and on the cheap.
 
These problems are solved with more good men and women with guns shooting criminals in defense before they can commit murder.
 
Then, of course, we'll give lip service to "mental health" care which our politicosbfind preferable to gun control. Alas, delivering on mental health is also expensive, complicated and will continue to be done poorly and on the cheap.

I'm of the view that a supposedly objective journalist shouldn't make it about anything. That's for political advocates.
 
I'm of the view that a supposedly objective journalist shouldn't make it about anything. That's for political advocates.
Someday, supposing they have an interest in politics, public service and history, I'll tell my grandkids about objective journalists. I fear they will nod politlely and wonder about how well my synapses are firing.
 
Last edited:
I thought you would agree with that approach. What do you think is the real answer? I still think more good people with guns would have a large positive effect.

My bad. I thought I was replying to someone else.

Crockett, taking away people's rights is never the answer. Giving regular people more capabilities is.
 
Why did the State Dept and CIA decided Assad had to go? I have forgotten the reason. If you say chemical weapons, that was done to put down resistance already in action. What was the original trigger?
 
Why did the State Dept and CIA decided Assad had to go? I have forgotten the reason. If you say chemical weapons, that was done to put down resistance already in action. What was the original trigger?

u/RocketSphere avatar
RocketSphere
7y ago•Edited 7y ago•



From the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, the United States has sought to overthrow Assad because his leadership contradicts their own interests in the region. American foreign policy in the Middle East, perhaps since after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has been centred expanding its regional influence in the Middle East to support its interests in the region. This includes strong support for allies like the KSA, or interventions in Libya or Iraq to topple adversary regimes and attempt to replace them with a more acceptable leadership. This whole calculus revolves around pursuing what would benefit the United States the most in the region and expand its power in the face of potential rivals, like Russia and China.
Assad has never particularly been favourable to American interests. When the United States included Turkey in NATO, and the United Kingdom formed a crescent alliance between Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, the Soviet Union had to change its strategy in the Middle East. They faced a wall to their south of nations that were allied with Western nations, and needed a way to rectify this. They decided to 'hop' over these nations and instead cultivate relationships with nations elsewhere in the Middle East, such as Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Iraq. The socialist background of these pan-Arab regimes made this sort of relationship politically feasible. Where a staunchly anti-Communist Turkish politician may gawk at the idea of ever working with the Soviets, a cadre of the Ba'athist Party who has been indoctrinated with pan-Arab and Socialist ideology will be more favourable towards accepting Soviet diplomatic advances. This is where their interests contravened. The Pan-Arab nations desperately needed to be supplied with weapons and provided training, while the Soviet Union needed an system of alliances to counter Western allies in the Middle East. Similar ideological backgrounds made this politically more appealing.
Nations like Syria became deeply entrenched in their relationship with the Soviet Union. While nations like Iraq or Libya never fully strengthened their relationship with the Soviet Union and at times became marginalized from them due to conflicting interests or shifts in power, Syria permanently rested under the wing of the Soviet Union. In fact, Hafez al-Assad, the Syrian commander who participated in several coups before consolidating power himself, was trained to be an officer at a Russian airbase in Kyrgyzstan. From the officer corps and upwards, the Syrian military was composed of individuals who had either worked with or been trained by Russian soldiers. Tartus Naval Base became the largest Soviet military base in the Middle East, if I remember correctly. Syria provided an ally to be used against Turkey and provide the Soviet Union access to the Mediterranean, while the Soviet Union provided Syria with an ally to deter against Israeli or American aggression in the region. Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this relationship between the two nations remained strong. Syria never had a decent relationship with the United States, as a consequence. It appealed to the Soviets by making aggressive statements towards the United States in the name of socialism and anti-Imperialism, and supported Soviet diplomatic efforts. Syria retained this aspect of its foreign policy even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, still bombastically supporting pan-Arab socialism and retaining its relationship with Russia. This ran counter to the interests of the United States. It ran counter to the objective of pacifying the Middle East or transitioning regimes towards being more favourable to America's regional interests.
What we are witnessing in Syria is decades of economic stagnation, broader regional discontent, and political fracturing manifesting into a civil war. America has capitalized on these trends to pursue its objectives of overthrowing adversary, Arab-socialist regimes in the Middle East and replacing them with governments either favourable to its allies or its own economic and political methodologies. There has been some confusion in the United States on what this will exactly entail, and how to accomplish this. The State Department and the CIA are notorious for having diverging policies in Syria, to the point where they have actually funded groups fighting each-other. In particular, the CIA is more-so focused on the geopolitical objective of wrestling a Russian ally out of its influence through any means, while the State Department is concerned about regional stability and Jihadism. The Syrian regime is portrayed as awful in the United States to morally justify its geopolitical objectives and make them more appealing to its own population.
Syria economically stagnated due to an unfortunate drought, migrants from neighbouring wars in the Middle East, and a failing socialist economic policy that, while once uplifting Hafez al-Assad's base of farmers and workers, began to ostracise them. Faith had been lost in Pan-Arab regimes after decades of failing to deliver on their promises, and slowly eschewing their rhetoric into whatever would help them maintain their legitimacy. They also failed to show solidarity in the face of American aggression in the region, which only worked to hinder nationalism and support of pan-Arab regimes. This is why Bashar al-Assad once said that if Syria falls, we will all fall.This is a reflection on broader political trends across the region, where feelings of hopelessness and desperation were gripping people as America pursued an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, oppressive regimes tried to retain their grip on power, and pan-Arabism decayed as Pan-Arab nations economically self-flagellated themselves. The people of this region would begin to turn towards more desperate options and ideologies, like Jihadism, to rectify the injustices they saw in their countries. This worked in America's favour of instigating instability to spur change in the direction of American interests and ideology, or at the very least, crippling the allies of American adversaries.
 
If Hezbollah is crippled in Lebanon and Assad goes down, what is Russia and Iran going to do in the region? They will be quite isolated.
 
Why did the State Dept and CIA decided Assad had to go? I have forgotten the reason. If you say chemical weapons, that was done to put down resistance already in action. What was the original trigger?

It's the Biden Administration stirring up s--- for Trump. These swamp monsters are using Al Qaeda groups to attack Syria. They are monstrous beheaders, but woke Progressive bureaucrats love them.
 
If Hezbollah is crippled in Lebanon and Assad goes down, what is Russia and Iran going to do in the region? They will be quite isolated.

What makes you think Hezbollah is crippled? The bombings in Lebanon are mainly killing Christian civilians. Southern Lebanon is where most of the Christians live btw. I think it is simply anti-Christian hatred.
 
I thought you would agree with that approach. What do you think is the real answer? I still think more good people with guns would have a large positive effect.
A lot of gun violence is unpredictable and more guns in the hands of people with poor judgement and or firearms skills sre going to create some unintended fatal consequences. Back when I was a newspaper reporter I saw ocassions when a barroom or family quarrel that should have ended with a broken nose or a submission ended with terrible consequwlences..a death and a murder/manslaughter conviction because somebody brought a gun.
 
I certainly don't advocate against people arming and training themselves for self and family protection. I just don't expect a decline in murder as a result.
 
A lot of gun violence is unpredictable and more guns in the hands of people with poor judgement and or firearms skills sre going to create some unintended fatal consequences. Back when I was a newspaper reporter I saw ocassions when a barroom or family quarrel that should have ended with a broken nose or a submission ended with terrible consequwlences..a death and a murder/manslaughter conviction because somebody brought a gun.

I get that. That is why I said good people as opposed to bad people. I know that sounds overly simplistic, but a couple of teachers in Uvalde with guns would have prevented a dozens of innocent deaths.
 
Why did the State Dept and CIA decided Assad had to go? I have forgotten the reason. If you say chemical weapons, that was done to put down resistance already in action. What was the original trigger?
I think it goes back to that wildly over-optimistic belief in the "Arab Spring".
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-ARIZONA STATE

CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread


Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl website

Recent Threads

Back
Top