Terrorism. Is there anything to be done ?

[java]

The racks were a Spanish Catholic response to the Mohammedan bloody take over of their country, and their effort to expelled all of them, and their sympathizers. They were trying to "inquire" about hidden allegiances.

They did succeed in driving Islam, and it's inherent problems, out.

They may have expelled the culture also, whose source book was also Mohammeds cut and paste source book...the Jewish culture of rhetoric.

There are other ways, besides a rack, to determine rhetorical allegiances, less intrusive, less painful.

It's why I suggest providing backing for any rhetorical hostage to leave the rhetorically hostile environment, or, be on a list to randomly be deported, each time someone from their rhetorical hotbed kills US, or UK citizens.

Of course, this is likely not what Jesus would suggest when LEAVING THIS WORLD is the most important issue, and the only real solution.

What I suggest is a bandage.

Yeah, except all muslims lie, so you'd never know for sure if they have renounced. They really are not leaving us much choice.

 

[Good1]

So I advocate the doctrine of leaving.

I say, it is easier to leave a cultural rhetorical cesspool, than it is to leave "your" homeland, "country".

And so, I say, countries have I higher right, a higher priority than rhetorical hotbeds that breed murder.

Leave your micro cultural hotbed, or leave our homeland.

For extra spiritual people, I advocate the doctrine of leaving your "homeland", knowing no place in this world is your home.

Since most people are not spiritual, for them, physical territory gets priority over rhetorical mindshare.

 

[Good1]

Yeah, except all muslims lie, so you'd never know for sure if they have renounced. They really are not leaving us much choice.

I'm just saying, let's not leave them with no choice either.

Can there not be a state sponsored network that will take the ID of anyone who says they want to dissociate from the rhetorical cesspool they may have been born into?

Can't there be any sort of vetting that would actually work?

Can't these people be helped to leave, or be helped to become spies within their cultural rhetorical hotbed?

I'm suggesting there needs to be such a network in order to follow through with Humpys suggestion.

 

[Good1]

The Catholic organization is a good example of rhetorical mindshare. Whoever belives that rhetoric can theoretically live anywhere in the world, as the after world is considered to be ones permanent home anyway.

The Vatican has a little territory, but the rest of its territory, and most of its income, comes from mindshare.

Occasionally, you'll have a believer become some sort of king over earthly territory, and purge the continent, a lot like Charlemagne.

Technically, that's the kings business, not Vatican business. Privately, the Vatican may have its own business, but outwardly, it suggests no country is home.

No where in its "new testament" doctrine does it advocate for world domination, taken by force...other than the force of persuasion.

This makes it tolerable.

A "religion" with forced world domination written in unchangeable stone into its core constitution is another animal altogether.

No religion, professing another world to be "home", has any right to be heard, by force of sword, in any territory in this world.

It is firstly dishonestly hypocritical to suggest home is elsewhere, but then to insist upon taking the entire globe as a suburb...and by force.

So there is a difference between Mohameds book, and his followers, and Pennsylvania Amish, their book, and it's followers.

If you can't see that difference then explain, how, in theory, agitators for forced world domination, "jihadis" should be allowed to live in Pennsylvania, or Texas, or anywhere else that isn't subject to their sword?

 

[java]

The Catholic organization is a good example of rhetorical mindshare. Whoever belives that rhetoric can theoretically live anywhere in the world, as the after world is considered to be ones permanent home anyway.

The Vatican has a little territory, but the rest of its territory, and most of its income, comes from mindshare.

Occasionally, you'll have a believer become some sort of king over earthly territory, and purge the continent, a lot like Charlemagne.

Technically, that's the kings business, not Vatican business. Privately, the Vatican may have its own business, but outwardly, it suggests no country is home.

No where in its "new testament" doctrine does it advocate for world domination, taken by force...other than the force of persuasion.

This makes it tolerable.

A "religion" with forced world domination written in unchangeable stone into its core constitution is another animal altogether.

No religion, professing another world to be "home", has any right to be heard, by force of sword, in any territory in this world.

It is firstly dishonestly hypocritical to suggest home is elsewhere, but then to insist upon taking the entire globe as a suburb...and by force.

So there is a difference between Mohameds book, and his followers, and Pennsylvania Amish, their book, and it's followers.

If you can't see that difference then explain, how, in theory, agitators for forced world domination, "jihadis" should be allowed to live in Pennsylvania, or Texas, or anywhere else that isn't subject to their sword?

Nope, no world for us, just little itty bitty Israel, that's all was ask for, nothing more, and never again anything less.

 

[Good1]

I cant remember the said boundaries of Israel, can you?

Was it the Euphrates river on the north? Mt Sinai on the south?

I think the term now days is "greater Israel".

I'm not sure why they can't be happy with what they got, and be happy with worldwide mindshare.

Generally speaking, a nation is a defensive solution in an ongoing world war. They generally defend homogenous groups from predators. That's the idea anyway.

How much territory is necessary? Hitler thought he need a lot more, a lot sooner. So did Japan.

It seems to me that if every country supported the doctrine of leaving, over the doctrine of taking (as opposed to buying on the open market), the world would be much better off.

If it was easier for people to leave their area, and shop for a better area, so much the better.

But stupid is the country that takes shoppers who hold rhetorical hostages in their homelands and in their rhetorical intentions...who actively, or passively condone violent takeover of the host country being shopped...by predators.

But I don't want to pretend there is any definite solution to any of this world's problems.

I can only really advocate leaving it the same way Jesus left it. And I don't mean get yourself crucified.

Nope, no world for us, just little itty bitty Israel, that's all was ask for, nothing more, and never again anything less.[/QUOTE

 

[java]

I cant remember the said boundaries of Israel, can you?

Was it the Euphrates river on the north? Mt Sinai on the south?

I think the term now days is "greater Israel".

I'm not sure why they can't be happy with what they got, and be happy with worldwide mindshare.

Generally speaking, a nation is a defensive solution in an ongoing world war. They generally defend homogenous groups from predators. That's the idea anyway.

How much territory is necessary? Hitler thought he need a lot more, a lot sooner. So did Japan.

It seems to me that if every country supported the doctrine of leaving, over the doctrine of taking (as opposed to buying on the open market), the world would be much better off.

If it was easier for people to leave their area, and shop for a better area, so much the better.

But stupid is the country that takes shoppers who hold rhetorical hostages in their homelands and in their rhetorical intentions...who actively, or passively condone violent takeover of the host country being shopped...by predators.

But I don't want to pretend there is any definite solution to any of this world's problems.

I can only really advocate leaving it the same way Jesus left it. And I don't mean get yourself crucified.

We already did our search for the homeland. Good luck finding yours.

 

[Good1]

Not sure what you mean.

Generally speaking, a homeland is where you are mostly raised, sometimes where you are born.

There are a few Christians who might think that "Israel" is their homeland. I almost immigrated there when i thought i was a Christian.

Some think this globe will be their resurrected home forever.

As for me, this nation, this globe, nor this universe, nor any parallel universe is my home.

I have a couple of favorite places on the globe, and that's about it.

I know what my home is, and it is not a place.

Since i don't plan to subvert any place, or dominate any part of the globe, i am harmless to any nation.

So i don't really think there's much excuse for territorial "religions".

We already did our search for the homeland. Good luck finding yours.

 

[Humpy]

The " lone wolf " jihadis are very difficult to detect and stop. So sting groups may not attract them much. So that leaves collective responsibility. Their family, friends if any and associates know who they are. They must turn them in to the authorities before it happens.
No need for brutality. The suspect is picked up and de-radicalised by professionals.
Trump wants to bring back the old days ? OK so open up Alcatraz !

 

[java]

So i don't really think there's much excuse for territorial "religions".

Says the man who has a homeland he doesn't even want because he hasn't been thrown out or gassed out of everybody else's land that they call their homeland.