Jump to content

The_Patriot21

Worthy Ministers
  • Posts

    15,675
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by The_Patriot21

  1. Not really. Because In that case the person announced his intentions ahead of time. Guy walks in with a gun shouting terroristic threats and then actually shooting people? Yeah that's like comparing apples to oranges, and it's a horrible comparison. If they said that shooter wasn't a terrorist right off the bat that's deceitful. Which yes, the media has certainly misrepresented that. However in this case there was absolutely zero evidence initially that this was an act of terrorism. There still isn't. No one yelled Allah ack bar. No one made any threats. And to date no terrorist organization has laid claim to it. There was zero evidence then of terrorism, and there still is zero. So to report it as terrorism would be deceitful. And it's logical for a news agency to report on the facts they have, and the facts they had initially, and the facts they have now, show tragic accident and not terrorism. So unless you have some actual facts, and not baseless conjecture to suggest anything different, then there's nothing wrong with how they're reporting it.
  2. Well, no it was fair. Just watching the video there's zero evidence of foul play. It wasn't a fully functioning aircraft smashing into a building followed by another fully functional aircraft smashing into the neighboring building. There was no massive explosion. There was two things reported immediately, one the eye witnesses, being the crew, claiming equipment malfunction. This was announced over the radio before the strike. This was how the toll booths were able to shut down the bridge limiting the casualties. This radio call also gave someone (probably more then one but so far as I've seen they've only released one video) enough time to video the incident, which shows exactly what the crew was reporting, power failures and obvious signs of equipment malfunction. Now this doesn't prove it wasn't terrorism. It absolutely could be. But to jump right out and scream terrorim when there were no obvious signs of foul play would not only be poor journalism but fear mongering, and could quite literally lead to panic in the streets in Baltimore. They could have just not commented period and said their was a strike, but quite frankly, then everyone would have been screaming cover up anyway. Any decent journalist would report on what they saw and heard based on the evidence and initial reports look like a tragic accident. If it turns out to be terrorism it's no big deal to report on that when the evidence comes to light.
  3. Yes...but it would have been the captains choice to sail, that's what I was getting at, and previous bad choices to me shows the captains judgement to not be the best. And a ship without power has limited to no control, regardless of how good the crew is. Just judging by the video there wasn't likely enough wind to affect a ship of that size...maybe I'm wrong. Bad fuel is a definite possibility...though I suspect would have reared its ugly head before it got to that point, but it's not beyond the realm of possibilities. I've seen water suspend itself in oil before with my own eyes.
  4. Indeed but further study shows some major flaws. First this isn't the first time the captain has hit something, so likely we're not talking cream of the crop crew here, which is further evidenced by the fact the ship was sailing anyway. Because also according to the articles I was reading the ship had been down for a couple months for similar mechanical issues that they couldn't figure out what they had. So we have a captain with a questionable history taking a boat that wasn't necessarily sea worthy out to sea. And while it was being guided by the harbor crew, watching the video you can see It lose power twice before losing it completely. Neither time power "came back" did it come back fully, only some of the lights came on, and the second time it belched black smoke. Black smoke in diesel motors signals incomplete combustion. It can be caused by multiple things, including a cold start, bad pistons, stuck valves, injectors etc. From the looks of it, the motors supplying the power died, and they made at least two attempts to restart the motors without succeeding or if they did only partial starts followed by immediate dieing again. And without those motors running, there's no power and no propulsion, making steering difficult, even for a A+ crew. It looks like straight up mechanical failure to me, not an intentional wreck. Now that doesn't count out intentional sabotage. I don't think they intentionally aimed for the bridge, but I wouldn't put it past certain parties picking a shop with a history of mechanical problems and a lousy captain to sabotage-it makes a excellent cover. And a ship that large losing control in a narrow harbor can certainly cause major problems regardless of whether it hit the bridge or not. However, since Covid, most industries have been suffering, everything from personal shortages to maintenance problems. Finding parts to fix things has been difficult, finding enough qualified people to properly maintain and fix things has also been a challenge for most industries. So there's very high chance this is what it appears, a accident caused by mechanical failures brought upon by human incompetence. The one thing Im sure of, is those in power will take this incident exploit it to the maximum effect possible.
  5. That's unfortunate. Now, cue all the conspiracy theorists willing to run with it before even attempting to know all the facts in 3...2....1....
  6. I just have to say one thing. Yes, pineapple does indeed belong on pizza!
  7. Lol ok. That's why in the 2000s they were running articles on flat earth and on how Obama was a space alien wearing a human suit. No...it's a tabloid. Granted most of your MSM isn't really any more reliable then tabloids, but still. Apparently it doesn't take much to go from a supermarket tabloid to "reliable news source" apparently, all it takes is "sources" and a crazy story that people actually want to hear. And it's sad there's not much difference between CNN and the gaurdian. Just goes to show that true journalism is a thing of the past
  8. Lol you know, once upon a time no one would take tabloids like the gaurdian seriously. In fact, even the left hasn't, I mean if trump had actually said any of this CBS, NBC, CNN, etc would be all over it. Yet we have a few cringe anti Trumpers who will believe what even the MSM who hates trump won't believe, just because it tickles their ears.
  9. Ok, so what's stopping you from going and doing so?
  10. You went from jezebel to influencers, with no mention of it being used for good. The natural assumption in your natural post is your talking about all influencers, and going back and reading the comments it's obvious I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion. While I believe you when you say that wasn't your intention, that was how it came across, and it maybe wise to make your intent a little clearer in the future. It's the curse of online forums like this, in that were depending on the written word to coney our message and intent. If we don't use enough words we often fail to convey our intended message, but if we use to many the post goes to long and people stop reading before getting a full understanding. It's a fine line we all walk my friend. Im not saying this as an attack, but merely a suggestion for you in the future. Have a good day.
  11. Well, that is not the message that is conveyed in your original post-which is what I was referring to when I said OP. Most people aren't going to take the time to read 5 pages of comments to figure out if your backtracked your initial post, so in the future you may want to take that into consideration when making your first post.
  12. You know we're all influencers in one way or another. Are we mass murderers? Now on to the ops definition. I watch a lot of FB reels and find a lot of christian influencers on there, spreading Christ's love. Are they mass murderers? I would say no. I would say the ops claim is a unscriptural generalization at best. Social media is a thing now. It's an integral part of culture and it's not going away. It's where the people are, like it or not. And If we hide from it that doesn't do anything to further the kingdom of God. Because social media isnt inherently evil or good. It's a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's largely used for evil, that is true. But going through the reels I see many Christian influencers using the platform of their choice to spread the gospel. They're being in the world but not of it, using the tools available to them to preach Christ to those that will listen, just like the apostle Paul did on Mars hill. I myself have used social media for good. It's a powerful tool that can indeed be used for good, hence why it's being censored so badly. So to compare influencers to mass murderers, isn't scriptural. At least not as a blanket term, there certainly are a great many of them that are following selfish desires, but they aren't all doing so and it's a disservice and a false claim to paint them all under the same flag.
  13. Interesting notion, had gollum not gone after the ring, it would not have been destroyed. It would have taken frodo, and ultimately fell into saurons hands. Hobbits had more resilience to the ring then humans, but they were still susceptible to it. It would have even taken sam had he been the ring bearer. There were people in middle earth who could. The ring held no power over dwarves, for example. However most dwarves would not have tried to destroy it but rather bury it in their treasure heap. The few that would, such as gimli, would have never have been able to get it there, as they would have killed gollum on sight and as such never found the secret entrance. Outside of dwarves the only person that was impervious to the ring was Tom Bombadil, who according to Tolkien's other writings was a equal match to sauron in power If not more powerful, as long as he stayed in his woods. Keyword there. He lost his power if he left, and even if he did was far to absentminded to be able to make the journey. Gandalf of course knew all this, including that frodo wouldn't be able to destroy the ring on his own, but that's a study for another time.
  14. Interesting. The white house has proven it can actually run a budget and cut costs when it comes to circumnavigating congress, but not when it comes to eliminating national debt.
  15. I should add, that Tolkien didn't intentionally write analogies into the LOTRs like lewis did with Narnia. in fact, in an interview he was asked about analogies and he denied it, according to him the LOTRs was intended for entertainment purposes only. However one can easily make analogies out of a lot of the content, I believe a lot of that was because his faith just naturally flowed into his writing. But it was not intentional, and there certainly are elements that cannot be made into analogies at all.
  16. You've completely missed my point but that's ok I see no further point to this discussion. Have a good one.
  17. I would say don't blame him for the actions of others. Now I don't condone all of his actions, but his actions did lead to a lot of good as well. I mean he's not even the first man of this nature that God's used. Abraham was a horrible father. Moses was a murderer. King David was an adulterer and a murderer. King Solomon was a womanizer. Samson was not only selfish but also a womanizer who let his lust control him. Matthew was a tax collector. Paul before coming to Christ was a persecutor of the saints. In fact going through the Bible many of the people God chose to use would not only be considered immoral by our standards, but they would make Calvin look positively tame by comparison. God has His plan, and He uses corrupt men to do it. Which is good, because we are all corrupt. None of us are perfect and we all come with our own moral baggage. Calvin was a product of his time. We look back on him and say hey look at all this evil he did, but to many don't take into account the time he was in. Luthor and Armenian were every bit the extremists Calvin was, but I don't see you going after them. None of us are perfect. But it helps to take into context the world historical figures lived in to understand the why they did what they did, and it helps to remember that just like them, were sinners to, and we are all in need of the same grace.
  18. Well, you are indeed proving it. I said nothing about homosexuality I simply answered the question. The truth of the matter is I made a single, factual statement. You inferred things that weren't even hinted at in my post, and now your trying to make it like I was at least partially to blame. While there are certainly times where I have been guilty of such, it is not this time. It seems to me your simply trying to prove your point and not actually caring about what I said, and as such the only out come is further division. So I'm out. Have a good evening.
  19. It's inferred. I made a comment and you brought homosexuality into it by asking if I was ok with it, even though I never said anything about it. You brought it up, the inference is that it's in response to what I said, I.e. I must be ok with it even though I provided no context to suggest that. It's not a example of division it's an example of you failing to properly communicate online. Now with that said, it's easy to do online. It's often very easy to misunderstand others intent when one only has the written word, and it's even easier to read into it. It's something all of us, myself are guilty of. Have been, will be, again. So if it's anything it's an example of why we should be careful of how and why we write what we do online.
  20. Nope. Never said anything about that, all I said was at some point Jesus will unite His church. Which is true Jesus is coming back for His bride, and those that are not of His church will be left behind Where did you get that I'm ok with homosexuality in the church from that?
  21. He definitely took it to the extreme. But he was the right man for the job. At the time the roman catholic church would kill anyone who stood against them if they could. The only ones who weren't were those that could garnish enough of a following that the church wouldn't move on them for fear of backlash. And extremists attract followers. Calvin dragged heretics behind horses, Luther would as soon burn them at the stake. It's amazing How God uses us, despite ourselves.
  22. Was that the time he tied the "heretics" up and dragged them behind horses through town?
  23. God can and will unite us. Nothing we do or do not do can change His plan.
×
×
  • Create New...