Shawnster

Did you watch the edited and unedited videos referenced in any of those links? My hope was to focus on the actions of the BBC and not make this yet another ad nauseum topic about Trump. I had hopes that distinction could be made by ones choosing to participate. My apologies if my hopes were not realistic.

Understandable. However, to edit the video in such a way was grossly inappropriate for a news outlet professing to report facts. Additionally, the creation and spreading of fake news doesn't help in resolution. This only goes to eroding people's confidence in formerly trusted news outlets.

It's more than framing. It places blame. It makes it look like Trump directly incited the riot. It's bad journalism. The way the edit was made, by taking 2 statements made nearly an hour apart and splicing them together as if it was one sentence is more than just a slant or spin. It's the exact opposite of being factual.

Exclusive: BBC doctored Trump speech, internal report reveals Corporation edited footage in Panorama programme to make it seem president was encouraging Capitol riot, according to whistleblowing dossier https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo.amp https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/bbc-under-scrutiny-over-edit-of-trumps-speech-on-jan-6 Mainstream media failure.

Brooklyn Bethel has exited the chat. Warwick Bethel has entered the chat.

I'm sitting here eating chili that I made and I'm thinking about how ironic this is since I never liked chili when I was younger. If I went back in time and told my younger self or my parents that not only in the future would I like chili but, not only would I eventually eat chili every year and would look forward to making chili, nobody would believe me. So, suppose some big blue telephone booth shaped time machine swoops you up and takes you back to your past, what would you tell your earlier self or family (either biological or found)? But, here's the catch - what you tell them cannot be a warning. It cannot change the timeline. So, no warning on who or what to avoid. You can share only what is fun, funny, ironic, or lighthearted.

Correct. It just means that, since Christians are not exclusively targeted, then this really is not a genocide. It's horrible. It's deplorable. It's just not genocide.

His giving the one thought to the nations to give the UN authority. What would we see? The UN being given authority.

Yes, something crazy could happen. Something crazy could always happen. Many of us, myself included, have always believed that something crazy needs to happen. It's refreshing to now understand that something crazy does not need to happen or that Jehovah's thought might be the crazy thing that happens. I find it encouraging that we no longer need to feel something crazy from a negative news point of view needs to happen to motivate the nations.

And yet if I understand correctly.... Jehovah gives the nations his one thought to give their authority to the UN. That alone could be momentous enough for the nations to feel they have achieved an unprecedented level of peace and security. Their next idea to destroy false religion does not need to be the result of nuclear conflict, especially since such a conflict might be contrary to their notion of peace and security. Since we aren't a direct threat, the pause in the destruction might feel natural. It's understandable that people who lost their former religion will, out of jealousy, instigate the final attack on God's people.

(John 11:25) 25 Jesus said to her: “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; 26 and everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. Do you believe this?” https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=nwtsty&srctype=wol&bible=43011026&srcid=share

Or sooner. Much sooner.

Peace, through superior firepower.

That's when the service overseer provides tactful counsel