----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 13, 2005 00:11
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk]
baptism
Yikes, that old myth. Do you guys want the truth?
Can you handle the truth? Then read this article from the Wasthington
Post.
Charge Often Repeated by U.S. Officials
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign
Service
Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A20
TORONTO -- True or false? Shortly before
Sept. 11, 2001, several of the terrorists who would carry out the attacks that
day slipped into the United States from Canada.
Canadian officials are
vexed that 3 1/2 years later, they have not dispelled the groundless claim
that Canada was a route for the Sept. 11 hijackers. Frank McKenna, the new
ambassador to the United States, calls it an "urban myth" and has been trying
to beat it down in television interviews and letters to the editor.
"It
took on a life of its own, like a viral infection," McKenna said in a
telephone interview from Washington.
This lingering headache for Canada
underlines the enduring life of inaccuracies in the media and the sensitivity
of Canadians to suggestions that their country's long and lightly guarded
border is a threat to the United States.
"It's something that won't go
away," Bill Graham, Canada's defense minister, said of the apocryphal claim in
an interview Monday. "We're very resentful . . . because not one suspect had
been in Canada. All had been in the U.S., training in the U.S., with valid
U.S. visas."
The account was born in the first days after the attacks,
when reporters and government investigators were scrambling to figure out how
the conspirators had carried out the plot. Bernard Etzinger, a Canadian
Embassy spokesman, says the "big bang" that started the legend can be traced
to two Boston newspapers.
A Boston Globe story on Sept. 13 said
investigators were "seeking evidence" that the hijackers came through Canada.
The Boston Herald reported the same day that federal investigators believed
"the terrorist suspects may have traveled . . . by boat" from Canada.
On
Sept. 14, The Washington Post reported that an unnamed U.S. official had said
two suspects "crossed the border from Canada with no known difficulty at a
small border entry in Coburn Gore, Maine," and that others may have come
through other Maine ports. On Sept. 16, that report was repeated by the New
York Post, which also declared that "terrorists bent on wreaking havoc in the
United States" had found Canada "the path of least resistance." On Sept. 19,
the Christian Science Monitor referred to Canada as "a haven for terrorists."
"It was just one of those things where everybody says, 'We all knew that,'
and it becomes irrefutable," Etzinger said.
In the weeks after the
attacks, investigators established that all of the hijackers entered the
United States from countries other than Canada, a finding that got the
official stamp last summer with the release of the Sept. 11 commission report.
But that has not stopped the story from spreading.
The Canadian Embassy in
Washington keeps a chart of new reports of the rumor. The chart shows that at
least three U.S. representatives and one senator have recently repeated the
claim.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was quoted in October as
saying the terrorists had crossed into New York from Canada. Her office
disputes the quotes, but they prompted a flurry of outrage and demands in
Canada for an apology.
"It hurt Canadian feelings, particularly because we
thought the Clintons were our pals," said Norman Hillmer, a professor at
Carlton University in Ottawa and the author of a book on U.S.-Canadian
relations.
In August, Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Tex.) declared to a
congressional committee -- and repeated in a press release -- that "as we all
know, terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada on Sept. 11, 2001, using
passports that the Canadians accepted as valid despite the fact that the
documents were doctored."
The Canadian Embassy filed its now standard
protest, and the congressman asked that the remarks be stricken from the
committee record. He believed they were true from "some inferences," said his
spokeswoman, Ciaran Clayton. "Those inferences were wrong."
"Once a story
is out there, it gets picked up and repeated," Graham, the defense minister,
said with a sigh. "People don't check to see if it's been contradicted."
Canadian officials concede that they are sensitive about the matter. "It
vexes Canadians, because it's not just an untruth, but it's an untruth about
one of the most . . . traumatic events of our lifetimes," McKenna said.
The sensitivity, they say, is heightened by fear that terrorists could
infiltrate the United States from Canada. There is at least one known example
of an attempt. In December 1999, border agents arrested an Algerian man, Ahmed
Ressam, as he was trying to enter at Port Angeles, Wash., with homemade
explosives in his rental car. He was later convicted of plotting to bomb the
Los Angeles International Airport or some other airport in Southern
California.
The 5,000-mile border stretches through unpoliced wilderness,
and Canada's diverse population includes many people from countries racked by
political turmoil. Officials worry that a terrorist attack traced to Canada
would result in damaging restrictions on a border that more than 80 percent of
Canada's exports cross.
Many Canadians reacted with irritation Tuesday to
reports that they may have to show passports to enter the United States
starting in 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:18
AM
Subject: RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] baptism
And what border did
the 9/11 terrorists come across? Perhaps a stint in the kinder, gentler jails
up there would have changed their nature? Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:35 AM
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re:
[Bulk] [TruthTalk] baptism
Maybe they come over your loose
borders and end up down here in our IYO less than kind and humane jails.
Ask Terry about this, he is our resident expert here. Nothing like
reality born of experience. judyt
On Wed, 11 May 2005
22:32:15 -0500 "Caroline Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
One
would think that because we have kinder and gentler jails we would have more
violent crime, a bigger percentage of the population in jail and a high
recidivism rate. But we don't. Quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps there
is something about treating humans humanely.
Love,
Caroline
From: ShieldsFamily
We need less kind, gentle
jails. They are too much like spas. The Japanese don’t waste money
on heat or a/c, and less folks want to go to jail there. We also need total
isolation for prisoners, for their own protection and to lower
recidivism. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Caroline Wong
They would probably end up in jail. No ACLU up
here. No first amendment. Then they will be able to preach to the "perverts"
and "sodomites" in prison. Perhaps that will be God's plan for them. Don't
worry, I hear Canadian jails are kinder and gentler places than American
jails.
Love,
Caroline
From: Judy Taylor
And that would be your loss Lance ... Pray they will grace
Ontario with a visit - jt
On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:50:06 -0400
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I wouldn't cross the
street to see the 'cow suit' or, for that matter, Kevin.
From: Judy Taylor
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I know Jesus.
Kevin is no Jesus. Very bad illustration, Charles Perry Locke.
(heretofor 'Chuckie' after the films)
The Jesus you know is not
the same being Lance.
Yours is complacent and has a gospel that was never
preached by Paul or any of the apostles.
Have you heard Kevin preaching on
the street or are you judging what you have experienced and
giving your
opinion re something you know nothing of? I thought the tactics of Chuck
Spingola were
a little over the top - But have repented of that because -
They are out there I'll go to see Ruben in
his cow suit if he ever comes
to VA - Waving that underwear gets more than a yawn :).
jt
From: "Charles Perry Locke"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Lance, do you think Jesus was giving
Christianity a "bad rap" when he
> overturned the moneylenders' tables
in the temple? Instead, should he have
> quoted some 2nd century BC
greek philospopher on the existential qualities
> of selling in the
temple, then entered into meaningful dialog about what the
> philosopher
really meant, whether or not it applies today, and then
> discussed how
different interpretations of the scripture (OT) fit in with
> the
philosophy? Lets be Real Christians, okay?
> >From: "Lance Muir"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >It amazes me that could could ask
this of Dave, Perry! ,at least without a
> >'smiley'. Kevin is a jerk
and, he comes accross as one (I probably do as
> >well) on TT. I bet
he does 'on the street' also. It is such that give
> >christianity a
bad rep. He probably sees himself as 'suffering for the
>
>cause
> >of Christ' whereas it's just the 'jerk factor' in
play.
> >
> >Kevin:Speaking JtoJ we ought to keep this in
mind.
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Dave,
> >
> I can't understand why you do not hang on every word
Kevin posts!
He
> > > backs up all of his biblical claims with
scripture references, and not
> >just
> > > one or two,
with several to many. He backs up what he claims about the
> > >
Mormon church with statements from your own non-prophets and
leaders.
He
> >has
> > > a passion for the Lord, and
quite evidently has been called to use
this
> > > passion, and
his knowledge of the Word, to spread the gospel. I would
>
>expect
> > > him to act no differently on TT than he does on
the street. Just
because
> >he
> > > does not fit your
idea of what Truth Talk should be does not mean that
> >his
>
> > exchanges are not meaningful. In fact, in terms of proclaiming
the
> >gospel
> >to
> > > the unsaved, Kevin is
probably doing more on TT than any other poster.
> >He
> >
> steadfastly sticks to the message, not straying into the
>
>pseudo-intellectual
> > > realms of so many posts. Those
things are often titillating and fun to
> > > ponder, but when it
comes down to it, either you believe or you don't.
> > >
>
> > Perry
> > >
> > > >From: Dave Hansen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Reply-To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > >To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
baptism
> > > >Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:46:44 -0700
>
> > >
> > > >DAVEH: Nothing will make for easier
discussions, IF one of the
parties
> > > >does not want to
have a meaningful exchange, Kevin. I view TT as
being
>
>a
> > > >place where two or more people of contrasting
opinions can explore
why
> > > >other's believe
differently. I perceive that some TTers (such as
>
>yourself)
> > > >are here not to have a meaningful
discussion unless it results in the
> >other
> > >
>person adopting your beliefs. Basically, you want to use TT as
a
forum
> >to
> > > >convert people to Christianity
as you understand it...is that
correct?
> > >
>Assuming so, you probably don't feel a need to find areas of
common
> >belief,
> > > >but rather cut right to the
chase and try to overwhelm your opponent
> >with
> > >
>their error of thought/belief as you perceive it. Have I analyzed
it
> > > >correctly, Kevin?
> > > >
> >
> > I harbor no illusions about changing your anti
attitudes, Kevin.
> >But
> >I
> > > >am
curious as to why you are as you are (and why you believe as you
>
>do),
> >if
> > > >that makes any sense. It's
just one of my hang-ups I suppose. So,
> >every
>
> > >now and then you do reveal a bit about yourself, for which I
am
> > > >appreciative. But as I see it, you mostly put
up a pretty thick wall
> > > >hoping to wear your opponents
down in their futile efforts to
overcome
> >that
> > >
>wall. Then you try to attack their perceived soft spot, hoping for
a
> >quick
> > > >victory.
> > >
>
> > > > That'll be $250 for your initial
therapy session, please! :-D
> > > >
> >
> >Kevin Deegan wrote:
> > > >
> > >
>>Why does it make discussions easier?????
> > >
>> Do you mean it will disarm those rascal Anti's?
> >
> >>
> > > >>*/Dave Hansen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
> > > >>
> >
> >> DAVEH: I think it makes
discussions much easier if common
points
> > >
>> are first found, Kevin.
> > >
>>
> > > >> Kevin Deegan
wrote:
> > > >>
> > >
>>> What is this Mormon preoccupation with
finding all the things
we
> > >
>>> have in common?
> > >
>>> Why would one want to find; lets say, for
example, all the
> >things
> > >
>>> they have in common with the
devil?
> > >
>>> So what
then; after we find what we have in common?
> > >
>>>
> > > >>> */Dave
Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
> > >
>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
>>>
> > >
>>> Charles Perry
Locke wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >
>>>>>
DAVEH: Ohhhhhhhh....what an interesting response,
Perry!
> >
> >>>>> I must say that I do find it
rather curious that you would
> > >
>>>>> rather
take a more vigorous new tack against my beliefs
> > >
>>>>> rather
than discuss issues of theology common to both of
> >us.
> >
> >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
>>>>
It is not what we have in common that is the
problem...it
> > >
>>>> is what we do
NOT have in common.
> > > >>>
> > >
>>> DAVEH: So
you have no interest in discussing theology in
an
> > >
>>> effort to see
what we might believe in common? Maybe we
> >have
> >
> >>> two
different perspectives about TT, Perry. I view it as
a
> >
> >>> place where
people of divergent opinions can share ideas
and
> > >
>>> quiz one another
about their beliefs without feeling
> > >
>>> threatened or
inviting a hard sell approach to change
other
> > >
>>> people. I'm
beginning to think you are here to do battle,
> >so
> > >
>>> to speak.
To you, TT merely is a place to convert people
to
> > >
>>> your way of
thinking. Am I reading you wrong on this? If
> > >
>>> not, then for
what reason did you come to TT, Perry?
> > > >>>
>
> > >
> > > >--
> > >
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >Dave Hansen
> > >
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >http://www.langlitz.com
>
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >If you wish to
receive
> > > >things I find interesting,
> > >
>I maintain six email lists...
> > > >JOKESTER, OPINIONS,
LDS,
> > > >STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
> > >
>
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------
>
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that
you
may
> >know how you ought to answer every man."
(Colossians 4:6)
> >http://www.InnGlory.org
> > >
>
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email
to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.
If you have a
> >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail
to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >----------
> >"Let
your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
>
>know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
>
>http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> >If you do not want to
receive posts from this list, send an email to
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you
have a
> >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail
to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to
answer every man." (Colossians
4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive
posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you
will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell
him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always
with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer
every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you
do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.
