You'll have to be more specific than that if you want to arrive at a useful understanding. I'm pretty sure that Shinto has nothing to do with it, unlike events in the 1940s. It makes a difference.

You might want to spend some time considering the implications of the difference between domestic violence and deliberate terrorist attacks intended to produce mass casualties.

Like many people on Slashdot you seem to have a defective knowledge of history and the church.

If one were to look into the history they would find that you either grossly exagerate on these matters, or are simply wrong. Many of the early colonies were formed by religous sects coming from Europe. Once in America they adopted the European customs of institutionalizing the church with the government. Although in some colonies other sects were persecuted, few were killed. In any case it was nothing like the scale or severity of European persecution. Other colonies had different views. Rhode Island was formed with the ideal of religious tolerence, and other colonies were adopting laws for tolerance by 1650. Eventually all of the colonies adeopted the US Constitution, became states, and moved past that.

As to the "Christian justifications for the genocide against American Indians" I have to ask, what genocide are you referring to? There wasn't one.

Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans
Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

As to your claims about "lines of Christian preachers submitted tons of briefs, all saying that their Christian God had deemed that black people were inherently inferior and not worthy of any basic human rights" in the case of Loving vs Virginia, which briefs are you referring to? The only brief I see listed from an organization claiming church affiliation was against Virginia's law.

LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

So it looks to me that your disparagement of Christians is based on what is essentially one half-truth and two whole lies.

Now that would be bad in and of itself, but you also overlook the many positive contributions made by Christians.

The abolition of slavery - Christian and churches drove the abolisionist movement. Perhaps you could start with this man:
      William Wilberforce - the story told in this wonderful movie: Amazing Grace, released in 2007
Higher Education - Many of America's first colleges were formed by churches.
Health Care - Many hospitals have been founded by churches, or with church backing.
The Civil Right movement - Once again many churches were participants in the Civil Rights movement

There are many more that could be added to that.

Moving past the half-truth and falsehoods you wrote certainly seems to make for a better record to reflect upon.

Very droll, but it doesn't really apply.

Hosts connected to the internet after split of MILNET from ARPANET.
1984 1,000
1987 10,000
1988 60,000

Many European companies did business with Saddam's Iraq just as they do now with Iran, and other unsavory regimes.
Some of that business has been lucrative arms or technology business, or to strengthen the miliary or economy. Those are matters of interest to other governments that are being attacked by those countries.
People here keep claiming that government corruption is widespread, and their leaders can't be trusted. If that is so, don't you think other countries would like to know what is really going on? Country X says its policy toward country Z is A, but intelligence shows the real policy is B, a very dangerous B.
Bribery is an accepted common practice in some countries and cultures. Should it be unknown if it is bribery that is winning international contracts?
During the Cold War various German institutions were riddled with agents of the Warsaw Pact, especially East Germany. NATO secrets were always at risk. Would that be a matter of interest?

Not true. You're ignoring the help Assange and Wikileaks gave Snowden.

You keep spewing this rhetoric, but could you name exactly which corporations you're talking about, and what it is specifically that you think they control? That would be helpful since there are thousands of corporations, and they often hav conflicting interests. Doing any sort of coordination among them would be difficult, and there would be records that someone should have been able to produce by now. That is something you never address, so I'm asking: where is your proof of this massive puppet show that you think exists?

The speed of the growth of the internet is a separate question from general public awareness of it. I am correct in what I wrote that by 1986 the internet was spreading quickly, and no, that isn't just CS departments in colleges. The infamous internet worm was Morris, not Mitnick.

The internet was being used as a tool by people in industry, government, and educational institutions, and not simply by "specialists".

As to BBSs and beyond, ever hear of TYMNET, Compuserve, GEnie, The Source, BIX, Delphi, Micronet? There was a big world beyond your local BBS on an XT clone, some of which also offerered access to the internet in various forms.

The concern isn't about making good decisions, but about the behavior and use of the system's capabilities and emergent properties.

Teaching computers to beat humans at bluffing, decoying, and no doubt (now or in time) lying? Is that what we want AI to be capable of? I'm not sure that is a good idea, and the code to do that should never be among the "standard includes". I understand the utility of it in dealing with humans, but still ...

Won't someone think of the child...er vulgarity?

Thanks for the suggestion, but been there, done that.

The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986. Computer crime has existed since at least the 1960s. How could you imagine that hostile foreign governments and other bad actors didn't obain Top Secret US intelligence information via Snowden since it was published in newspapers while the US is engaged in armed conflict and confronting various threats to NATO and other allies?

Being genuinely "anti-war" during a period of international strife isn't necessarily a wise position. Had the North capitulated to the demands of the South, would the US still be a nation with slavery? Where would the world be today if FDR had been anti-war and shrugged off the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor? Much of the British population was so opposed to war that it delayed Britains rearmament prior to WW2, which almost brought it to ruin. Had the Nazis met resistance in remilitarizing the Rhineland it might very well have prevented much grief later. More than one foreign leader has made the mistake of believing the US response would be weak if the US was attacked, including the Japanese and Bin Laden. Being weak in a world of predators such as them invites attack. It is generally a good thing to avoid war if possible, but not every war is avoidable.