Evil shows its face in a different mask every generation. We are always fooled because we expect it to look the same.
The 20th Century brought us Communist Totalitarians and Nazis.
So, in the 21st Century, we look at the Islamofascists and tell ourselves, "We're ok. They are not anything like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany."
And, so we appease.
But, to give Hitler Checkoslovakia, and then to turn our heads while he threatens to take Poland is little different from the game we have been playing with Iran the past few years.
Instead of taking land, Iran is just taking advantage of our stupidity. The land they claim is the land of peace which exists in our own minds. They are literally taking away the land of the Infidels, with every new ounce of enriched Uranium.
They have told us over and over, in terms far more clear than Hitler ever used, we intend to destroy you. We will win the victory for Allah. We will bring about the reign of the Shi'ite Messiah, the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. We have no fear of bombing Israel, for we will lose only a few people, but all Israel will be destroyed. (Iranian Press Service - "Actually, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani had told worshippers, while leading the traditional Friday prayers, "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce minor damages in the Muslim world", referring to Atomic bombs Israel is believed to have more than 200 of them.")
And, just as in the days leading up to WWII, the world is turning its backs on the Jews, and the Jews themselves, under the "leadership" of Olmert, have been quietly getting on the trains (read the comments in the link).
I posed the following question to my Pastors:
"What do you think of the fact that, if Iran does what it says it wants to do - wipe Israel off the map -, the Christian Church will have done even less to stop the second Holocaust than we did to stop the first?"
I was met with blank stares from both Pastors.
From Atlas Shrugs:
The Associated Press reported from Tehran, "Iran will not give up 'a single iota of its nuclear rights,' the country's president said Saturday, scornful and smug about an informal deadline to stop expanding uranium enrichment or face more sanctions." Could they be clearer?
The 20th Century brought us Communist Totalitarians and Nazis.
So, in the 21st Century, we look at the Islamofascists and tell ourselves, "We're ok. They are not anything like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany."
And, so we appease.
But, to give Hitler Checkoslovakia, and then to turn our heads while he threatens to take Poland is little different from the game we have been playing with Iran the past few years.
Instead of taking land, Iran is just taking advantage of our stupidity. The land they claim is the land of peace which exists in our own minds. They are literally taking away the land of the Infidels, with every new ounce of enriched Uranium.
They have told us over and over, in terms far more clear than Hitler ever used, we intend to destroy you. We will win the victory for Allah. We will bring about the reign of the Shi'ite Messiah, the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. We have no fear of bombing Israel, for we will lose only a few people, but all Israel will be destroyed. (Iranian Press Service - "Actually, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani had told worshippers, while leading the traditional Friday prayers, "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce minor damages in the Muslim world", referring to Atomic bombs Israel is believed to have more than 200 of them.")
And, just as in the days leading up to WWII, the world is turning its backs on the Jews, and the Jews themselves, under the "leadership" of Olmert, have been quietly getting on the trains (read the comments in the link).
I posed the following question to my Pastors:
"What do you think of the fact that, if Iran does what it says it wants to do - wipe Israel off the map -, the Christian Church will have done even less to stop the second Holocaust than we did to stop the first?"
I was met with blank stares from both Pastors.
From Atlas Shrugs:
The Associated Press reported from Tehran, "Iran will not give up 'a single iota of its nuclear rights,' the country's president said Saturday, scornful and smug about an informal deadline to stop expanding uranium enrichment or face more sanctions." Could they be clearer?
Here at the New York Sun
If this sounds familiar, it should. The Associated Press and the rest of the press have been reporting on disarmament "deadlines" for Iran now for five years,
If this sounds familiar, it should. The Associated Press and the rest of the press have been reporting on disarmament "deadlines" for Iran now for five years,
and Iran has been ignoring the deadlines for just as long, with no appreciable consequences.
If a line is reached and crossed and no death results, is it really a deadline?
The first deadline was back in 2003. The deadline was so significant that France and America even agreed on it. "Mr. Villepin said Iran must meet the October 31st deadline that the IAEA imposed or face possible sanctions," Voice of America reported on September 30, 2003.
"Iran Given New Nuclear 'Deadline'" was the headline of an article published on the BBC Web site in September of 2004. It reported on an International Atomic Energy Agency resolution that "imposes an indirect deadline of 25 November." The BBC article quoted an American diplomat as saying "The time for decisive action is approaching." That was four years ago.
The year 2005 brought another so-called deadline — September 3. "In Vienna, Austria, where the IAEA is based, diplomats said Iran faced a Sept. 3 deadline to stop uranium conversion," the Associated Press reported in August of 2005.
There were deadlines in 2006, too. "U.N. Gives Iran Nuclear Deadline," was the headline over an article in the Daily Telegraph on August 1, 2006, reporting, "The United Nations Security Council has given Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment."
The next year, 2007, brought more deadlines. "The UN has set today as a final deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment," the Guardian reported on February 21, 2007. The final deadline? Right.
Now, over the weekend, another deadline came and went.
The first deadline was back in 2003. The deadline was so significant that France and America even agreed on it. "Mr. Villepin said Iran must meet the October 31st deadline that the IAEA imposed or face possible sanctions," Voice of America reported on September 30, 2003.
"Iran Given New Nuclear 'Deadline'" was the headline of an article published on the BBC Web site in September of 2004. It reported on an International Atomic Energy Agency resolution that "imposes an indirect deadline of 25 November." The BBC article quoted an American diplomat as saying "The time for decisive action is approaching." That was four years ago.
The year 2005 brought another so-called deadline — September 3. "In Vienna, Austria, where the IAEA is based, diplomats said Iran faced a Sept. 3 deadline to stop uranium conversion," the Associated Press reported in August of 2005.
There were deadlines in 2006, too. "U.N. Gives Iran Nuclear Deadline," was the headline over an article in the Daily Telegraph on August 1, 2006, reporting, "The United Nations Security Council has given Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment."
The next year, 2007, brought more deadlines. "The UN has set today as a final deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment," the Guardian reported on February 21, 2007. The final deadline? Right.
Now, over the weekend, another deadline came and went.
On Saturday, Secretary of State Rice said the Iranian envoys failed to give a clear answer. "The Iranians did not give a clear answer. If they don't give a clear answer, then I think we will have no choice but to begin again to prepare sanctions resolutions for the Security Council," Ms. Rice said at the Aspen Institute in Aspen, Colo. But Ms. Rice added that she did not expect the U.N. Security Council would prepare sanctions until September, ruling out any action in the next few weeks.
Given the history of these diplomatic deadlines, it's no wonder that they don't exactly strike fear into the hearts of the Iranian government. Nor is it surprising that the Israelis are running training exercises for military missions to take out Iran's nuclear sites.
Given the history of these diplomatic deadlines, it's no wonder that they don't exactly strike fear into the hearts of the Iranian government. Nor is it surprising that the Israelis are running training exercises for military missions to take out Iran's nuclear sites.
What is surprising is that Senator Obama, who appears to be an intelligent man, wants to negotiate with the Iranians. What is he going to do, give them a deadline?
The renewed talk of sanctions is long past its expiration date. Those actions should have been taken two years ago.
With patience of the Pope, Bolton, in his journal op-ed piece explains in painstaking detail, the process, the scientific process by which Iran is acheiving its terrible goals,
First, while the European-led negotiations proceed, Iran continues both to convert uranium from a solid (uranium oxide, U3O8, also called yellowcake) to a gas (uranium hexafluoride, UF6) at its uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although it is a purely chemical procedure, conversion is technologically complex and poses health and safety risks.
As Isfahan's continuing operations increase both Iran's UF6 inventory and its technical expertise, however, the impact of destroying the facility diminishes. Iran is building a stockpile of UF6 that it can subsequently enrich even while it reconstructs Isfahan after an attack, or builds a new conversion facility elsewhere.
Second, delay permits Iran to increase its stock of low-enriched uranium (LEU) -- that is, UF6 gas in which the U235 isotope concentration (the form of uranium critical to nuclear reactions either in reactors or weapons) is raised from its natural level of 0.7% to between 3% and 5%.
As its LEU stockpile increases, so too does Tehran's capacity to take the next step, and enrich it to weapons-grade concentrations of over 90% U235 (highly-enriched uranium, or HEU). Some unfamiliar with nuclear matters characterize the difference in LEU-HEU concentration levels as huge. The truth is far different. Enriching natural uranium by centrifuges to LEU consumes approximately 70% of the work and time required to enrich it to HEU.
Accordingly, destroying Iran's enrichment facility at Natanz does not eliminate its existing enriched uranium (LEU), which the IAEA estimated in May 2008 to be approximately half what is needed for one nuclear weapon. Iran is thus more than two-thirds of the way to weapons-grade uranium with each kilogram of uranium it enriches to LEU levels. Moreover, as the LEU inventory grows, so too does the risk of a military strike hitting one or more UF6 storage tanks, releasing potentially substantial amounts of radioactive gas into the atmosphere.
[...]
Iran is pursuing two goals simultaneously, both of which it is comfortably close to achieving. The first -- to possess all the capabilities necessary for a deliverable nuclear weapon -- is now almost certainly impossible to stop diplomatically. Thus, Iran's second objective becomes critical: to make the risks of a military strike against its program too high, and to make the likelihood of success in fracturing the program too low. Time favors Iran in achieving these goals. U.S. and European diplomats should consider this while waiting by the telephone for Iran to call.
The world powers circle jerk. The mad mullahs prepare for the coming of the 12th mahdi. The West, seemingly hardwired for delusion, convinces itself it can live with a nuclear Iran.
All aboard.
The renewed talk of sanctions is long past its expiration date. Those actions should have been taken two years ago.
With patience of the Pope, Bolton, in his journal op-ed piece explains in painstaking detail, the process, the scientific process by which Iran is acheiving its terrible goals,
First, while the European-led negotiations proceed, Iran continues both to convert uranium from a solid (uranium oxide, U3O8, also called yellowcake) to a gas (uranium hexafluoride, UF6) at its uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although it is a purely chemical procedure, conversion is technologically complex and poses health and safety risks.
As Isfahan's continuing operations increase both Iran's UF6 inventory and its technical expertise, however, the impact of destroying the facility diminishes. Iran is building a stockpile of UF6 that it can subsequently enrich even while it reconstructs Isfahan after an attack, or builds a new conversion facility elsewhere.
Second, delay permits Iran to increase its stock of low-enriched uranium (LEU) -- that is, UF6 gas in which the U235 isotope concentration (the form of uranium critical to nuclear reactions either in reactors or weapons) is raised from its natural level of 0.7% to between 3% and 5%.
As its LEU stockpile increases, so too does Tehran's capacity to take the next step, and enrich it to weapons-grade concentrations of over 90% U235 (highly-enriched uranium, or HEU). Some unfamiliar with nuclear matters characterize the difference in LEU-HEU concentration levels as huge. The truth is far different. Enriching natural uranium by centrifuges to LEU consumes approximately 70% of the work and time required to enrich it to HEU.
Accordingly, destroying Iran's enrichment facility at Natanz does not eliminate its existing enriched uranium (LEU), which the IAEA estimated in May 2008 to be approximately half what is needed for one nuclear weapon. Iran is thus more than two-thirds of the way to weapons-grade uranium with each kilogram of uranium it enriches to LEU levels. Moreover, as the LEU inventory grows, so too does the risk of a military strike hitting one or more UF6 storage tanks, releasing potentially substantial amounts of radioactive gas into the atmosphere.
[...]
Iran is pursuing two goals simultaneously, both of which it is comfortably close to achieving. The first -- to possess all the capabilities necessary for a deliverable nuclear weapon -- is now almost certainly impossible to stop diplomatically. Thus, Iran's second objective becomes critical: to make the risks of a military strike against its program too high, and to make the likelihood of success in fracturing the program too low. Time favors Iran in achieving these goals. U.S. and European diplomats should consider this while waiting by the telephone for Iran to call.
The world powers circle jerk. The mad mullahs prepare for the coming of the 12th mahdi. The West, seemingly hardwired for delusion, convinces itself it can live with a nuclear Iran.
All aboard.
Fucking pathetic. A rock too heavy to lift. (Zechariah 12: 2-3)
2"Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a (D)cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against (E)Judah.
3"It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy (F)stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be (G)severely injured And all the (H)nations of the earth will be gathered against it.
3"It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy (F)stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be (G)severely injured And all the (H)nations of the earth will be gathered against it.
5 comments:
The leaders of the major Christian churches have no more idea of what to do about Islam that Chamberlain had of what to do about Nazism.
Yes, and Olmert's prosecution of the Hizballah War was pretty much the equivalent of the guys who counseled the rest of the Jews to get on the Nazis trains.
This has all been very disappointing to watch.
When we all said, "Never again," I thought we freaking meant it.
Patorius!.....
I've found some Christian leadership>>>>>
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/bush-gots-seoul-pro-american-protesters.html#comments
Finally - Christians MARCH!!
Seeing as I have troops in all of the countries-I'm gratified...
What do you mean you "have troops in all of the countries"?
From this recent essay about evangelicals and Islam:
Following a four-day conference last week at Yale University, Christian and Muslim leaders from around the world announced the first step of the “Common Word” exchange drafted last November. A joint statement was affirmed in their support of religious freedom and further interfaith dialogue based on their common love for God and neighbor.
But something is very wrong with this picture.
Over 140 conference participants unanimously approved a cooperative statement that signaled a “new beginning of collaboration between Christians and Muslims” where stronger assertions of faith would be required. So the statement began by affirming the “unity and absoluteness of God” and God’s merciful love as central to both religions.
Wait a minute! Allah has merciful love? And Allah is central to both Christianity and Islam? Isn’t it devotion to Allah that causes people to strap explosives onto themselves and blow innocent people to shreds? And seems he also encourages some of his followers to cut off heads of the innocent?
In attendance and in agreement, sadly, were both the head of the National Association of Evangelicals and the World Evangelical Alliance. Those two organizations represent most evangelicals in America. But both faiths pledged to spend one week a year sharing the good aspects about the other’s faith. Our pulpits are already lacking in sound gospel preaching! Now we must take one week each year to learn that Islam might really be “a religion of peace?” And that Christians and Muslims worship the same God?
The Lord’s Day is just that: A day to worship and learn about the God of the Bible, not to hear about the positive nature of Islam or any other faith. It’s tough enough that many reading this are laboring in churches that have forsaken the Bible for “new ways of doing church.” We have leftists and Emergent Church leaders praised in our pulpits, and now once a year we will have Islam praised in our pulpits—and I am speaking of “evangelical” pulpits since the heads of the evangelical world signed on to this....
I expect the blank stares you mentioned to continue. I expect the seminaries will also pick up the interfaithing meme and undermine the next generation of Christian pastors and ministers. Also, courses in comparative religion at various colleges and universities are already emphasizing the oneness of all faiths.
As the above linked article concluded:
Muslims are laughing all the way to Mecca.
Post a Comment