what do you know.... this blog works again.
i guess several years of not posting makes things work better! the other blog: http://fieldsoflollipops.blogspot.com/
Monday, June 06, 2011
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Just a reminder..
The Bible doesn't say that you'll get into heaven by being good. It's not going to happen by us trying, because we all fall short. Jesus would not have suffered and died on a cross if all roads lead to God..
For this, I am forever thankful.
For this, I am forever thankful.
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Right Fight..
while the dems position to try to take a position that will get them the most votes(irrespective of principle) our soldiers are on the front lines of reality, not lost in the swells of nonsense in the beltway.. the longer we keep our eye off the ball, the more certain another attack on our soil becomes.
-------------------------------
The Right Fight
By Jacob Laksin
Few today are receptive to the idea of a “war on terror.” From a war-weary public, to a political commentariat impatient with such supposedly simple-minded slogans, the country seems determined to move beyond the notion that the fighting underway in Iraq is in any significant way connected to the global terrorist threat to national security. So it is to President Bush’s credit that he used his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy this week to reacquaint a disaffected nation with a stubborn fact: Iraq remains the central theater in the fight against al-Qaeda and its jihadist brethren.
To illustrate the point, Bush adduced newly declassified intelligence that confirms what many are disinclined to hear: that al-Qaeda views Iraq as the ultimate showdown between its brand of fanatical Islam and the Western world, and that it seeks to turn the country into a staging ground for further attacks against the United States.
By way of example, Bush pointed to a 2005 plot, apparently hatched by Osama bin Laden himself, to coordinate attacks against the U.S. with al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. According to details presented by the president, bin Laden instructed an intermediary, Hamza Rabi, to relay plans for such attacks to al-Qaeda’s then-senior leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. “Our intelligence community reports that a senior al-Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, went further and suggested that bin Laden actually send Rabia, himself, to Iraq to help plan external operations,” Bush explained. "Abu Faraj later speculated that if this effort proved successful, al-Qaeda might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq.” Reflecting on the import of these findings, Bush sensibly concluded that “war on terror” remained a useful concept: “This notion about how this isn't a war on terror, in my view, is naïve,” he said. “It doesn't reflect the true nature of the world in which we live.”
Where the president erred is in assuming that his critics -- especially among the Democratic Party’s leadership -- actually live in the same world. In reality, at the level of foreign policy, Democrats and their allies on the anti-war Left have long inhabited an alternate universe.
Capitol Hill this week embodied that political disconnect. Going into full bullying mode, Congressional Democrats repeatedly threatened to block war funding unless the appropriations bill for the war also included timelines for withdrawal -- a clear encroachment on the executive’s war-making powers. Finally they agreed, grudgingly, to fund the troops. Detracting from the solemnity of the Democratic opposition, however, is the fact that legislators nonetheless managed to muscle billions of dollars in earmarks into the $120-billion legislation.
For the anti-war base, even reluctant support for the war effort is apostasy punishable by political death. Far-left activist network MoveOn.org has already demanded that “every single Democrat must oppose this bill.” The marching orders are clear: Vote for defeat in Iraq, or face it at home. Accordingly, MoveOn has vowed to mount primary challenges to any Democrat who dares to show independence on Iraq.
It will please these ideological enforcers to know that no such independence is to be found within the current field of Democratic presidential hopefuls. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the latter reportedly the most hawkish of the contenders, supported a symbolic measure to cut all funding for the war by next spring. (It was unclear, as of this writing, whether the Senators would vote for this week’s funding bill.)
Among candidates in serious contention, John Edwards has staked out the hardest anti-war line. In laying out his foreign policy vision before the Council on Foreign Relations this week, the onetime vice presidential aspirant assailed the notion of a war on terror as one of President Bush‘s “discredited ideological pursuits.” Unveiling his own plan for combating terrorism, Edwards called for a new humility, and proposed “to educate every child in the world.” How that mission could be reconciled with his call for humility in foreign affairs, and why an education campaign would stop the next generation of al-Qaeda recruits -- who, as it happens, are uniformly well-educated -- were among the many questions Edwards left unanswered.
Far from the demagoguery of the presidential campaign, the hard work of actually fighting terrorism falls to the U.S. troops and their Iraqi allies. Although violence -- in the form of suicide attacks, car bombings, and gangland-style murders -- remains a constant, the “surge” of American troop strength begun in February is showing modest signs of success. For one thing, sectarian violence appears to be in decline, especially in Baghdad. For another, Iraqis, including in Sunni Arab strongholds like Anbar province, are joining the fight against al-Qaeda terrorists.
Moreover, and contrary to the popular refrain that Iraq is a “distraction” from the true fight against terrorism, al-Qaeda has in recent years suffered serious defeats. Consider that of the operatives that bin Laden hoped to involve in his plot to attack the United States, al-Libi was captured and is now out of commission in much-maligned Guantanamo Bay; al-Rabia was killed in 2005 in Pakistan; and al-Zarqawi met his unlamented end in a June 2006 strike by the U.S. military in Diyala province. For a distraction from al-Qaeda, Iraq is proving to be remarkably on-target.
Not that you will hear this from the war’s critics. To acknowledge success would require them to concede that Iraq is in fact the frontline in the global war on terror -- and, furthermore, that the war is not a White House scheme to scare American voters. In short, it would require an admission that, on the question of Iraq’s centrality to the war against al-Qaeda, President Bush is right.
Iraqis are more forthright. Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander overseeing the security plan, told the Washington Post this week that while sectarian violence is the leading problem in the country, it cannot be understood apart from al-Qaeda‘s involvement. Observing that al-Qaeda often incites the violence that draws reprisals from sectarian Shiite militias, he said: “Terrorists of al-Qaeda and the enemies of Iraq, they want to start a crisis. The objective behind this is to incite sectarian strife.” Coming just ahead of Memorial Day, it was a fitting reminder that the sacrifices of American forces in Iraq have not been in vain. Just don’t tell Congress.
-------------------------------
The Right Fight
By Jacob Laksin
Few today are receptive to the idea of a “war on terror.” From a war-weary public, to a political commentariat impatient with such supposedly simple-minded slogans, the country seems determined to move beyond the notion that the fighting underway in Iraq is in any significant way connected to the global terrorist threat to national security. So it is to President Bush’s credit that he used his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy this week to reacquaint a disaffected nation with a stubborn fact: Iraq remains the central theater in the fight against al-Qaeda and its jihadist brethren.
To illustrate the point, Bush adduced newly declassified intelligence that confirms what many are disinclined to hear: that al-Qaeda views Iraq as the ultimate showdown between its brand of fanatical Islam and the Western world, and that it seeks to turn the country into a staging ground for further attacks against the United States.
By way of example, Bush pointed to a 2005 plot, apparently hatched by Osama bin Laden himself, to coordinate attacks against the U.S. with al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. According to details presented by the president, bin Laden instructed an intermediary, Hamza Rabi, to relay plans for such attacks to al-Qaeda’s then-senior leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. “Our intelligence community reports that a senior al-Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, went further and suggested that bin Laden actually send Rabia, himself, to Iraq to help plan external operations,” Bush explained. "Abu Faraj later speculated that if this effort proved successful, al-Qaeda might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq.” Reflecting on the import of these findings, Bush sensibly concluded that “war on terror” remained a useful concept: “This notion about how this isn't a war on terror, in my view, is naïve,” he said. “It doesn't reflect the true nature of the world in which we live.”
Where the president erred is in assuming that his critics -- especially among the Democratic Party’s leadership -- actually live in the same world. In reality, at the level of foreign policy, Democrats and their allies on the anti-war Left have long inhabited an alternate universe.
Capitol Hill this week embodied that political disconnect. Going into full bullying mode, Congressional Democrats repeatedly threatened to block war funding unless the appropriations bill for the war also included timelines for withdrawal -- a clear encroachment on the executive’s war-making powers. Finally they agreed, grudgingly, to fund the troops. Detracting from the solemnity of the Democratic opposition, however, is the fact that legislators nonetheless managed to muscle billions of dollars in earmarks into the $120-billion legislation.
For the anti-war base, even reluctant support for the war effort is apostasy punishable by political death. Far-left activist network MoveOn.org has already demanded that “every single Democrat must oppose this bill.” The marching orders are clear: Vote for defeat in Iraq, or face it at home. Accordingly, MoveOn has vowed to mount primary challenges to any Democrat who dares to show independence on Iraq.
It will please these ideological enforcers to know that no such independence is to be found within the current field of Democratic presidential hopefuls. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the latter reportedly the most hawkish of the contenders, supported a symbolic measure to cut all funding for the war by next spring. (It was unclear, as of this writing, whether the Senators would vote for this week’s funding bill.)
Among candidates in serious contention, John Edwards has staked out the hardest anti-war line. In laying out his foreign policy vision before the Council on Foreign Relations this week, the onetime vice presidential aspirant assailed the notion of a war on terror as one of President Bush‘s “discredited ideological pursuits.” Unveiling his own plan for combating terrorism, Edwards called for a new humility, and proposed “to educate every child in the world.” How that mission could be reconciled with his call for humility in foreign affairs, and why an education campaign would stop the next generation of al-Qaeda recruits -- who, as it happens, are uniformly well-educated -- were among the many questions Edwards left unanswered.
Far from the demagoguery of the presidential campaign, the hard work of actually fighting terrorism falls to the U.S. troops and their Iraqi allies. Although violence -- in the form of suicide attacks, car bombings, and gangland-style murders -- remains a constant, the “surge” of American troop strength begun in February is showing modest signs of success. For one thing, sectarian violence appears to be in decline, especially in Baghdad. For another, Iraqis, including in Sunni Arab strongholds like Anbar province, are joining the fight against al-Qaeda terrorists.
Moreover, and contrary to the popular refrain that Iraq is a “distraction” from the true fight against terrorism, al-Qaeda has in recent years suffered serious defeats. Consider that of the operatives that bin Laden hoped to involve in his plot to attack the United States, al-Libi was captured and is now out of commission in much-maligned Guantanamo Bay; al-Rabia was killed in 2005 in Pakistan; and al-Zarqawi met his unlamented end in a June 2006 strike by the U.S. military in Diyala province. For a distraction from al-Qaeda, Iraq is proving to be remarkably on-target.
Not that you will hear this from the war’s critics. To acknowledge success would require them to concede that Iraq is in fact the frontline in the global war on terror -- and, furthermore, that the war is not a White House scheme to scare American voters. In short, it would require an admission that, on the question of Iraq’s centrality to the war against al-Qaeda, President Bush is right.
Iraqis are more forthright. Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander overseeing the security plan, told the Washington Post this week that while sectarian violence is the leading problem in the country, it cannot be understood apart from al-Qaeda‘s involvement. Observing that al-Qaeda often incites the violence that draws reprisals from sectarian Shiite militias, he said: “Terrorists of al-Qaeda and the enemies of Iraq, they want to start a crisis. The objective behind this is to incite sectarian strife.” Coming just ahead of Memorial Day, it was a fitting reminder that the sacrifices of American forces in Iraq have not been in vain. Just don’t tell Congress.
The Wingate plan..
i read this on debka and thought it was good. Hal has a good commentary on it. the world will continue to call bad good and good bad, those who know good from bad should continue the march toward the light irrespective of world opinion..
---------------------------------------------
Israel to give terrorists own medicine?
Hal Lindsey
After two consecutive weeks of incessant pounding of Israeli cities by Palestinian missile attacks – more than 150 in one six-day period – Israeli Defense Forces are back on the offensive. The IDF stepped up air attacks in the Gaza Strip, and promised to target the Hamas leadership in an effort to stem the wave of attacks on its cities.
National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer defended the action. He told Israel Radio, "I don't distinguish between those who carry out the attacks and those who give the orders. I say we have to put them all in the crosshairs." Thousands of Hamas supporters took to the streets of Gaza City vowing revenge one day after an Israeli air strike on the home of Hamas politician Khalil al-Hayya.
Seven members of Hayya's family were killed in the strike, though al-Hayya himself escaped. The Palestinian press made much of the fact that al-Hayya's family was killed, but no one seemed to begrudge the fact that al-Hayya went underground beforehand, leaving his family in harm's way while he protected himself.
At the funeral service, Palestinian Prime Minister and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, said, "We will keep to the same path until we win one of two goals: victory or martyrdom." Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas planned a trip to Gaza Thursday to speak to leaders about maintaining law and order. Maintaining law and order? How can they maintain what doesn't exist? He should talk to them about Establishing law and order!
Even more ridiculous is Abbas' effort to blame Israel for the conduct of his government. He told reporters in Ramallah: "The Israelis are required to exercise restraint to stop their aggression against the Palestinian people or else they will be held accountable and responsible for the deterioration of the security situation in Gaza. " Is he kidding?
It would be laughable had the media not duly reported his comments as if they made sense. In another incident, at least four members of Islamic Jihad, on their way to launch rockets at Israel, were killed in an air strike that destroyed their car near the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya. Abu Ahmed, the spokesman for Islamic Jihad, didn't deny what the so-called victims were up to when they were killed.
Instead, he told reporters, "The Zionist attack will not stop rocket fire against Zionist towns. Leaders of the Zionist enemy will pay a price." Once again, this illogical nonsense was repeated by the Western press without question. Let's stop for a moment and make a few of the observations the journalists should have made. Since the Palestinians vow to attack Israeli towns anyway, what further price can Ahmed possibly be talking about?
Put another way, Ahmed is simply saying, "We vow to attack you at every opportunity." But if you defend yourself, we'll get so angry that we will attack you even more furiously because your defense causes conflict among us. And causing conflict among us will trigger more attacks. I've heard this kind of convoluted logic firsthand. Yet the vehemence with which such hatred-driven, illogical thinking is presented still staggers my mind. It also makes me question the qualifications or objectivity of the members of the mainstream media who repeat this stuff without question.
The Israeli online magazine DEBKAfile recently published a report by its military experts. They proposed that Israel must now revert to "unorthodox military tactics" against the Gaza-based terror organizations to halt the deluge of Qassam rocket attacks raining down on its civilian population. "Conventional warfare" is no longer an option in light of the massive amount of modern weaponry smuggled into Gaza since Israel's withdrawal. It would be impossible for the IDF to effectively combat the huge store of weapons, ammunition, lethal anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles stored in and fired from the cover of a heavy civilian population without the use of massive firepower.
Those tactics and overwhelming firepower would result in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in a conventional war. To complicate matters even further, Gaza is now swarming with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and al-Qaida operatives that have all mingled in the midst of the civilian population. Taken together, these factors make conventional war unacceptable in Israel's present situation.
Furthermore, the Israelis themselves would never sanction such perceived brutality – even though their enemies would wipe out every Jewish man, woman and child without a second thought if they could. Debka intelligence sources report, "Iranian and Hezbollah advisers are telling them (Hamas) how to combat a substantial Israeli ground-tank incursion. They must go underground and wage a guerrilla-terrorist war equivalent to the Iraqi insurgent campaign against U.S. troops."
This dilemma has caused some veteran Israeli military leaders to once again reach for help from a little-known Englishman. This British military figure from the past did more to develop the leaders and tactics of the IDF than any other person.
Debka quotes Israeli military sources: "Israelis have defeated Arab terror before. In the 1930s, the English military genius Orde Charles Wingate taught Jewish paramilitary defenders his Special Night Squads tactics for turning Arab guerrilla methods against them. Nothing much has changed in 71 years, except for the fact that today, Israel has a strong army of its own and does not need British or other international force to defend its sovereign territory. All that is needed is a government with resolve that lets the military do its job."
Israeli military intelligence is reportedly using Wingate's guerilla training doctrine to turn Hamas' tactics against them. The plans call for inserting small, highly trained guerilla squads behind Palestinian lines on lightening-like hit-and-run missions.
These squads will use guerilla tactics adapted to a number of new, sophisticated technical weapons developed for this purpose. They will destroy ammunition dumps, weapons workshops, bomb-making facilities, missile manufacturing plants and command centers. The plans also call for around-the-clock ambushes against Palestinian fighters and their commanders.
The goal is to make them confused, anxious and exhausted. Fighting and decisively winning a conventional battle in Gaza now would result in massive civilian casualties. Israeli society will not accept that. That's an object lesson in the difference between the moral integrity of the God of Israel and the god of Islam. The only other option available is to fight fire with fire – or in this case, guerrilla tactics with guerilla tactics. Hamas and its allies have opened Pandora's Box. I'm afraid they're not going to like what they find inside.
When I read DEBKAfile's reference to British Maj. Gen. Orde Charles Wingate's help to the Jews, I was immediately intrigued. He was a person who apparently greatly helped the Palestinian Jews at a critical time in their history. So I ran a search on his personal life. It proved to be a fascinating surprise.
I am indebted to Joseph M. Hochstein and Ami Isseroff's excellent summary of his biography. I first wanted to know why Wingate helped the Jews at a time when the vast majority of British military officers and Foreign Ministry officials were pro-Arab and almost outright anti-Jewish. Here is the key I found to his incredible life.
Wingate was born Feb. 26, 1903 in India. His father was a British officer and his mother came from a missionary family. Both parents were members of the non-denominational Plymouth Brethren Church, founded by J.N. Darby. This was a movement – originating in Ireland and England during the 1820s and 1830s – that recovered the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. Thus they firmly believed that all the unconditional covenants to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants were still binding and could not be given to the Church.
This refuted the doctrine that had been taught in the churches for more than 1,400 years – that Israel had forfeited its covenants and God had given them to the Church. Wingate was thoroughly schooled in these truths and believed in the restoration of the Jewish people to their land in the last days – as predicted by Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel and most of the other prophets.
This movement also had a profound influence on some members of the British Parliament, including Lords Lindsay and Balfour. They introduced a motion to provide the Jews with a homeland in Palestine. In 1936, then-Capt. Wingate was assigned to Palestine as an intelligence officer. His first task was to seek to settle the Arab campaign of riots, massacres and attacks against both British Mandate officials and Jewish communities, known later as the "Palestine Arab Revolt. "
He discovered that Grand Mufti Haj Amin El-Husseini, a friend of Adolf Hitler, instigated these. Because of his faith, he sought out the Zionist leaders and offered to help them. At first they were suspicious of him because of the traditional British disdain for the Jews. Wingate became fluent in Hebrew and finally convinced the Jews that he was a true and valuable ally. His genius as a military tactician soon impressed them.
He proposed and later received approval for a plan to create small and mobile units of elite volunteers. He wrote, "There is only one way to deal with the situation, to persuade the gangs that, in their predatory raids, there is every chance of their running into a government gang which is determined to destroy them. " The units would carry the offensive to the enemy, take away his initiative and keep him off-balance – "and produce in their minds the belief government forces will move at night and can and will surprise them either in villages or across country."
He planned a mix of British and Jewish commandos. Night operations would give them the advantages of shock and surprise. He would base his force in Jewish communities rather than at British bases. The Jewish police and the Haganah had good intelligence contacts and knew the land. The British had the formal training, the equipment and official support. In many respects his plan dovetailed with what the Haganah was already attempting to do.
After considerable resistance by other British officers, the brilliant Gen. Archibald Wavell approved his plan. Wingate's guerrillas, known as the "Special Night Squads," immediately had great success and destroyed the grand mufti's terror campaign. Wingate trained such later Israeli generals as Moshe Dayan and Yigal Yadin. Perhaps his contribution to Israel can best be appreciated by the praises given him by leaders on the occasion of his untimely death at the age of 41 in a 1944 plane crash in Burma.
By the way, though a British officer, his accomplishments in the Asian theater in World War II earned him great respect in America, too. In fact, he is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Winston Churchill said, "There was a man of genius who might well have become also a man of destiny. " Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote, "Wingate would have been Israel's first military chief of staff, if he had lived. "
Heroic Gen. Moshe Dayan said, "Wingate taught us everything we know. " Gen. Yigal Yadin said of Wingate, "His basic contribution – and it was a great one – was to teach us that warfare is a science and an art at the same time. He was the perfect example of the military man. …"
Gen. Orde Charles Wingate is recognized for laying the foundation for the Israeli Defense Force. Until his death, Wingate kept a Bible with him at all times.
As one Jewish observer said, "He seemed focused on defending the Jews with an intensity that the Zionists usually did not understand." This man remains a great example of faith to us all.
He did not compromise his beliefs for personal advancement, and his military genius is still helping God's chosen people, more than 60 years after his death.
---------------------------------------------
Israel to give terrorists own medicine?
Hal Lindsey
After two consecutive weeks of incessant pounding of Israeli cities by Palestinian missile attacks – more than 150 in one six-day period – Israeli Defense Forces are back on the offensive. The IDF stepped up air attacks in the Gaza Strip, and promised to target the Hamas leadership in an effort to stem the wave of attacks on its cities.
National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer defended the action. He told Israel Radio, "I don't distinguish between those who carry out the attacks and those who give the orders. I say we have to put them all in the crosshairs." Thousands of Hamas supporters took to the streets of Gaza City vowing revenge one day after an Israeli air strike on the home of Hamas politician Khalil al-Hayya.
Seven members of Hayya's family were killed in the strike, though al-Hayya himself escaped. The Palestinian press made much of the fact that al-Hayya's family was killed, but no one seemed to begrudge the fact that al-Hayya went underground beforehand, leaving his family in harm's way while he protected himself.
At the funeral service, Palestinian Prime Minister and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, said, "We will keep to the same path until we win one of two goals: victory or martyrdom." Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas planned a trip to Gaza Thursday to speak to leaders about maintaining law and order. Maintaining law and order? How can they maintain what doesn't exist? He should talk to them about Establishing law and order!
Even more ridiculous is Abbas' effort to blame Israel for the conduct of his government. He told reporters in Ramallah: "The Israelis are required to exercise restraint to stop their aggression against the Palestinian people or else they will be held accountable and responsible for the deterioration of the security situation in Gaza. " Is he kidding?
It would be laughable had the media not duly reported his comments as if they made sense. In another incident, at least four members of Islamic Jihad, on their way to launch rockets at Israel, were killed in an air strike that destroyed their car near the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya. Abu Ahmed, the spokesman for Islamic Jihad, didn't deny what the so-called victims were up to when they were killed.
Instead, he told reporters, "The Zionist attack will not stop rocket fire against Zionist towns. Leaders of the Zionist enemy will pay a price." Once again, this illogical nonsense was repeated by the Western press without question. Let's stop for a moment and make a few of the observations the journalists should have made. Since the Palestinians vow to attack Israeli towns anyway, what further price can Ahmed possibly be talking about?
Put another way, Ahmed is simply saying, "We vow to attack you at every opportunity." But if you defend yourself, we'll get so angry that we will attack you even more furiously because your defense causes conflict among us. And causing conflict among us will trigger more attacks. I've heard this kind of convoluted logic firsthand. Yet the vehemence with which such hatred-driven, illogical thinking is presented still staggers my mind. It also makes me question the qualifications or objectivity of the members of the mainstream media who repeat this stuff without question.
The Israeli online magazine DEBKAfile recently published a report by its military experts. They proposed that Israel must now revert to "unorthodox military tactics" against the Gaza-based terror organizations to halt the deluge of Qassam rocket attacks raining down on its civilian population. "Conventional warfare" is no longer an option in light of the massive amount of modern weaponry smuggled into Gaza since Israel's withdrawal. It would be impossible for the IDF to effectively combat the huge store of weapons, ammunition, lethal anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles stored in and fired from the cover of a heavy civilian population without the use of massive firepower.
Those tactics and overwhelming firepower would result in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in a conventional war. To complicate matters even further, Gaza is now swarming with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and al-Qaida operatives that have all mingled in the midst of the civilian population. Taken together, these factors make conventional war unacceptable in Israel's present situation.
Furthermore, the Israelis themselves would never sanction such perceived brutality – even though their enemies would wipe out every Jewish man, woman and child without a second thought if they could. Debka intelligence sources report, "Iranian and Hezbollah advisers are telling them (Hamas) how to combat a substantial Israeli ground-tank incursion. They must go underground and wage a guerrilla-terrorist war equivalent to the Iraqi insurgent campaign against U.S. troops."
This dilemma has caused some veteran Israeli military leaders to once again reach for help from a little-known Englishman. This British military figure from the past did more to develop the leaders and tactics of the IDF than any other person.
Debka quotes Israeli military sources: "Israelis have defeated Arab terror before. In the 1930s, the English military genius Orde Charles Wingate taught Jewish paramilitary defenders his Special Night Squads tactics for turning Arab guerrilla methods against them. Nothing much has changed in 71 years, except for the fact that today, Israel has a strong army of its own and does not need British or other international force to defend its sovereign territory. All that is needed is a government with resolve that lets the military do its job."
Israeli military intelligence is reportedly using Wingate's guerilla training doctrine to turn Hamas' tactics against them. The plans call for inserting small, highly trained guerilla squads behind Palestinian lines on lightening-like hit-and-run missions.
These squads will use guerilla tactics adapted to a number of new, sophisticated technical weapons developed for this purpose. They will destroy ammunition dumps, weapons workshops, bomb-making facilities, missile manufacturing plants and command centers. The plans also call for around-the-clock ambushes against Palestinian fighters and their commanders.
The goal is to make them confused, anxious and exhausted. Fighting and decisively winning a conventional battle in Gaza now would result in massive civilian casualties. Israeli society will not accept that. That's an object lesson in the difference between the moral integrity of the God of Israel and the god of Islam. The only other option available is to fight fire with fire – or in this case, guerrilla tactics with guerilla tactics. Hamas and its allies have opened Pandora's Box. I'm afraid they're not going to like what they find inside.
When I read DEBKAfile's reference to British Maj. Gen. Orde Charles Wingate's help to the Jews, I was immediately intrigued. He was a person who apparently greatly helped the Palestinian Jews at a critical time in their history. So I ran a search on his personal life. It proved to be a fascinating surprise.
I am indebted to Joseph M. Hochstein and Ami Isseroff's excellent summary of his biography. I first wanted to know why Wingate helped the Jews at a time when the vast majority of British military officers and Foreign Ministry officials were pro-Arab and almost outright anti-Jewish. Here is the key I found to his incredible life.
Wingate was born Feb. 26, 1903 in India. His father was a British officer and his mother came from a missionary family. Both parents were members of the non-denominational Plymouth Brethren Church, founded by J.N. Darby. This was a movement – originating in Ireland and England during the 1820s and 1830s – that recovered the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. Thus they firmly believed that all the unconditional covenants to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants were still binding and could not be given to the Church.
This refuted the doctrine that had been taught in the churches for more than 1,400 years – that Israel had forfeited its covenants and God had given them to the Church. Wingate was thoroughly schooled in these truths and believed in the restoration of the Jewish people to their land in the last days – as predicted by Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel and most of the other prophets.
This movement also had a profound influence on some members of the British Parliament, including Lords Lindsay and Balfour. They introduced a motion to provide the Jews with a homeland in Palestine. In 1936, then-Capt. Wingate was assigned to Palestine as an intelligence officer. His first task was to seek to settle the Arab campaign of riots, massacres and attacks against both British Mandate officials and Jewish communities, known later as the "Palestine Arab Revolt. "
He discovered that Grand Mufti Haj Amin El-Husseini, a friend of Adolf Hitler, instigated these. Because of his faith, he sought out the Zionist leaders and offered to help them. At first they were suspicious of him because of the traditional British disdain for the Jews. Wingate became fluent in Hebrew and finally convinced the Jews that he was a true and valuable ally. His genius as a military tactician soon impressed them.
He proposed and later received approval for a plan to create small and mobile units of elite volunteers. He wrote, "There is only one way to deal with the situation, to persuade the gangs that, in their predatory raids, there is every chance of their running into a government gang which is determined to destroy them. " The units would carry the offensive to the enemy, take away his initiative and keep him off-balance – "and produce in their minds the belief government forces will move at night and can and will surprise them either in villages or across country."
He planned a mix of British and Jewish commandos. Night operations would give them the advantages of shock and surprise. He would base his force in Jewish communities rather than at British bases. The Jewish police and the Haganah had good intelligence contacts and knew the land. The British had the formal training, the equipment and official support. In many respects his plan dovetailed with what the Haganah was already attempting to do.
After considerable resistance by other British officers, the brilliant Gen. Archibald Wavell approved his plan. Wingate's guerrillas, known as the "Special Night Squads," immediately had great success and destroyed the grand mufti's terror campaign. Wingate trained such later Israeli generals as Moshe Dayan and Yigal Yadin. Perhaps his contribution to Israel can best be appreciated by the praises given him by leaders on the occasion of his untimely death at the age of 41 in a 1944 plane crash in Burma.
By the way, though a British officer, his accomplishments in the Asian theater in World War II earned him great respect in America, too. In fact, he is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Winston Churchill said, "There was a man of genius who might well have become also a man of destiny. " Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote, "Wingate would have been Israel's first military chief of staff, if he had lived. "
Heroic Gen. Moshe Dayan said, "Wingate taught us everything we know. " Gen. Yigal Yadin said of Wingate, "His basic contribution – and it was a great one – was to teach us that warfare is a science and an art at the same time. He was the perfect example of the military man. …"
Gen. Orde Charles Wingate is recognized for laying the foundation for the Israeli Defense Force. Until his death, Wingate kept a Bible with him at all times.
As one Jewish observer said, "He seemed focused on defending the Jews with an intensity that the Zionists usually did not understand." This man remains a great example of faith to us all.
He did not compromise his beliefs for personal advancement, and his military genius is still helping God's chosen people, more than 60 years after his death.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Truth in the Bible..
once again, archeology confirms the veracity of the Bible..
----------------------------------------------
For This They Were Willfully Ignorant. . .
Jack Kinsella
After searching for half his lifetime, Ehud Netzer, an archeologist from Hebrew University, claims to have found, to an historical certainty, the tomb of Herod the Great, ruled Judea from 37 BC to 4 BC.The tomb was located at the base of Herodium, a man-made mountain on which Herod had build one of his most ornate summer palaces. The tomb is located nine miles south of Jerusalem and east of Bethlehem.
Herod was the king who, according to Matthew, ordered the "Massacre of the Innocents." Herod had been elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate in 40 BC, so the Magi's claims were news to him.
When the Babylonian astrologers (the Magi) went to Herod to enquire about the birthplace of the "King of the Jews", he ordered all male children under the age of two years in Bethlehem to be slaughtered, hoping, in the process, to kill this possible challenger to his rule.
The Bible says that Mary and Joseph fled into Egypt to avoid the slaughter, taking the infant Jesus with them.
Like all New Testament accounts, the Massacre of the Innocents is hotly disputed by 'scholars' who grow increasingly desperate in their efforts to discount the New Testament as a book of fables.
Many denied the existence of Herod the Great, despite eyewitness accounts of his life, his bloody reign and his slow, miserable and painful death.
Historical accounts by 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicated that Herod was buried at Herodium, and Netzer had been excavating there since 1972.
He finally found the grave midway between the upper part of Herodium and the lower palaces, an area not previously studied.
Herod was also the king credited with expanding the second Jewish Temple atop Temple Mount, which was known to history as "Herod's Temple". (The Arabs -- and in particular, the "Palestinians" continue to deny any such Temple ever existed.)
The Palestinian Ministry of Tourism declined to comment until the site could be examined by a team of Arab archeologists.
It is almost painful to watch the skeptics' efforts to deconstruct this latest in the long list of archeological finds confirming the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament accounts.
I read through some of the reader's comments on the story at the website of Canada's Globe and Mail.
Writing under such names as "Just the Truth From Canada" and "Truth Seeker" one finds comments like, "Ancient Israel, as described in biblical accounts, complete with magnificent gilt palaces, and huge, conquering armies, etc., etc. . . . is not historically accurate, but is folklore, a bunch of tribal fantasies."
Note that this comment was attached to a story about the discovery of Herod's tomb in EXACTLY such an 'magnificent gilt palace'.
Writes another: "Israeli archaeologists probably have no right to dig in the occupied Palestinian West Bank ." To this writer, the discovery is irrelevant to history.
The West Bank is Palestinian, and no stupid historical facts are going to change his mind.
The facts are these, and they ARE facts, even if someone doesn't like them. There has never been an archeological find that disputes any Bible account. Not a single one.
Pontius Pilate was once deemed by those claiming to be 'scholars' to be a New Testament myth. Why? Because there was no archeological confirmation. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, the absence of evidence was universally accepted by liberal 'scholars' as evidence of absence.
But in 1962, an inscription was found in the town of Caesarea that said, "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans."
Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archeologists in history, was a confirmed atheist when set out on a quest to disprove the historical accuracy of Luke. What he discovered was that Luke was historically accurate to the tiniest detail. His conclusions?
"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth."
Consequently, Ramsay wrote, "Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
Sir William Ramsay died a Christian.
Dr. William F. Albright, initially as skeptical as Dr. Ramsay, eventually came to write;
"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."
Caiaphas, the High Priest of the Sanhedrin who ordered the execution of Jesus, was another such New Testament myth until the Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem.
Other recent archeological digs have uncovered:
1) The synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus cured a man with an unclean spirit and delivered the sermon on the bread of life.
2) The house of Peter at Capernaum where Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and others.
3) Jacob's well where Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman.
4) The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a crippled man.
5) The Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a blind man.
6) The tribunal at Corinth where Paul was tried.
7) The theater at Ephesus where the riot of silversmiths occurred.
8) Herod's palace at Caesarea where Paul was kept under guard.
9) An Egyptian parchment confirming the census order that brought Mary and Joseph out of Egypt to Bethlehem to be taxed.
There are at least thirty-nine verifiable extra-Biblical accounts, (including 17 non-Christian sources, that bear witness from outside the New Testament to over 100 details about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Apart from archeology, there is the question of logic. Dr. Ramsay and Dr. Albright both confirm, using scientific, archeological and historical evidences, Luke's accuracy as an historian.
It is not logical to assume that, although accurate in every possible confirmable aspect, Luke lied about Jesus and then permitted himself to be martyred for that lie.
Neither is it logical to assume that, since Luke confirms the rest of the Gospel writers, they also allowed themselves to be put to death to preserve a lie.
It is illogical to argue that they were sincere, but that they were deceived about Who Jesus was.
Each recorded more or less identical events, under more or less identical circumstances. If it were one witness, one might assume he was mentally unbalanced, or hallucinating.
But twelve? (Plus the uncounted multitudes who, within living memory of Jesus, gladly embraced martyrdom at Roman hands for their witness?)
The discovery of Herod's Tomb is just one more rock atop a mountain of overwhelming evidence confirming the reliability of the New Testament accounts. Keep in mind that in every case, (every single solitary case) where evidence DOES exist, it confirms the Bible account.
Not one shred of archeological evidence disputes a single point of the Gospel account. At worst, there remain unconfirmed details.
It is upon such thin suppositions as the absence of confirmatory evidence that Bible skeptics build their argument that the Bible is an unreliable book of myths.
As each new piece of evidence is uncovered, they scurry to seek some other unconfirmed detail to replace it as the bedrock of their argument.
Peter predicted that "there shall come in the last days, scoffers," explaining the motive for their skepticism as "walking after their own lusts."
Paul, in describing the 'strong delusion' gave as the motivation for their rejection of the truth the fact that they 'had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)
The skeptic delights in arguing that a righteous God would never condemn someone to eternal damnation just because they were unable to believe. I agree. God doesn't condemn unbelievers because they CAN'T believe. They condemn themselves because they WON'T believe. Peter called them "willingly ignorant."
There is more historical and documentary evidence attesting to the life and times of Jesus Christ than there is of Julius Caesar. But there are no skeptics of whom I am aware that have dedicated their lives and fortunes to denying the existence of Julius Caesar.
It takes conscious, deliberate effort -- and a lot of it -- to convince oneself, especially in the face of such overwhelming evidence, that Jesus Christ was less an historical figure than Julius Caesar.
There is no price, real or perceived, attached to belief in Julius Ceasar.
Belief in Jesus Christ, however, demands a change in perspective. Logically, if one believes in eternal accountability before a Righteous Judge, it therefore follows that it would throw a damper on the 'pleasure of unrighteousness'.
In the final analysis, there is but one sin for which the unbeliever will stand convicted.
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (Matthew 12:31)
The term 'blasphemy' can best be understood as 'defiant irreverence'. It is a state of defiant unbelief, despite the evidence. Or, as Peter describes it, "willful ignorance."
"Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" can be understood as a continued and persistently stubborn rejection of the gospel of salvation. This would be THE "unpardonable sin" because as long as a person remains in unbelief, he voluntarily excludes himself from forgiveness of sin.
It isn't God that condemns the unbeliever to eternal separation in the Lake of Fire.
The unbeliever condemns himself by his choice to believe a lie, preferring instead, as Peter noted, to walk after their own lusts, thus ignoring the evidence out of willful ignorance.
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
The same choice faces us all
----------------------------------------------
For This They Were Willfully Ignorant. . .
Jack Kinsella
After searching for half his lifetime, Ehud Netzer, an archeologist from Hebrew University, claims to have found, to an historical certainty, the tomb of Herod the Great, ruled Judea from 37 BC to 4 BC.The tomb was located at the base of Herodium, a man-made mountain on which Herod had build one of his most ornate summer palaces. The tomb is located nine miles south of Jerusalem and east of Bethlehem.
Herod was the king who, according to Matthew, ordered the "Massacre of the Innocents." Herod had been elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate in 40 BC, so the Magi's claims were news to him.
When the Babylonian astrologers (the Magi) went to Herod to enquire about the birthplace of the "King of the Jews", he ordered all male children under the age of two years in Bethlehem to be slaughtered, hoping, in the process, to kill this possible challenger to his rule.
The Bible says that Mary and Joseph fled into Egypt to avoid the slaughter, taking the infant Jesus with them.
Like all New Testament accounts, the Massacre of the Innocents is hotly disputed by 'scholars' who grow increasingly desperate in their efforts to discount the New Testament as a book of fables.
Many denied the existence of Herod the Great, despite eyewitness accounts of his life, his bloody reign and his slow, miserable and painful death.
Historical accounts by 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicated that Herod was buried at Herodium, and Netzer had been excavating there since 1972.
He finally found the grave midway between the upper part of Herodium and the lower palaces, an area not previously studied.
Herod was also the king credited with expanding the second Jewish Temple atop Temple Mount, which was known to history as "Herod's Temple". (The Arabs -- and in particular, the "Palestinians" continue to deny any such Temple ever existed.)
The Palestinian Ministry of Tourism declined to comment until the site could be examined by a team of Arab archeologists.
It is almost painful to watch the skeptics' efforts to deconstruct this latest in the long list of archeological finds confirming the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament accounts.
I read through some of the reader's comments on the story at the website of Canada's Globe and Mail.
Writing under such names as "Just the Truth From Canada" and "Truth Seeker" one finds comments like, "Ancient Israel, as described in biblical accounts, complete with magnificent gilt palaces, and huge, conquering armies, etc., etc. . . . is not historically accurate, but is folklore, a bunch of tribal fantasies."
Note that this comment was attached to a story about the discovery of Herod's tomb in EXACTLY such an 'magnificent gilt palace'.
Writes another: "Israeli archaeologists probably have no right to dig in the occupied Palestinian West Bank ." To this writer, the discovery is irrelevant to history.
The West Bank is Palestinian, and no stupid historical facts are going to change his mind.
The facts are these, and they ARE facts, even if someone doesn't like them. There has never been an archeological find that disputes any Bible account. Not a single one.
Pontius Pilate was once deemed by those claiming to be 'scholars' to be a New Testament myth. Why? Because there was no archeological confirmation. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, the absence of evidence was universally accepted by liberal 'scholars' as evidence of absence.
But in 1962, an inscription was found in the town of Caesarea that said, "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans."
Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archeologists in history, was a confirmed atheist when set out on a quest to disprove the historical accuracy of Luke. What he discovered was that Luke was historically accurate to the tiniest detail. His conclusions?
"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth."
Consequently, Ramsay wrote, "Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
Sir William Ramsay died a Christian.
Dr. William F. Albright, initially as skeptical as Dr. Ramsay, eventually came to write;
"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."
Caiaphas, the High Priest of the Sanhedrin who ordered the execution of Jesus, was another such New Testament myth until the Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem.
Other recent archeological digs have uncovered:
1) The synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus cured a man with an unclean spirit and delivered the sermon on the bread of life.
2) The house of Peter at Capernaum where Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and others.
3) Jacob's well where Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman.
4) The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a crippled man.
5) The Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a blind man.
6) The tribunal at Corinth where Paul was tried.
7) The theater at Ephesus where the riot of silversmiths occurred.
8) Herod's palace at Caesarea where Paul was kept under guard.
9) An Egyptian parchment confirming the census order that brought Mary and Joseph out of Egypt to Bethlehem to be taxed.
There are at least thirty-nine verifiable extra-Biblical accounts, (including 17 non-Christian sources, that bear witness from outside the New Testament to over 100 details about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Apart from archeology, there is the question of logic. Dr. Ramsay and Dr. Albright both confirm, using scientific, archeological and historical evidences, Luke's accuracy as an historian.
It is not logical to assume that, although accurate in every possible confirmable aspect, Luke lied about Jesus and then permitted himself to be martyred for that lie.
Neither is it logical to assume that, since Luke confirms the rest of the Gospel writers, they also allowed themselves to be put to death to preserve a lie.
It is illogical to argue that they were sincere, but that they were deceived about Who Jesus was.
Each recorded more or less identical events, under more or less identical circumstances. If it were one witness, one might assume he was mentally unbalanced, or hallucinating.
But twelve? (Plus the uncounted multitudes who, within living memory of Jesus, gladly embraced martyrdom at Roman hands for their witness?)
The discovery of Herod's Tomb is just one more rock atop a mountain of overwhelming evidence confirming the reliability of the New Testament accounts. Keep in mind that in every case, (every single solitary case) where evidence DOES exist, it confirms the Bible account.
Not one shred of archeological evidence disputes a single point of the Gospel account. At worst, there remain unconfirmed details.
It is upon such thin suppositions as the absence of confirmatory evidence that Bible skeptics build their argument that the Bible is an unreliable book of myths.
As each new piece of evidence is uncovered, they scurry to seek some other unconfirmed detail to replace it as the bedrock of their argument.
Peter predicted that "there shall come in the last days, scoffers," explaining the motive for their skepticism as "walking after their own lusts."
Paul, in describing the 'strong delusion' gave as the motivation for their rejection of the truth the fact that they 'had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)
The skeptic delights in arguing that a righteous God would never condemn someone to eternal damnation just because they were unable to believe. I agree. God doesn't condemn unbelievers because they CAN'T believe. They condemn themselves because they WON'T believe. Peter called them "willingly ignorant."
There is more historical and documentary evidence attesting to the life and times of Jesus Christ than there is of Julius Caesar. But there are no skeptics of whom I am aware that have dedicated their lives and fortunes to denying the existence of Julius Caesar.
It takes conscious, deliberate effort -- and a lot of it -- to convince oneself, especially in the face of such overwhelming evidence, that Jesus Christ was less an historical figure than Julius Caesar.
There is no price, real or perceived, attached to belief in Julius Ceasar.
Belief in Jesus Christ, however, demands a change in perspective. Logically, if one believes in eternal accountability before a Righteous Judge, it therefore follows that it would throw a damper on the 'pleasure of unrighteousness'.
In the final analysis, there is but one sin for which the unbeliever will stand convicted.
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (Matthew 12:31)
The term 'blasphemy' can best be understood as 'defiant irreverence'. It is a state of defiant unbelief, despite the evidence. Or, as Peter describes it, "willful ignorance."
"Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" can be understood as a continued and persistently stubborn rejection of the gospel of salvation. This would be THE "unpardonable sin" because as long as a person remains in unbelief, he voluntarily excludes himself from forgiveness of sin.
It isn't God that condemns the unbeliever to eternal separation in the Lake of Fire.
The unbeliever condemns himself by his choice to believe a lie, preferring instead, as Peter noted, to walk after their own lusts, thus ignoring the evidence out of willful ignorance.
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
The same choice faces us all
Thursday, May 03, 2007
damascus
things are setting up to be interesting this summer..
"See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid." (Isaiah 17:1-2)
---------------------------------------------------
Despite Syrian military border build-up, Israel has no plans to attack but stands ready to ward off a surprise Syrian strike
May 3, 2007
Reporting that this message had been relayed from Jerusalem to Damascus, Israeli Ambassador to US Salai Meridor said in Washington Wednesday night that Syria has amassed on Israel’s borders strength and missiles capable of reaching every part of the country. On April 30, DEBKAfile reported exclusively that Bashar Assad had shifted units from the Iraqi to the Lebanese border shortly after the Winograd panel had slammed the Olmert government for its mishandling of the Lebanon War. Our military sources specified that an infantry brigade had been relocated from the Iraqi border to beef up the Syrian 14th Commando Division deployed opposite Golan and the sensitive Mt. Hermon- Shabaa Farms sector where the Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli borders converge. A source in Israel’s northern command says the stationing of an infantry brigade on the forward line with Israel stiffens Syrian defenses and frees up Syrian command units for operational duties.
A careful watch is trained on these movements to ascertain whether Assad is engaging in mere muscle flexing, or trying to capitalize on the Israeli government’s weakness for a military move on the Golan Heights.
"See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid." (Isaiah 17:1-2)
---------------------------------------------------
Despite Syrian military border build-up, Israel has no plans to attack but stands ready to ward off a surprise Syrian strike
May 3, 2007
Reporting that this message had been relayed from Jerusalem to Damascus, Israeli Ambassador to US Salai Meridor said in Washington Wednesday night that Syria has amassed on Israel’s borders strength and missiles capable of reaching every part of the country. On April 30, DEBKAfile reported exclusively that Bashar Assad had shifted units from the Iraqi to the Lebanese border shortly after the Winograd panel had slammed the Olmert government for its mishandling of the Lebanon War. Our military sources specified that an infantry brigade had been relocated from the Iraqi border to beef up the Syrian 14th Commando Division deployed opposite Golan and the sensitive Mt. Hermon- Shabaa Farms sector where the Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli borders converge. A source in Israel’s northern command says the stationing of an infantry brigade on the forward line with Israel stiffens Syrian defenses and frees up Syrian command units for operational duties.
A careful watch is trained on these movements to ascertain whether Assad is engaging in mere muscle flexing, or trying to capitalize on the Israeli government’s weakness for a military move on the Golan Heights.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
a prayer for death..
when we are told this to our faces and we ignore it, we risk our values and the future of our society..
-----------------
On Palestinian television last week, Dr. Ahmad Bahar (acting Speaker, Palestinian Legislative Council) delivered this sermon:
“This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our people was afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation. Be certain that America is on its way to disappear, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine. Make us victorious over the infidel people. Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.” [PA TV, April 20, 2007]
Hat tip: Palestinian Media Watch. http://www.pmw.org/
common sense from fred thompson..
i'm not sure if he's going to run or not, but i enjoy his straight forward, fact based writing style. the world will get their cup of life without america soon enough.. i suppose the present time is just to allow their mouths to foam just a little more before getting what they ultimately want.. how does the old saying go, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sticks and Stones
Fred Thompson
It bothers Americans when we're told how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. For some of us, at least, it gets our back up -- and our natural tendency is to tell the French, for example, that we'd rather not hear from them until the day when they need us to bail them out again.
But we cool off. We're big boys and girls, after all, and we don't really bruise that easily. We're also hopeful that, eventually, our ostrich-headed allies will realize there's a World War going on out there and they need to pick a side -- the choice being between the forces of civilization and the forces of anarchy. Considering the fact that the latter team is growing stronger and bolder daily, while most of our European Union friends continue to dismantle their defenses, that day may not be too long in coming.
In the meantime, let's be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.
Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet.
The hundreds of demonstrators the Kremlin has had beaten and arrested in the last few weeks alone, we are told, were not pro-democracy activists but common criminals -- like world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Demonstrating without a permit is a serious crime and, luckily for the Kremlin, it turns out that pro-government youth groups seem always to have permits for rallies at the exact times and places that anti-government protesters gather.
Another group that seems to be having trouble with permits is the media. Newspapers and television stations that aren't smart enough to know that America is the enemy and that things are great in Russia can't seem to get their paperwork in order. It’s some sort of IQ test, I guess.
President Vladimir Putin, though, shows no sign that he feels defensive about his remarkable string of luck. He knows who's really to blame for "meddling" in Russian "internal affairs." It's the United States.
He's lambasting us for yielding too much power. One example of this excessive power is the missile defense radar system we want to install in Poland and the Czech Republic -- to give the free world early warning of a missile attack by terrorists or a rogue nation like Iran. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the Russians have been supplying Iran with both nuclear and missile technology while using their UN veto to block sanctions that would force Tehran to back down. Regardless, we're clearly at fault, he says, for putting a defense system close to Mother Russia.
So I wouldn't worry too much about the criticisms we receive. We make mistakes and at times the "carping" may even be on target, but it seems to me that we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.
]
-------------------------------------------------------
Sticks and Stones
Fred Thompson
It bothers Americans when we're told how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. For some of us, at least, it gets our back up -- and our natural tendency is to tell the French, for example, that we'd rather not hear from them until the day when they need us to bail them out again.
But we cool off. We're big boys and girls, after all, and we don't really bruise that easily. We're also hopeful that, eventually, our ostrich-headed allies will realize there's a World War going on out there and they need to pick a side -- the choice being between the forces of civilization and the forces of anarchy. Considering the fact that the latter team is growing stronger and bolder daily, while most of our European Union friends continue to dismantle their defenses, that day may not be too long in coming.
In the meantime, let's be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.
Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet.
The hundreds of demonstrators the Kremlin has had beaten and arrested in the last few weeks alone, we are told, were not pro-democracy activists but common criminals -- like world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Demonstrating without a permit is a serious crime and, luckily for the Kremlin, it turns out that pro-government youth groups seem always to have permits for rallies at the exact times and places that anti-government protesters gather.
Another group that seems to be having trouble with permits is the media. Newspapers and television stations that aren't smart enough to know that America is the enemy and that things are great in Russia can't seem to get their paperwork in order. It’s some sort of IQ test, I guess.
President Vladimir Putin, though, shows no sign that he feels defensive about his remarkable string of luck. He knows who's really to blame for "meddling" in Russian "internal affairs." It's the United States.
He's lambasting us for yielding too much power. One example of this excessive power is the missile defense radar system we want to install in Poland and the Czech Republic -- to give the free world early warning of a missile attack by terrorists or a rogue nation like Iran. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the Russians have been supplying Iran with both nuclear and missile technology while using their UN veto to block sanctions that would force Tehran to back down. Regardless, we're clearly at fault, he says, for putting a defense system close to Mother Russia.
So I wouldn't worry too much about the criticisms we receive. We make mistakes and at times the "carping" may even be on target, but it seems to me that we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.
]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)