In the minutes before Hamas murderers shot down hundreds at an Israeli music festival, one person managed to photograph — quite by accident — several small black dots in the sky, coming in from the east. Even as they passed overhead, I’m sure the Israelis thought nothing of it… with precisely the same innocent trust that Americans stationed at Pearl Harbor had as swarms of Japanese aircraft began their attack.
Join our crack team of elite anti-elitists by becoming a member or making a one-time donation right here:
https://billwhittlecom.wpenginepowered.com/register/
67 replies on “Israel’s Pearl Harbor”
Test
Check
Check 1
1-2-3-4
You are 5×5 Cornelia. Commence transmission in full!
They were “thinking” … wishfully, that the sheer shock and awe of it would make Israel and the west crumble.
Historically, Israel has always been pushed into backing off every time they are attacked by terrorist groups, whether from Gaza or Lebanon or Syria or wherever. The world leaders and media shake their fingers at Israel and pile on the fake shame that Israel has the audacity to defend itself and that they do it forcefully, focusing on killing those who are responsible for the terror and it doesn’t matter that it is “disproportionate.” They have to be counting on this pattern to repeat itself. That’s exactly why this continues to happen and it’s how we go to this point where a terrorist group in Gaza (funded, etc, by Iran) can attack boldly, bragging and gloating over the Israelis and their vaunted military prowess. G-d willing, this time Israel will stand firm and resist those shaking fingers and pursue the ones who attacked them, eradicating them once and for all!
Regardless of the name of the group – Hamas, Boko Haram, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State (IS), etc. – the source for their ideas, including Jew Hatred, and the manual for their actions, is always the same and has been for the last 1400 years – the primary Islamic doctrine, taken from the Koran, Hadith (Mohammed’s traditions), and the Sira (Mohammed’s biography).
Koran 9:29 “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Koran 98:6 “Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.”
Sahih Muslim 2922 Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”
Essential statistical facts from the Islamic primary doctrine:
The “beloved” prophet of Islam became an utterly violent and inhuman warlord after he moved to Medina, and his acolytes wholeheartedly emulate that evil nearly 1400 years later. In fact, given the idological similarities, it can be argued that Adolph Hitler was a student of this history.
These facts in themselves refute the notions that this recent attack against Israel is like the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact this is to be expected of these animals. They continue to tell us of their hatred, and there is no surprise. In fact, we should assume that we’re next and ripe for attack.
To honor all the victims, the current ones as well those of the past, this information must be shared all over the globe.
Thanks for this explanation…
My father stood on a hill overlooking Pearl Harbor, concerned about why was the whole USNavy locked in the Harbor, and then he stood helpless as he saw why. He was in the ArmyAirCorps, and he understood. Then he was one of the high ranking NCO’s who were set in a field to observe an experiment when the FIRST nuclear bomb was set off to see what it would do to humans, the unit that was stationed under that bomb. They still haven’t come clean about that.
Was he at Trinity Test in New Mexico on July 16, 1945?
SOMEBODY said, during this week’s Backstage, that we make a mistake by assuming that people are evil, when THEY believe that they’re doing good. There is NO rational or logical basis for distinguishing these Hamas animals (or Nazi’s) from our globalist traitors (and baby killers, and perverts) who infest America. Hamas and the Nazi’s (and the rest) fervently believe(d) that their actions are/were good and right and just. The ONLY reason why the Nazi’s tried to hide what they did is that they knew that not everybody shared their opinion and tried to mitigate the evidence against themselves. The theology of Nazi’s and communists is completely different from the theology of islamists, which is why Hamas doesn’t care what others think. They believe that their Allah has their back.
The basic nature of man is evil. This is THE most elementary principle of Scripture. Not everybody is as evil as they could be, although Nazi’s, islamists, abortionists, and globalists come close. The fact that they believe what they do is good and right and just is, in and of itself, evil. There is simply no excuse for them believing that what they believe and do are good and right and just.
“The basic nature of man is evil.”
That is not true. I think the basic nature of man is broken and susceptible to the temptations of evil. That is a useful distinction, because it allows for hope that grace is possible for our individual redemption.
That said, I am convinced that many people are devoid of such redemption possibilities, because they wholly reject God for some other false replacement (i.e., allah, riches, hedonism, etc.).
I’m not interested in what “[you] think.” I’m only interested in what God thinks. He has given His unambiguous pronouncemeent (He has no “opinions”) on this subject. If you don’t care about His pronouncement, you’ve got a much more serious problem than “the nature of man.”
123456
I’ve heard the phrase “morally equivalent” a few times this week, and it got me to thinking: are Judaism, Islam and Christianity morally equivalent? I’ve never thought deeply about it; just presumed they were. Now, I question it.
The answer you are looking for is NO.
Two of those do not call for the elimination of the third.
Pretty distinct difference.
Fair enough.
RSAE is absolutely correct. I’ve studied enough of Islam’s texts to understand that it promotes the the conversion of the Kaffir (that’s anyone who is not Muslim in spite of the more limited association with black Africans). If conversion is rejected, then subjugation and imposition of jizyah (essentially protection money in the form of a mandated tax). If subjugation fails, then execution is demanded. In the context of Jews, Islam declares death as step one — skipping all the others. Christians are similarly despised creatures.
You may have heard that Islam is the religion of peace. Well, that is a lie that was promoted by G.W. Bush. Anyone who understands the rule of abrogation and its role in the Quran and other texts will understand that Muhammad initially tried to spread his cult from Mecca, and the teachings were generally peaceful in nature. However, when he left Mecca for Medina, his message changed to reflect his acquired role as warlord. The later teachings were not peaceful and they essentially replaced (abrogated) the earlier teachings. That said, anyone who claims to be a moderate Muslim is NOT a Muslim in the current understanding of the texts.
If you are interested in learning more, I recommend anything written by Robert Spencer (he has many books on the topic of Islam, Muhammad and jihad) or from the Center for the Study of Political Islam International. The latter has a enlightening discussion describes the evolution of the Muslim expansion and the Crusades a small military response to that expansion across the Middle East, Africa and Europe during the course of the past 14000+ years.
If one considers the idea that Islam successfully spread across the Byzantine empire as an opportunist leveraging a severely weakened economy and a people tired of war and death, then we are likely on the precipice of conquest in the same manner. Western economies are very weak, and getting weaker with the current collective of morons in leadership positions (#FJB). Our military is weakened and led by increasingly weak-minded fools. Our culture is weakened by hedonistic pursuits and fears of microaggressions.
Perhaps all of this proves useful in spite of its depressing content.
First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday. Saying of Islamic conquest.
I’ve studied the character and aspects of Islam for quite a while too. In addition to living in the Middle East and dealing directly with its votaries. Everything you said is true.
In the interest of debunking moral equivalence and moral ambiguity it’s important to understand that the modern Islamic world is based on a huge lie. That lie being that Allah is the same Creator God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Christians worship the same God as the Hebrews and in fact is the God of the Hebrews. Jesus Christ (Yeshua Hamashiach) is a Jew. When He referred to God as His Father He was referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He was using the religious texts of the Hebrew Faith to support his claims to being the Only Son of God. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Either a further revelation that amplifies and fulfills the original Judaic Faith or as Jews would say a cult of Judaism. Depending on how you look at it.
Muslims are an entirely different thing. Mohammed worshipped a moon god popular in his area in his time. That moon god’s name was “Al-Lah”. We can still hear echoes of that name in the manner in which Muslims pronounce “Allah”. We in the west say “AHL-la”. Muslims say “ahl-LAH”. “Al” is a prefix meaning “the”. As in “al Wadi” means “the Wadi” or “the dry creek bed”. Literally in Arabic “al-lah” means “the god”. Not “the only god, not ‘a’ god, just “the god”.
Muslims claim that this god is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because that lie gives their moon god the same moral and spiritual equivalence as Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No where in Islamic texts is the name Yahweh, or the Tetragrammaton “YHVH” of “JHVH” mentioned to my knowledge. If it’s the same God then why was it necessary for God to change His Holy Name, a Name He Himself has proclaimed as immutable and sacrosanct?
You can find lots and lots of sophistic rationalized arguments made by Muslims why this is not so. You will not find any explanations for why God would change His own self-designated Holy Name. That’s a tell.
That Allah and Yahweh are one in the same is a transparent attempt to propagate The Big Lie. Which is “I will ascend to the Throne of the Most High”, I will be like God and I will be God. This lie predominates everywhere, we see it in things like people believing they have god-like powers to change their own sex as an exercise of their own will to the idea that naming a thing with a good sounding name makes the thing good.
There’s a lot more to be said on this theme but I think I’ve made my point.
There are serious differences in theology that cannot be accounted for if Allah and Yahweh are the same god/God.
As you mentioned, “abrogation” is one of them. From the first word in Genesis to the last word in The Revelation of St. John, abrogation never occurs. Jesus even said very clearly that “He did not come to abrogate (or abolish) The Law, he came to fulfil The Law.” Indeed, the very deity of Christ must be abrogated by Islam in order to demote Him to the status of a prophet and not the actual Messiah (Hamashiach).
In Judaism and Christianity abrogation is not possible. The nature of God would have to change for that to be so and His nature does not change. That’s one of the markers that let us all know He is God. If His nature was subject to change He would not be God.
That being the case, Allah cannot be God. He can be a god, which is another word for a high demon or “principality of the air” as mentioned in The Bible. He simply cannot be God the Creator, El Shaddai of the Old Testament, because if that were so he’s a liar.
And there’s the final clue. If the god of Islam is a liar then we know exactly who that god is.
Oops. The 14000 was a typo. It should be 1400.
Yeah, there’s a ton about Islam, it’s history and characters, I have no clue about. I’m a Christian, and never felt the need to learn about the life of Muhammad. And I promise, I’m not arguing with you, but “just thinking out loud” a bit:
OK, so the Quorn requires the faithful to kill when conversion efforts fail.
The Hebrew Bible requires stones be thrown at an adulterer until their skull is crushed and the brain swells to the point of death. Leviticus (20:10-12)
The New Testament requires when we are physically assaulted, that our response is offer the assailant the part of our body unmolested. (Matthew 5:38-39)
Does that mean that the Jewish guy who divorces his wife for being a slutty tramp instead of killing her isn’t a “good Jew,” or a “real” Jew?
Is the Methodist girl who hits the schoolyard bully back not a “real” Christian?
Please don’t misunderstand me: there are what, a billion Muslims give or take? If the “radical Muslims” makeup only 10%, 5 %, Hell, even 1% that’s still a lot of folks with ill will towards me & I want to block them.
To say Islam is not “a religion of peace” based on obscure, single-mentions/inclusions in text, would be like saying real Jews don’t believe in divorce, even when your spouse is caught with a third person, wouldn’t it? I personally have known LOTS of divorced Jews. Or when a Christian nation defends itself militarily, is that evidence they are not “real” Christians?
I’m not quite ready to get on the anti-Islam train, but I admit I’m heading towards the depot.
Photo is just sharing my view this morning. Lots of curiosity …
As to the Matthew 5:28-29.
You, like most, are interpreting it wrong, due to lack of knowledge about a cultural imperative.
The striking on the cheek was an insult thing, not a physical harm thing. Closest equivalent is spitting in your face. In effect, it is saying that if you are insulted, don’t insult back, but let them insult you again.
We don’t pay evil back with evil, but we are supposed to fight it. Physically, if needed.
Ecclesiastes 1 “For everything there is a season”,. ” a time for love, a time for hate, a time for war, a time for peace. Ecclesiastes 3:8.
Romans 12:9 “Hate that which is evil, cling to that which is good”.
You’re right, as is your habit. The admonition to turn the other cheek pertains to insults and grievances, not to actual physical assault. Much of the problem with common interpretation of that has to do with the modern idea of what constitutes a fight.
I don’t engage in physical violence when/because I’m angry. If a person will allow me to retreat otherwise unmolested and with my property I will do so. No matter how angry they might have made me. I turn the other cheek when turning the other cheek applies.
If they attack me, that’s a whole ‘nother critter. I will defend myself against a genuine assault. There is nothing un-Christian or un-Biblical about doing that when that’s what is called for and it is called for when there is no other choice left by the attacker. “Turn the other cheek” does not mean “Let someone kill or maim you”. Obviously a slap on the cheek stings but just as obviously it is not dangerous to anything but one’s ego.
Jesus himself, in his own words, told the Disciples to arm themselves the second time he sent them out to preach.
Luke 22:38 — He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Jesus thought that a sword, which BTW was the “assault rifle’ of that day, was more important than a cloak with which to stave off hypothermia during a cold Middle Eastern night. He didn’t tell the Disciples to arm themselves so they could cut cabbages either.
Telling the Disciples to buy a sword at the expense of comfort gives the lie to the idea that Jesus was some sort of pacifist who expected his followers to allow any violence to be perpetrated against them by “turning the other cheek”.
When you see someone say something inconsistent with what and who Jesus actually was you know you’re dealing with someone who has lesser understanding. And that’s OK. What’s not OK is for that person to force their lesser understanding on those who know more. Obviously it doesn’t take a PHD in Theology to see the difference between “turn the other cheek” and “buy a sword and if you don’t have one sell your cloak for the money to get one”.
So then you have to wonder, is this person serious? Do they really think this doctrine of allowing violence is a real Christian attribute? Or are they at some level looking to attack the Christian Faith by claiming inconsistencies that do not actually exist in the Faith?
That last is always the mark of any enemy of the Faith. People who say “I know all about Christianity” pull that kind of thing all the time.
Leave it to you to bring up the reference to buy swords to defend one self. Why I forgot that one, I have no idea.
At least I remembered that war and hate have their time season. So many Christians don’t know the Bible very well. I read it daily. Cover to cover. Started over in Genesis recently. On Genesis chapter 24 now.
The Bible is our “owners manual”.
And ” When all else fails, read the instructions.”
Again, all true.
I’m often appalled at the milquetoast, namby-pamby, ineffectual, weak view some who claim to be Christians have of Yeshua Hamashiach.
Jesus is God the Son. He is, according to the gospel of John 1:1, The Word of God, the actual part of God that Speaks His Will into existence. He is an aspect of the Triune God who is one God in three persons. This is Christian doctrine accepted as theologically sound for millennia.
Jesus said “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”. His claim was not that He was a “special” person who spoke for God. That sort are called “prophets”. His claim was that He is God and left His Heavenly abode, set aside His Godhood and put on flesh in order to offer His beloved Creation a path to avoid His wrath.
You either accept these things on Faith or you are not a Christian. Acceptance by Faith of these doctrines is pivotal to the concept of Christian Salvation. If Jesus is not who He says He is then He’s a raving lunatic on the same level as someone who claims to be a fried egg. There’s no middle ground between the two extremes. Thus …
Jesus was present and spoke the Divine Word that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He literally nuked two cities. I don’t know the mechanism. I don’t know if He released the bonds between atomic nuclei or dropped a comet on them or how exactly He did it. How He did it is not the important point. THAT He did it AND caused His destruction of those two cities to be recorded is the important point.
It was Jesus The Word who commanded The Destroyer to kill every single firstborn in Egypt while bypassing the dwellings that had lamb’s blood on the lintel of their doors. (Which was a beautiful foreshadowing of how His own Blood would be used to save His Beloved Creation in the future, BTW.)
It was also Jesus The Word who spoke the Divine command(s) that caused Noah’s Flood. That’s even more drastic violence than just nuking a couple cities or killing every first born child in a country..
These and more do not seem to me to be the acts of a sissy who wants His people to be victimized by others who have given themselves over to evil.
When He said “Turn the other cheek” He was admonishing us to avoid wrath in response to insults. Anyone who’s ever carried a sidearm in public knows this principle well. You can’t shoot someone for insulting you. Well, you can but you’ll go to prison and you deserve to. If someone slaps you when you’re armed, and back in New Testament days a LOT of people were armed to some degree be it a concealed dagger or an openly visible sword, spear or pilum, you don’t respond in wrath if you want to live. Because even if you’re not armed, the slapper might be.
To turn this whole concept to “let anyone kill or maim you that wants to” is simply an absurdity. If something seems absurd but purportedly comes from God the error is in the interpretation and not with God.
And here we have the central thesis of what is happening in our cities relative to gang culture. Most of the violence perpetrated by gang members falls squarely in to the “he disrespected me” category.
Talk about a non-proportional response that begets another such response.
For all these fake woke athletes who claim to care about young black men, the only ones I can recall that actually talked to gang members and say “stop f*ing killing each other” were Jim Brown, Kareem and Bill Russell. Two of those are dead and the other is in his late 70s.
If any of them had any integrity (Pause to LOL) Black Lives Matter would have been a siren call to stop dealing drugs, stop taking drugs, and stop shooting each other.
Instead we memorialized a drug user and sometime dealer who was well known to the police who were waiting on the ambulance to arrive.
******Steps down off soap box knowing full well that I took the conversation you and Harry were having in a completely different direction***********
To your points, sometimes turning plowshares into swords is the absolutely correct response. Wrath should not be the default response, but in the face of a rabid dog there is only one solution. When it is a pack of rabid hyenas, extermination of the whole pack is required.
As for tired old men elected king, Reagan turned 78 a couple of weeks after his second term ended. He would have run circles around slow Joe.
I don’t mind when someone “takes the conversation in a completely different direction” because that’s what conversation is. Something someone says generates or triggers a thought that the other person in the conversation wants to express. If that were not so, conversations would be completely linear all the time. Thank goodness they’re not. That would be boring and defeat the purpose of having a conversation.
As it just so happens, surprise surprise, I agree with you. Not only that but I think the Biblical conversation impacts directly on the practical situation you pointed out. If you’re a responsible human being not a human shaped animal you don’t go around shooting other people because you’re angry about something.
The disconnect between being a responsible human being and nothing more than a human shaped animal is one of training and upbringing. At the very core of that lies the fact that other people have every bit as much right to their lives as you do. If you’re a responsible human being you realize that and act on it accordingly. The last thing you want to do is unjustly take someone else’s life because you do not want someone else unjustly taking your life. Respecting the lives of others protects your own life too.
This is called “civilization” and “being civilized”.
One of the major faults of the Left, as you point out, is that they advocate the abandonment of civilized behavior. Their voices do not say “We want to abandon civilization” but their actions speak for themselves and say that very clearly.
Much of this problem is due to the abandonment of morality as conveyed through religious instruction and doctrines.
I’ve pointed this out in detail before but a true atheist will ignore your/our religious beliefs because he does not see the validity in them. The same as I would ignore someone who says a clear sky is blaze orange. He will believe as he wishes and still be very happy to reap all the benefits of a moral and religious society and will even adhere to the rules of that society in acknowledgement of the greater good it brings about for everyone. He will not attack the underpinnings of the society that benefits him so greatly. Even if he’s an atheist he can see the benefits of living in such a society and will support the rights of others to believe as they wish.
Opposing that is the anti-theist who attacks religious concepts with a vengeance because he does not believe in them and does not think you should either.
This is de facto the same position as the Left takes on almost everything too. The Left does not believe in binary sexuality and doesn’t think you should either. The Left does not think the American Experiment has been a largely noble success but is something that should be destroyed and they want you to think the same way they do. The Left does not embrace true Faith and tries to water down Faith to a lesser social common denominator. Etc.
In the promotion of those demonstrably disastrous ideas the Left attempts to use force and coercion in lieu of reasoning and intellectual persuasion. Because the Left KNOWS that their ideas will not propagate by reason and logic nor be held dear by historical proofs and traditions which have been firmly established for very, very good reasons.
The result is gangbangers in Chicago killing each other and innocent bystanders with wanton abandon. The elevation of a drug addicted dope dealer named George Floyd (all addicts are to some degree dope dealers, slinging dope is a primary means of financing their own addiction) to the level of a sort of ersatz social sainthood.
Thus the anti-theist is a wolf in sheep’s clothing in exactly the same manner as the Left bleats about how wonderful they are and how much they are “helping people”. In all cases, the perpetrator is a destroyer and not only our political enemy but an enemy of our very society. A society from which they have benefitted much more than they contribute. Because their contribution is destructive.
When the tenets of Faith are removed from human beings by dint of coercion they cease being civilized. It doesn’t matter if they think they are good people. It doesn’t matter if they say “I would never kill anyone” or “I have never killed anyone” because just like those people now defending the massacre perpetrated by Hamas, or propagating Hamas propaganda, they have joined the side of the murderers.
Until we make this guilt by association clear we will never stop that particular sort of evil.
What you just typed would be a very good sermon. Or a good Bible study.I have done both in the past. I prefer Bible studies, because of the interactions. (Try doing one on “Song of Solomon.” More erotic then most people think. I was asked to do it. Probably because I research using Strongs Exaustive Concordance for the original Hebrew, and am quite blunt)
You, me, my wife and two others I know are the only people I know that know the name Yeshua Hamaschiah.
Why, from a Church perspective, is this so? I have never given it much thought. The Capital C Church must have its reasons.
Yeshua Hamaschish is the Hebrew for what we say In English: Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the anglicized version of “Yesus Christos” which is the Greek version of the name.
Messiah is anglicized from maschiah. “Ha” is.basically “the” as in Jesus the anointed. Oddly enough, Yeshua is anglicized to “Joshua”, which means ” Yah (God) saves.” So in anglisized Hebrew, the name would be Joshua the Messiah.
From tetragammaton: YHWH. ” I am. As in “I am who I am. I am the God of Abraham” , etc.
Both Messiah and Christ mean anointed.
I think the “Church” is just making it easy to say, plus tradition.
Here I go being pedantic.😏
Note: I don’t know Hebrew or Greek without using my Strongs concordance, but have memorized some.
Yes, my Greek is terrible, too. I know some older folks who will say Jesus The Christ; which is actually closer.
When I was a kid, parts of the mass was still in Latin, so I am trying to figure out exactly when Church leaders wanted to make things “easier” as I always felt like the priests very much wanted to keep a veil over things, much like Oz at times. Keeping it hazy seems more in line with my early upbringing.
No wonder in my adulthood I searched for a denomination that fit me and found a Baptist church that is not of the Southern Baptist Convention. I actually liked that there is no central head of the Church.
Yup, the word “The” should strictly be used in the name. But Christ, Messiah, Christos, Maschiach are really titles, not names. In fact, in Hebrew the name would be Yeshua Bar Yosef: Jesus son of Joseph. So Jesus the Christ is better. In Hebrew….. Yeshua Hamashiach.
Are we totally confused now? 😉
And ACTS being the start of this…. One comment he had said he had spent time in Israel. That is probably where got it from. I got it from a seminary graduate.
You are correct, I got it from Messianic Jews in Israel. As near as I can tell Messianic Judaism is the most nearly correct form of worship and faith in Yeshua Hamashiach. Those people are of The Covenant and blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who have accepted the True Messiah promised to them since the days of Eden.
Theirs is the culmination of millenia of a direct relationship with El Shaddai, The One True God. While my ancestors were worshipping and sacrificing to the demons Odin, Thor and the rest of the Norse Pantheon — the Hebrews were already long under the Strong Arm of the Almighty God.
They are also very Hebrew Jews, of which I am not one. I’m just very grateful that us Gentiles have been welcomed into the fold. It doesn’t work the other way around, it’s not our Faith that we’re welcoming them into. It’s theirs which has adopted us not vice-versa. I’d better stop there because once I get started on anti-Semitism, especially Christians who practice that in any form … I could write a book.
So to me since then it has made sense to call Jesus by the name His mother would have called Him and the title He rightly owns. That is to say that when using “Yeshua Hamashiach” makes a particular point or precision is called for. I don’t use that name exclusively to all others which apple to the same Person.
There are those who say that if you do not address The Son of God by His Hebrew name and title, He will not take notice and hear you. Just like if someone called you Hank instead of Harry you might not realize they were speaking to you. This is not so and is absurd because if you address the Creator of the Universe you can be assured He knows you’re talking to HIm. He is listening very carefully and anxiously for you to do that, He’s not going to miss it if you call him Jesus instead of Yeshua.
There are also those who think “Jesus” is His first name and “Christ” is His surname. This is also absurd.
I have known some Messianic Jews, been to some services, and was even invited to a Passover with them. They celebrated all the holy days, but knew that it didn’t save them, and believed in Yeshua as savior. For some odd reason they never used the Yeshua Hamaschiach in front of me. But I bet they knew it.
They also preferred being called “Fulfilled Jews”.
I was honored to be invited, being a goy, you know. Even more so that in the celebration in was reading from a script they gave me where the child was asking why they did this. I was reading the child’s part. I knew a lot of it already, and they took note that I was never looking at the paper when I spoke it. It was a combination of quick reading and memorization, and already knowing part.
They also, during the eating of bitter herbs, gave me a lot of the horseradish root they used. I actually enjoyed it. Trick is to not breath out through your nose. Do that and, per ” Braveheart” reference, “That’ll wake you up in the morning boys!”
They teased me about that afterward.
I was invited back the next year, but lost contact after that.
Israel will “take care” of Hamas, and it is good they warned all of those in Gaza to GET OUT! Egypt is not that far away, so those in Gaza better get moving, it will soon be nothing but rubble. Jews world-wide are on constant alert. Now, I worry about this country. Under Biden, there are over 5,000,000 illegals in the US. Doing small math, 1/2 of 1%, is 25,000, and that is a good guesstimate on the number of BAD people (potential terrorists). That leaves 4,975,000 the number of GOOD illegals (wanting asylum, opportunity, etc.) Let’s cut that 1/2 in 1/2 again…that is still, 12,500 potential nut cases who are roaming freely in this country. The potential for future “chaos” in this country (and, throughout the world) is ENORMOUS! Those in large cities must especially be aware, it will happen! Stay informed, Stay armed! Our current government has only made things worse!
Make and keep regular visits to the firing range. Like any other skill: use it or lose it.
Egypt is not letting the Gazan Palestinians in. Too bad for them. They should have thought about that before launching a campaign of inhuman murder and monstrous crimes.
The resolve of the American people must necessarily harden over the next days and weeks. Nearly as horrifying (to me at least) as the attacks in Israel are the reactions I see in New York and other leftist-dominated cities. I am astonished that there are so many hate-filled Americans! I feel like the frog in the saucepan that I didn’t see how infected my beloved USA has become. I hadn’t realized my fellow American citizens could behave so abominably. God help us.
“Jesus H. Christ!!” My late father would have said in response to the images I saw from Dearborn MI yesterday. I’m ‘this close’ to becoming anti-Muslim…and THAT conflicts with my Christian values…DAMNIT!
Martyrs have no limits as to what they will do whether they are Islamic suicide squads or Japanese kamakazes. They live in the same bubble as other Marxist totalitarians who are always surprised when the masses don’t rise up to support their cause. The whole concept of free will or individual happiness is foreign to them.
I have a test question for Tony Blinken who said they have no evidence that Iran was involved in the attack. Are you involved, let alone responsible, if you give guns and ammunition to a kid who says he wants to shoot up a school, let alone to a group whose stated goal is to annihilate all Jews? Or are you absolved because you didn’t know the exact time or place? This level of smarmy equivocation is embarrassing.
To know who the Jihadists are, one only needs to recall that they sided with Hitler but were frustrated that he didn’t move faster in eradicating Jews.
The difference here is that in 1941, we didn’t have a press that made an equivalence between the Japanese attack and our military response!
Good point. If the conditions of today had existed in 1941 the press would be telling us all how we deserved the Pearl Harbor attack and that it was all our fault for oppressing the poor Japanese with our war mongering, colonial ways. That the innocent Japanese were simply trying to create a co-prosperity in Asia because that’s what they said they were doing, and we had no business opposing them. No wonder they were forced to attack us without warning, they had no choice.
Etc.
Bill’s discussion about complacency made me think about a true story in the book Smarter Faster Better by Charles Duhigg.
With 440 passengers aboard it was a very important habit by the pilot that was meant to keep everyone as sharp as they could be if and when a disaster happened. On the way to the flight, he grilled his crew on how and what they would do when something went wrong. He asked very specific questions. They worked as a team,(smarter, faster,better ) honing possible scenarios and their reactions.
The example is a stunning and exciting one because it saved 440 lives in the end. The pilot was Captain Richard Campion de Crespigney. No one else has been able to recreate how he and his crew saved the plane and the passengers..
We must stay vigilant for sure!!
The Pearl Harbor analogy fits in terms of the surprise enabled by our/Israel’s failure of imagination, but 9/11 seems a more apt comparison to me, since the primary target wasn’t a military asset akin to the US fleet: Hamas very deliberately targeted and butchered large numbers of civilians.
Absolutely correct. Not only that, but the justification for Hamas’ invasion was not one of economic desperation like the Japanese. Hamas’s war is a longstanding (since ~ 7th century AD) hatred for all who are not of their death cult — especially Jews and Christians.
To add to this, I believe that none of the Hamas freaks (and all other such sects) will ever regret any of this violence within this lifetime. To think so ignores their fundamental belief that death in the name of jihad for their demonic god leads to their individual salvation. This is a religious conflict where the aggressors are absolutely insane with a fundamental hatred for life. The only “peaceful” outcome according to their religious texts is one of worldwide domination, recruitment, subjugation and murder. The only answer to this sort of insanity is the complete destruction of this evil ideology and its adherents.
Asymmetric warfare has to be what they’re thinking. The only explanation I can come up with that would explain why Hamas and Iran would be doing this would be nuclear warfare. Nukes make military might and resources much less of a factor in who might “win” in our Middle East WW III. At least at first.
It’s a mistake to anthropomorphize an enemy. To project on him the same motivations or reasoning that applies to you. This happens when you try to imagine “why” your enemy does what he does and while that’s an inevitable but idle practice, the mistake lies in acting on what you think is “why”.
Because then you structure your responses around what you think is why they did what they did. You wrongly believe you can impact his motivations and thereby affect his behavior. You can’t do that without limiting his capacity to act in a way you have not foreseen. You can imagine an entire fictional gamut that makes perfect sense to you but has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
The reason they did what they did is because they could and they did. The “why” is irrelevant to any response.
This is the reason that military analysis and planning ignores motivations and focus on capability and capacity. It is a much more reliable position to act according to capability than it is to guess at intentions.
So the idea that Iran did this with the aid of their stooges in Hamas because Iran is using it to justify an atomic attack (Iran may or may not have atomic weapons, they certainly do not have thermonuclear weapons aka “nukes”, there’s a big difference) is an erroneous way to structure response to real events on the ground. It’s merely the worst case your own imagination can come up with.
If you were to proceed with that assumption then there are only two courses of action open to the West.
The first is to preemptively turn Iran into a glass paved parking lot and hope you get all of their atomic weapons. Of which there is no guarantee.
The second is to capitulate to whatever Iran demands in hope of preventing the atomic destruction of at least the nation of Israel. Which there is also no guarantee will work.
Either of those responses contains the seeds of disaster on a global scale.
That Iran and Hamas did what they did because they could and they did is the strategically correct view. The strategic and tactically correct response is to dig out Hamas root and branch and kill every last one of them. So that they cannot repeat this sort of atrocity ever again.
This is the response that does not give Iran or Hamas a moral victory. They have to then lie about their own moral superiority and lies are lies. They’ll work on people predisposed to believe lies but not on other people. Despite whatever delusions those people might harbor. If we were to act on the belief that this situation is a prelude to an atomic attack by providing justification for that attack then we are left with the two choices that will do even more harm than good.
We would be acting in a manner that is every bit as bad as what Iran and Hamas have done. Lies are then no longer a factor. Whether we vaporize Iran or capitulate to them the only real difference is in the speed of our demise. Then it’s no longer a matter of morality at all. It’s a matter of scale. So even if this is meant to justify an atomic attack we cannot allow ourselves to be limited in capacity to things that Iran erroneously thinks will impact our motivation and drive our behavior.
If Iran thinks that the destruction in Gaza that is going to result from this situation will justify an atomic attack they have it backwards. An atomic attack will justify the destruction of Iran. I know the mullahs are not rational actors but I have to doubt they’re THAT irrational. So irrational that they will destroy themselves and thereby lose their chance to do the will of Allah as they see it.
It’s not anthropomorphism, it’s projection. Completely different.
I know what anthropomorphism is, Tom. It’s the attribution of human traits to animals. Which is valid in this context because …
My use of “anthropomorphize” was a thing called a “metaphor” which is a concept that I’m sure a genius like you is familiar with.
Just in case you’re not —
Noun: metaphor
1. A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity
[WordWeb.info]
Like “melting pot” is a metaphor when applied to the concept of an heterogeneous American society becoming more homogenous. People aren’t literally thrown into a pot and melted. If my metaphor were that obvious it may not have tripped your quibble button.
The “animals” you don’t want to anthropomorphize in the context of my comment are your enemies. The similarity as per the above definition is both the projection of traits and the resemblance to animals.
Because sadly some enemies resemble animals more than people. They are human shaped animals so …
In using that metaphor in that manner I was calling those people animals. When using a word that literally denotes animals but is applied to human beings the connotation is that those human beings are animals.
That metaphor is a literary device. Saying that a woman is “a real dog” does not mean she walks on all fours, barks, chases cars and eats kibble. Even though “real dog” was the phrase applied and a real dog and a woman literally are totally different things. What you did was point out the same thing. Which was amusing in its naïvely sweet ignorance.
I’m sorry all that went right over your head and forced me to provide a detailed, lengthy explanation for you. I’m sure that doesn’t please you but you brought it on your own self.
The applicable adage here is “Don’t try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs”. If you don’t know what that means either, look it up before you embarrass yourself. More. Again.
I try not to use vocabulary and syntax like that when I know someone’s going to quibble as a means of demonstrating their lack of grasp. Which humiliates other people and was not my intent. Until you missed the point and made an issue of it.
Not knowing the difference between a literal and metaphorical speech application sure as hell doesn’t show everyone how smart someone is, only how smart they think they are. So that’s the only explanation that seems likely.
Excellent analysis, but I agree with Tom that “projection” is a better term.
Then you need to read the reply to Tom that I posted after you voiced your agreement.
I DID say “to project”, which is another way of saying “projection” but I also used a subtle metaphor with “anthropomorphize”.
I’d have thought you would have gotten the metaphor, I still don’t think I’m wrong about either the metaphor or you so it may be you just didn’t think about it enough. Which I’ll allow is pretty rare for you.
I got your play on anthropromorphize. They are animals. Literally. (Hey, humans are not plants or rock. You know, animal, vegetable or mineral.) Call them animals because they are acting like wild beasts. Red in tooth and claw. Then make sure that moral people don’t assume that they are anything but wild beasts. A wild beast killing people need to be put down as fast as possible. Motives are irrelevant. The killing stops when the killers are killed, and not until.
I’m not surprised at all that you “got it”. What surprises me a lot is that there are other people in here who did not. That’s a metaphor I use quite often. It enhances the descriptive character of my opinion of those animals.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised all that much. My experience around the world has been that Americans think everyone else has an American somewhere inside screaming to get out. If we could just help their inner Americans come out and take over the world would be like America. Then there would be peace and prosperity because if they were like us we could reason with them to all of our greater good.
This isn’t even close to being true. Not. Even. Close.
It’s a fallacy perpetrated unbeknownst by generally good but hopelessly naïve Americans. One really good way to get in a pissing contest is to try to disabuse Americans of their fallacies.
Agree that imagining common sense and realistic sensitivity to risk/reward is dangerous when discussing Hamas and Iran.
Yeah, like I told Harry, a lot of good people try to understand that sort of thing by putting the uglies in a context that does not apply to them. This is largely because those good people don’t have a framework to understand the uglies and are applying what makes sense to them not what is actually applicable in the real world.
Taking an example in a different context — I had a friend who had the most logical, most reasonable sounding explanations for why computers do some of the baffling things they do. If you listened to him you couldn’t help but be impressed with his deep insight into how computers work.
The problem is that he was completely wrong 100% of the time. He didn’t actually understand or know anything about computers, he just happened to be great at taking what he did know and applying that to computers. Not the same thing at all. Which put him in a position of trying to drive a square peg in a round hole every single time.
I used to have a lot of fun with him over this. He was very good natured and didn’t get mad when I chopped up one of his pet theories and tossed it down the garbage disposal. He was also very good at listening and grasping real information when I provided it to him. He didn’t want to sound right, he wanted much more to BE right and that’s a rare, admirable trait.
The situation with Middle Easterners is similar. People hate having their pet theories chopped up but it’s important to understand what drives that part of the world too. Thank you for not getting mad at me for trying explain how this stuff works.
Ok. I get it.
I still liked your analysis, but please let me explain why I didn’t “get” your metaphor.
It is simply because I use the word “anthropomorphism” in a much broader sense then you intended in your post: “Attribution of human traits to animals.”
I anthropomorphize EVERYTHING – not just animals. For example, when I’m teaching Lenz’s Law in Physics, I’ll explain that, “The magnetic flux doesn’t like change. So if we pull the wire loop out of the field, the flux doesn’t like that and tries to induce a current in the loop, in order to generate some new magnetic flux which opposes the change.” I do the same with atoms, electrons, molecules, or just about everything that exhibits some preferential behaviors. I anthropomorphize my car, my computer, my lawnmower,…
The point is, I did not think “animal” when I read your post because I am rarely thinking about animals when I anthropomorphize something. I might be wrong, but that’s my word usage.
You said you were surprised that some of us didn’t get your metaphor. Maybe this helps to explain.
Complacency isn’t a strong enough word for this period of time. College students have “micro aggressions” as their biggest worry. And you’d think that the horrific treatment of the women and children in particular by these people whose “morality” and idea of paradise are different from ours would snap them into reality. How they can even consider supporting “the poor, enslaved, victimized Palestinians” in rallies at our major colleges speaks of a deep rot in the souls of our children. The Left has succeeded in taking God away and truth away and this is the result.
I disagree that the left has succeeded in taking God away. God is everywhere; equally present. Now, if you were to say the left has succeeded in making God unwelcome, particularly in public, I’d be in agreement with you.
Another quibble devoid of semantic content. Do you really expect us all to believe that you didn’t understand what Doc Jackson was saying? Really? Do you think we’re all stupid?
What you did was take one point out of context so you could argue with it. You found the one thing you thought you could pounce on and did.
PIcking a word or a sentence out of many because you think you can argue with it out of context is just annoying and nothing more. It’s not the mark of someone interested in communicating, it’s the tell of a showoff trying to “correct” other people. It makes you look pedantic, dull and tedious, not smart and intelligently able to grasp what others are trying to convey.
Lift your game, Tom. This isn’t YouTube or Facebook and people here are at least your intellectual equals or going by recent examples are more likely your betters.
Even Doc Jackson is no dummy. The proof being you’ll never see him pulling this kind of underhanded nonsense on other people.
We come here to get away from that kind of drek. Wipe it off your shoes before you come in the door.
Breath, brother. I never implied I didn’t understand or that I thought anyone was stupid. Words matter. Man/ woman, calm/hysterical, commie/patriot, etc. Actually, I did provide semantic content. What the H. E. double hockey sticks did I say/do that was underhanded? I was just making conversation. What is implying you are my intellectual better meant to accomplish? Make me feel slighted? Not happening. I’ve never claimed to be a mental giant; I’m neither Raymond Babbitt, nor Lenny Small, a bit more like Lamont Sanford, or Chico Rodriguez. Truth is, Chauncey Gardiner is sort of my hero.
Oh, by the way, I served in the USCG 1980-1988. When and where did you serve?
For the second time on this page you ignored the point being made so you could pounce on a single concept out of context. I don’t know why you do that, if you think it makes you look smart or if it’s just an annoying foible but it’s rude as hell.
It’s rude as hell because you ignore the point in context and focus on what amounts to a quibble. Doc Jackson was making a very valid point. If you don’t agree with his point then say so and give your reasoning. Don’t quibble about something that when removed from context is immaterial to the point being made.
If being a quibbler is your idea of “making conversation” then you probably need to reassess that. If you work at it you can go through any post here that’s more than a paragraph long and find something to quibble about. Something misspelled, something misquoted, something with improper grammar, punctuation or syntax, something conceptual that you don’t think is 10,000% microscopically stated in a way that you wouldn’t say it, etc.
For example, your first two words to me above are …
“Breath, brother”
Breath is an object, a noun. You take a breath. Breathe is the word you were looking for, it’s an action, a verb. In order to breathe you must take a breath. You must have been telling me to breathe because telling me to breath would be the act of an ignoramus. I could jump in and pounce on that abysmal grammar if I wanted to be like you.
But that’s irrelevant to what you actually meant. That’s just pouncing not conversing. I know you meant the verb not the noun, I don’t have to make an issue of it to have something to talk about that I think shows everyone how smart I am. I can just let that be obvious by what I say, I don’t have to make you look like an illiterate boob to do that.
Here’s the clue to apply so you know when you’re doing that. If you disagree with someone just disagree with them. Don’t try to “correct” them. Don’t think they made a mistake because while they might have, they might not have either. Don’t say things like “You’re forgetting about …” or “Your use of that word is wrong …” or any other absurd “correction”. When you do that often your correction is wrong and then you invite flak for what appears to be blatant but erroneous condescension.
I don’t forget a damn thing and I don’t ever use the wrong word. If I seem to have left something out it’s not that I forgot it, it’s that my posts are already long enough and I don’t think it’s important to the point I’m making. While I can have typos and misspellings just like anyone else, if you think I used the WRONG word there’s a good chance you’re missing a literary application like metaphor, simile, irony or one of the many others. I salt those in my writing to see who is going to catch them and who is going to embarrass himself by making an issue out of them. The former get my respect, the latter get the condemnation they have earned. It’s a booby trap that exposes ignorant boobs.
When you try to “correct” someone you run the risk of being a quibbler over irrelevancies. If you’re going to correct someone you’d better make damn sure you’re right and can back up your “correction”, that you didn’t misunderstand or miss something the other person was saying. Which is what will happen if you’re looking for things to correct rather than things to converse about.
This “pouncing” is something that happens all the time on other platforms like YouTube, Facebook, etc. You may have picked it up from there or it may just be your innate inconsiderate nature. Doesn’t matter, it’s damned irritating. That’s the underhanded tactic I referred to.
I wasn’t saying that I’m your intellectual better, I was referring to a thing called “the gunfighter syndrome”. There is ALWAYS someone better, that doesn’t mean it’s me. If you can go around slighting people by pouncing on out of context things you feel you need to correct them on then you have no complaint if someone else appears to slight you either.
You and I have had other conversations that were civil, respectful and interesting. Pointing out your rude annoyances doesn’t make us enemies for life or any of that sort of hooey. We’ll have those conversations again. If you keep pouncing on what I say or what other people say I’ll call you on that too.
I know I’m not being real nice about this right now and that’s because when people do what you are doing it really, really pisses me off. That doesn’t mean I hate you or think you’re a mental midget or anything else. Anything besides what you’re doing in this instance is rude as hell and unwarranted. I’m telling you that you have a speck of broccoli in your teeth, not that I want to knock your teeth out.
Had to come back and edit, forgot something …
You asked about my military service …
USMC ’75-’83, much of it aboard 1/1st Bravo. Known as the Raiders. Specializing in small boat insertion. SOC and much, much other fun stuff. Was one of the many people who advised those standing up MARSOC. (In a very minor enlisted operators role, not an officer’s clout.) In case you’re not aware none of that is something boringly mundane like an amphibious beach assault and I’m not going to get into more detail than that. If you don’t know what those abbreviations mean ask or look them up.
I’m not deriding your “service”. I know someone has to fix broken buoys and nav markers when they have time between checking private craft for life jackets and flares. I understand that combat operations weilding a rapid fire maritime citation pad clipboard on a yacht full of bikinis can be stressful and lead to PTSD — Because coasties have told me so. I’m sure all that pen time really plays hell with your trigger finger.
That said, you don’t impress me a lot, Brown Water. It’s been my experience that going into the Coast Guard is the best way to avoid military service and still claim to have served in the military. It amuses me in a sort of a sour way how people bend over backwards to try to make out like the Coast Guard is anything like a real military service on anything but a superficial level. Like there’s some sort of magical equivalence between what the average Coastie does and what a Marine does. We both wear uniforms and ride on boats, that’s about where the similarity ends.
It’s freakin’ offensive as hell if you think they’re anything at all like the same thing. It’s even more offensive if you try to make out like we’re the same thing because we’re “military”. You and the Brown Water Navy are not only not in the same class as genuine military, you’re not even in the same school.
If I and my buddies land on a foreign beach the enemy says “OH SHIT!!! It’s the U.S. Marines! We are SCREWED!”
And then if they don’t run away fast enough they die.
If you and your buddies land anywhere you head straight for the cabana, order a pina colada and the bartender says “Oh GREAT! It’s the U.S. Coast Guard!”
And then they hope they get a good tip.
Yeah, I’m being snarky. I was in Lebanon 23 Oct 1983 when what went down there happened. I’m glad you found a way to serve the United States of America but you can take your “military pride” and throw it on the heaps of bodies we had to pull out of the rubble and the rows and rows of dead we had to try to identify after that.
Ever have to dig around on/in a mashed body that used to be someone you knew hoping like hell you can find his dog tags … SOON? I’m fairly certain that you being in the Coast Guard never involved the smell of a couple hundred dead Americans (and others) that wafts gently through your mouth, nose and lungs, sticking to your sinuses and the back of your throat, after the corpses spend a day in the Middle Eastern sun. And believe me, I can be a LOT more graphic than that about things you’ve never seen nor done.
It’s pretty offensive to me that you’d throw your Brown Water service in my face. You’re not my brother. Your military brethren are all Water Cops and all they do is Water Cop work. They are nothing like Combat Troopers. It is disrespectful of those who never set foot on home soil again for you to think otherwise.
Some of your comments are insufferable. You appear to be looking for a fight.
Whereas you and people like you appear to think you can go around insulting people and they’re just supposed to take it in humble gratitude and without objection or resistance.
Screw that crap.
Or do you think calling me “fruit of the poison tree” and going around calling anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship Trump like you do a “never Trumper” etc. ad nauseum — you who nearly never discusses a topic, promotes or defends an idea but just drops crap bombs like this was your own personal intellectual toilet — Are the words and acts of someone less than insufferable herself?
Yet here you are calling someone else insufferable. For a presumed female of the human species you’ve got a lot of balls woman.
You get as good as you give. If you act like an ass you get treated like an ass. I’m not looking for a fight, I’m not looking to start any fights either. Neither will I allow insults to pass or run from a fight so if that’s how you define “insufferable” then I accept the label with pride.
Generally, I’d agree with your sentiments, but I think they are somewhat naive. I no longer believe that God is everywhere in spite of His desire to be so since Man was ejected from the Garden. He does not reside in the heart that rejects Him. That in itself lends credence to Keith’s assertion that the “Left has succeeded in taking God away,” because The Left’s ideology essentially rejects all things that are good — especially God — and the Left has controlled the information in education for generations.
Consider the current conflict in and around Israel. Evil, the opposite of God, is determined to exterminate the Jews — it has been so since God claimed them as His people millennia ago. Of course, Christians are included in those ranks for the past 2000 years.
This is just a few “pennies” for thought — albeit they are tarnished tokens.
No, nothing tarnished here. Keith’s right and you’re right. God does not go where He’s not welcome. He may watch from His Throne and sorrow over what He sees but He does not force Himself upon even the lowliest human being.
He holds out His hand but you’re free to slap it away too. Which is what the Left has done everywhere they can, for everyone they can, whether that’s what everyone wants or not. If the Left was simply exercising its own free will and freedom of speech on an individual basis that would be their right and their choice. That’s not good enough for them, they want to drive God out of everything whether the rest of us want them to do that or not. As we have seen and the point Doc Jackson is making is that this is an effective tactic for removing the influence of God in many, many places. What replaces God’s influence is a horror not a step on the road to Utopia.
If that’s not effectively “taking God away ” then Tom isn’t really understanding what’s being said and he’s quibbling over an irrelevancy. Which I have gone to pains now to point out to him in the hope he’ll see that, understand the edifying nature of me pointing it out, and stop doing it because what he’s doing thereby is not actually conversation. It’s condescension.
Thanks for fighting my battles. Of course God and Truth exist no matter what the left does. Maybe for the most literal among us I should have said “the Left is succeeding in hiding our society from the importance of God and truth” or something like that. I can’t believe we’ve blown this up so much.
My first thought was this old aphorism, used by Tom Clancy in his soft reboot of the Jack Ryan series.
If you are going to kick the Tiger in his ass, you better have a plan for his Teeth.
I think Hamas’ (Iran’s) plan was that the world would tell Israel to calm down.
Like Bill, I don’t think this will happen. At least not until Israel feels like they have gotten, not justice, but revenge.
Going to be a bad month for the residents of Gaza.
Also, a reminder on the Israeli term for hostages: Casualties.
I thought that Clancy used that term when he wrote Debt of Honor?
Hamas was also planning on quickly moving their families into the vacated homes for human shields and using them as propaganda tools against any Isreali attempt to retake.
And the guys are absolutely right – tactically brilliant, strategically insane