Tuesday, October 06, 2015

October 6, 1973 + 42 years -- remembering the Yom Kippur War

On October 6, 1973, there were co-ordinated invasions of Israeli held territory by Egypt and Syria, precipitating a war that came to the brink of nuclear confrontation and which was also a flash-point for Cold War confrontation comparable to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Video 1, Remember God's hand of protection in the Yom Kippur War of 1973:

Video 2, LESSONS of WAR: Arab Israeli War 1973:

 Let us think, Boyd's OODA -- observe, orient, decide, act -- strategic decision-making loop and the 1940 W Europe campaign:

Also this documentary may help:

Food for thought. END

PS: As a quick survey for a war that is not well known in this part of the world, Wikipedia's introduction speaks of:
. . . a war fought by the coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel from October 6 to 25, 1973. With the exception of isolated attacks on Israeli territory on 6 and 9 October, the military combat actions during the war took place on Arab territory, mostly in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Egypt and Syria wanted to regain the Sinai and the Golan Heights respectively. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wanted also to reopen the Suez Canal. Both did not plan to destroy Israel, although the Israeli leaders could not be sure of it.[57][58]

The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions in the Israeli-occupied territories on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, which also occurred that year during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.[59] Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively, which had been captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Both the United States and the Soviet Union initiated massive resupply efforts to their respective allies during the war, and this led to a near-confrontation between the two nuclear superpowers.[60]

The war began with a massive and successful Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal. After crossing the cease-fire lines, Egyptian forces advanced virtually unopposed into the Sinai Peninsula. After three days, Israel had mobilized most of its forces and managed to halt the Egyptian offensive, settling into a stalemate. The Syrians coordinated their attack on the Golan Heights to coincide with the Egyptian offensive and initially made threatening gains into Israeli-held territory. Within three days, however, Israeli forces had managed to push the Syrians back to the pre-war ceasefire lines. They then launched a four-day counter-offensive deep into Syria. Within a week, Israeli artillery began to shell the outskirts of Damascus. As Egyptian president Anwar Sadat began to worry about the integrity of his major ally, he believed that capturing two strategic passes located deeper in the Sinai would make his position stronger during the negotiations. He therefore ordered the Egyptians to go back on the offensive, but the attack was quickly repulsed. The Israelis then counterattacked at the seam between the two Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt, and began slowly advancing southward and westward towards Suez [61][62] in over a week of heavy fighting that inflicted heavy casualties on both sides.

On October 22 a United Nations-brokered ceasefire quickly unraveled, with each side blaming the other for the breach. By October 24, the Israelis had improved their positions considerably and completed their encirclement of Egypt's Third Army and the city of Suez. This development led to tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. As a result, a second ceasefire was imposed cooperatively on October 25 to end the war.

The war had far-reaching implications. The Arab World, which had been humiliated by the lopsided rout of the Egyptian–Syrian–Jordanian alliance in the Six-Day War, felt psychologically vindicated by early successes in the conflict. In Israel, despite impressive operational and tactical achievements on the battlefield, the war led to recognition that there was no guarantee it would always dominate the Arab states militarily. These changes paved the way for the subsequent peace process. The 1978 Camp David Accords that followed led to the return of the Sinai to Egypt and normalized relations—the first peaceful recognition of Israel by an Arab country. Egypt continued its drift away from the Soviet Union and left the Soviet sphere of influence entirely.

Monday, October 05, 2015

Matt 24 watch, 273: Kim Davis and the colour of law -- another canary choking in the mines

Ms Davis, mug shot (and yes, she is a three-time divorcee . . . she
contrasts her life before and after she repented and turned to God.)
The recent incident in which elected County Clerk Kim Davis of Kentucky was gaoled by a judge for refusing to associate her name with US Supreme court rulings that attempt to homosexualise marriage raises concerns on what the rule of law is and at what point actions under colour of law become unjust or even tyrannical.

Again, we are now being forced to contemplate matters that one hopes one never has to address.

Lydia McGrew of Extra Thoughts blog, raised sobering concerns on Saturday just past:
 Even people who said that Obergefell was a disastrously wrong decision, even people who oppose homosexual "marriage" (some of them). Now Kim Davis, Kentucky county clerk, has actually acted on the premise that Obergefell was a lawless, made-up, unconstitutional farce, that marriage literally cannot exist between two men or two women, and these people are shocked, shocked to find a person who stands on principle against a court order. Now she has allegedly placed herself against "the rule of law," as though Obergefell had anything whatsoever to do with the rule of law. As though the postmodern, lawless bloviatings of Justice Kennedy were not as far as possible from the rule of law. And then the smug talk: If she won't "do her job" she should resign. Should, mind you. Not just could resign. Not, "resigning would be an option." No, according to these people, she should resign. It's her duty. She must make way for others who will issue licenses to two men to carry out their ersatz unions and give them the name of marriage. 
What is all of this? Is it not clear that Kim Davis is being consistent--legally, morally, and metaphysically? If Obergefell is a lawless farce, then Kentucky's marriage protection amendment is the law, and Kim Davis, unlike the Supreme Court, is actually upholding the rule of law. If homosexual unions are not only immoral but also metaphysically unable to be marriages--yes, even civil marriages--then to refuse to give them the name of marriage, as an official of the state of Kentucky, is simply to refuse to lie about reality. It is faithfully to carry out the duties of a clerk whose job it is to give out real marriage licenses.
 Obviously, we should all be concerned -- nay, alarmed! -- when serious people of conscience find themselves criminalised, gaoled and publicly denigrated under circumstances as have been playing out in Kentucky in the aftermath of a highly dubious US Supreme Court ruling. Indeed, we can see a very direct link to the ongoing campaigns to create the perception that Bible-believing Christians are disqualified from public office in an age that worships at the altar of evolutionary materialist scientism dressed up in a lab coat.

McGrew's point is deeper, however. 

The issue is, what is justice, what is law, what is underlying moral reality. Closely tied, what is conscience, what is scripture, what is freedom of conscience.

So McGrew remarks:

The point is that some things really do have natures, and marriage is one of them. To say that homosexual marriage ("marriage") is now THE LAW OF THE LAND is to assume without argument that civil marriage is so malleable that SCOTUS can just wave its magic wand, abracadabra, and now two men or two women really can be married to one another, and therefore Kim Davis needs to get with the program or move aside for someone else who will. If one disagrees with that metaphysical assessment, one will have a different assessment of Kim Davis. Kim Davis was being told by a judge to lie about the reality of marriage, which wasn't part of the job description she was elected to fulfill. Therefore, she isn't required either to lie about marriage or resign.
Likewise, "Orders are Orders" and "You must do your job, quit or be fired" etc have very sobering limits:
If a doctor refuses to refer someone for an abortion or refuses to administer a lethal injection, he's being a real doctor. Will the people who condemn Kim Davis say the same about doctors in Australia who refuse to be complicit in abortion? Because now being complicit in abortion "is their job"? The medical association of Canada appears poised to require all doctors there to administer lethal injections for suicide or refer to those who will. Will that then become "part of their job"? Whence comes this idea that there is nothing that it means to fill a particular role in society? . . . .
See, here's the thing: In order for society to function--at all, much less well--we need good people doing a good job at good jobs. If all or even most of the important jobs in society, the jobs that keep things running, are deeply corrupted, literally defined in such a way that to fill them you are required to be complicit in grave evil, and if it is literally a duty to quit all such jobs if you refuse to be complicit in grave evil, then society is going to collapse. Slowly or quickly, though the speed seems to be picking up. Do we really want all our doctors to be murderers, our teachers to be corrupters of the youth, and our minor public officials to be liars about the nature of reality? Keep on telling all the good people, all the people with a noble conception of their jobs, that they have a duty either to do evil or to quit and that's exactly what you'll get.
Onwards, lies the issue, what is to happen when government and associated centres of power become increasingly alienated from people of Christian convictions and impose demands under colour of law that impinge on the right to life (e.g. the ongoing abortion holocaust), the foundational institution of society (marriage and family) and demand obedience to the state in defiance of core heart-stamped, Scripture backed morality. 

Where, in order to simply earn your daily bread, you are confronted with:
Rev 13:16 Also it [the second beast] causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[e] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the [first] beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.[f]
666, or its alternate, 616, of course are numerical codes for Nero Caesar, the very type of a man in power demanding what only belongs to God and backing it up with tyrannical brutality and injustice, leading to judicial murder on false accusations. The direct fate of two apostles at Nero's hands.

And, it is no accident that I am writing this just after Christian students in an English class in Umpqua Community College, Oregon, USA were shot through the head one by one on the demand that they tell a crazed, patently demoniacal killer whether they were Christian.  Where, the lack of vigorous response to such an act in very high and influential places speaks loud and telling things to those attuned to the signs of our times.

Yes, I am going to put up that little infographic on warning signs confronting business as usual yet again . . . we need this one burned into our memories as our civilisation continues to insist on going down the broad, crooked road to destruction:

Nor should we forget this little cartoon:

Do we really want to go down that road again in our civilisation?

Frankly, this is looking a lot like Matt 24:
Matt 24:As he [Jesus] sat on the Mount of Olives [opposite the Temple and Jerusalem], the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 

 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 

For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away[a] and betray one another and hate one another. 

 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved.  

14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. [ESV]
Sadly, we seem to be looking at the rise of just this sort of community dynamic.

Going back to McGrew, she has some further thoughts:
At this point, it seems that no reductio [ad absurdum] will do, since homosexual "marriage" is already a reductio. But think: Would it make sense to say that she must resign if she were ordered to call a union between a man and a sheep a marriage and refused? Would it make sense to say that she must resign if she were ordered to call a union between a woman and a tree a marriage and refused? 
What it comes to is that such simple-minded thunderings against Kim Davis are nominalist to their core, and in two ways. First, those who say such things are being nominalists about marriage, and by extension, about everything on which the positive law touches. Apparently, if the Supreme Court (whom they absurdly claim to be capable of making law) or some legislature were to declare that the value of pi is three, then everyone would be obliged, in all legal transactions, to treat the value of pi as three, whatever the consequences . . . . 

society cannot afford radical nominalism in practice. Sure, there are some perfectly legitimate legal fictions. One can even say that in a sense adoption is a legal fiction. Those adopting are declared to be the child's parents when they have no biological connection to him. And there are some rules that are arbitrary matters of prudence and even aesthetics. How far back from the street must buildings be constructed in the downtown area? But we cannot run a society if everything, every matter of fact, every truth and falsehood, every matter of nature, is treated as if it is subject to the whims of positive law or court order. Nature will have her revenge. If you declare pi equal to three and act accordingly, you're going to have some funny-shaped train wheels. 
Once we admit that you cannot create reality in all areas by judicial or legislative fiat, the question arises whether marriage, civil marriage, is one of the things that is just a matter of legal fiat. Is it just like the driving or voting age--last year it was one thing, this year it's another? Or is it more like the value of pi? Or like personhood?
This carries us to the heart of the lurking issue, and to the root of the deception, injustice and oppression of people of decent conscience and sound mind that have now been unleashed in our civilisation.

If human beings are not just cosmic scale accidents, if we have real value and rights, that points to there being a source of reality, truth and right in the root of existence, of reality. 

Namely, the inherently good eternal Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and service by doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Which among other things, brings to bear that marriage is a part of the creation order that is evident in our nature, stamped in the complementarity of man and woman in sexual union, procreation and family nurture.

That is, the increasing chaos we see is the direct result of our willful resistance to evident truth.

The sort of resistance to patent truth that would say (I here follow Lincoln) that the tail of a sheep is a leg, so a sheep has five legs. Then, such proceed to cut off one of the legs and wonder why the poor animal can no longer function well.

 By its inherent nature and functional role, a sheep's tail is not and cannot be a leg, so to try to call and treat a tail as though it were a leg -- as though distinct identity tied to core characteristics constitutive of the nature of an entity -- is to commit a breach of reality.

With destructive consequences.

Romans 1 warns:
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,[e] as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”[f]

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.  

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 

20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 

 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 

32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [ESV]
This is where our civilisation has reached, in its march of mad folly driven by rebellion against its Creator and inherently good God, the  one who sent us Messiah and hope for salvation through the gospel.

We will have to develop this issue further. END

 PS: In case you have been led to imagine that homosexual behaviour is genetically stamped and innate, thus morally neutral, I suggest a read here.

Matt 24 watch, 272: PM Netanyahu discusses his concerns regarding Iran with Fox's Greta Van Susteren


(Transcript is there.)

P 2 goes to the Iran and UN issue, clip:

(Transcript is there.)

Clip from Fox Insider:
One day after his powerful speech at the U.N., Netanyahu said that Israel stands with the U.S. in grief over the murders, along with the mass shooting in Oregon.

Netanyahu said officials in Abbas’ Fatah party even praised the murders by suspected Palestinian gunmen.

“How can you move forward to peace if you don't fight terror, if you don't renounce terror?” he asked, adding if Abbas won't fight terrorists, Israel will.

Netanyahu said there is “continuous incitement” of Israel by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
And he went after the United Nations for its continued “bashing” of Israel, arguing that it has “no reference to reality.”

“Israel is standing in the breach there, protecting civilization, fighting the forces that ravage people, burn them alive, decapitate them, destroy ancient treasures of civilization. Who is standing there? Israel first. And who gets bashed in the UN? Israel. I think it's time to rail against this hypocrisy.”
Predictably, as the bad consequences of what is going on come out, there will only be doubling down.

I only can sample what is going on, there is much more out there. 

Food for thought, on this, the anniversary of the beginning of the 1973 Yom Kippur War; which clearly came to the brink of going nuclear and of involving direct Russian intervention. On a day, when Russian troops have intervened on the side of a Syrian Government in alliance with Iran. Which already has proxies on the ground and is contemplating putting in troops.

Where, in 1973, the most dangerous crisis was on that Golan heights front.

And if this begins to sound uncomfortably close to issues contemplated in Ezekiel 36 - 39, maybe we need to go back and re-read. END

Sunday, October 04, 2015

Matt 24 watch, 271: Dr Ben Carson and the canaries in the mines [--> College classroom] in Umpqua, Oregon

In the past few days,  news leaked out around the edges of instant debates over civilian-owned guns and government control in the USA, that "mixed race" mass murderer Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, asked what seems to have been his class-mates in an English class, are you a Christian, shooting believers in the head.

As the Financial Express reports this morning:
The gunman slain by police after he killed his English professor and eight others at an Oregon college was once turned away from a firearms academy by an instructor who recalled finding him “weird” and “a little bit too anxious” for high-level weapons training.

Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, who moved to Oregon from the Los Angeles suburb of Torrance, California, was officially identified on Friday as the assailant in the rampage at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, which ranks as the deadliest among dozens of U.S. mass shootings in the past two years.

According to accounts of survivors, the gunman stormed into the classroom of his introductory writing class to shoot the professor at point-blank range, then began picking off other victims one at a time as he questioned each about their religion and whether they were Christians.

 All of this is happening in a day when Bible-believing Christians are routinely lampooned, denigrated or outright demonised, stigmatised and scapegoated in the media, education contexts and general culture. An emblematic case of this is the longstanding, notoriously un-withdrawn, un-apologised for 1997 talking point of the dean of the so-called New Atheists, Dr Clinton Richard Dawkins, late of Oxford University and the Simonyi chair for the public understanding of science. 

Namely, that Bible-believing Christians are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

 I doubt that it is co-incidental that as we speak, Dr Ben Carson, retired world-famous pediatric neurosurgeon, Christian conservative spokesman and maverick presidential candidate for the USA is being stridently targetted to portray him as a scientific ignoramus and idiot. With the direct implication being that Christians are utterly unfit for responsible office.

In response, Dr Carson has highlighted the back-burner status of the very significant warning-sign case of Christian martyrdom in an English class in Umpqua Community College and how it reflects the rising and patently dangerous polarisation against Christians:

 As Douglas Ernst notes in the just linked WND report:

Ben Carson’s unique show of support for Christians targeted in Thursdays massacre at at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, instantly went viral.

It only took four hours on Friday for an image of the Republican candidate holding up an “I am a Christian” sign to be shared close to 80,000 times and receive over 625,000 “likes” on Facebook.
The post was so successful the retired neurosurgeon shared an #IamAChristian hashtag. Supporters could make the image their Facebook profile picture.

“Please consider changing your profile picture to honor the victims and their families,” Carson wrote Friday night.

Carson’s plea comes one day after 26-year-old Christopher Harper-Mercer burst into a classroom at Umpqua Community College and demanded his Christian victims identify themselves before being executed. Nine people were killed and seven wounded in the gun-free zone, which only has one unarmed security guard.

“[Harper-Mercer was] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,’ said Stacy Boylen on Friday, CNN reported. Boylen’s daughter was wounded in the attack.

Survivor Kortney Moore, 18, from Rogue River, Oregon, told the News Review Today a similar account shortly after the attack, the newspaper reported Thursday.

Paul Marshall, Lela Gilbert and Nina Shea have collaborated to create “Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians,” which confirms that groups like Pew Research, Newsweek and The Economist also identify Christians as “the world’s most widely persecuted religious group.”

“I am glad we have a presidential candidate that stands strong in their faith. God speed Dr. Carson!” wrote John David Childs on Carson’s Facebook page.

“I had family involved in yesterday’s shooting and come from a strong Christian family. Thank you Dr. Carson!” added Brandon Perry Lockwood.

Harper-Mercer died while exchanging gunfire with cops responding to 9-1-1 calls shortly before 11:00 PST.

It is highly relevant to note that Christians (not Muslims, or even currently Jews) are evidently the world's most persecuted religious group. In which context, the current case highlights how the increasingly hostile attitude to Christians can easily give "licence" to the unhinged to murder Christians.

No wonder, John Hawkins of Townhall notes:
In this case, maybe we should ask whether the incessant hate rhetoric that liberals aim at Christians influenced the killer. 

Is it a coincidence that this happened when the most anti-Christian president in history is in office? Is it a coincidence that this happened when Christians are being openly persecuted in the military with the blessing of the Obama administration? Is it a coincidence that this happened when liberal gay groups are trying to make it impossible for Christians to work in certain professions unless they’re willing to violate their beliefs to support gay marriage? Is it a coincidence that this happened when most mainstream media publications would rather cut off a thumb than show a picture of the prophet Muhammad while they happily promote anti-Christian art? Is it a coincidence that this happened when every prominent American Christian from Tim Tebow to Franklin Graham is treated with absolute contempt and disgust by liberals? 

Read the sort of hate that liberals habitually aim at Christians without getting anything but pats on the back from other liberals and tell me why we shouldn’t be asking if their hateful rhetoric had a role in these killings?
Where, it is noteworthy that the New York Times, managed to report in an article on a patent case of the murder of Christians one by one for the "crime" of acknowledging their faith, without ever mentioning -- much less, headlining -- that crucial fact.

In this case, apart from evidently identifying himself as spiritual but not religious [Wicca apparently comes up, i.e. new age-ish "Witchcraft"], as of mixed race [white father, black mother, not married], expressing some affinity with the IRA of Ireland, seeming to have a negative attitude to blackness, there is another troubling affinity. 

I wish I could stop here, but I believe we need to look at other, less politically correct facets of this case.

First, as Pam Geller documents:

On his myspace page, Chris Harper-Mercer, 26, posted a photograph of himself holding a rifle, alongside images of masked IRA gunmen and an IRA terrorist video. The IRA and Palestinian terrorism have a long history.

He has just two friends — a girl and a jihadi. Check out the terror sympathizer’s page  praising:
“The brave Mujahideen heroes”

“The Mujahideen freedom fighters of Palestine. My brothers and sisters keep on doing your thing. Allahu Akbar.”

“my brave soldiers keep on fighting for the liberation of Palestine against Israel. [expletive] Israel. Kill the Jews. jews are the only infidels.”

“The Quran ….. holy book of muslims”

The media has avoided mentioning this at all.

Geller also provides a telling screen shot:

The question has been posed, would this facet have been given effective back-burner status, if instead this murderer had targetted Muslims, or Blacks, etc. like this? 

The question practically answers itself.

That is, we are seeing a case of hanging cases on a narrative agenda to advance a cause that fits with where dominant groups in the US media and elite culture wish to go.

A troubling sign.

As in:

 We need to ask some very pointed questions as to where our civilisation is heading, and why.

Again, I wish I could close off, as I wish I could keep away from an even higher voltage matter. But, we need to think clearly in light of the peculiarities of the American situation. 

(And we should realise that for a hundred years, despite all the wrongs and ills that we can so readily put in a talking-point list, it is the USA that -- at the cost of a lot of the blood of that nation's sons, freely given -- has been the global re-insurer and bastion of liberty. Indeed, it is fair comment that apart from their trillion dollar military, aerospace and naval investments as leading maritime power, the world would be a far deadlier and far more chaotic place in which we would all have to pay a lot more for locally funded adequate defence. If, it could be adequate -- and a second best defense force is the worst waste of all, enough to be complacent, not enough to deter (just ask the French about May 10, 1940). Much as before 1914 - 18, the Royal Navy policed the world.  We can afford to think and act as we do because somebody else, at grim cost, is doing the heavy lifting. So, I say before proceeding: at this level, if you cannot squarely face unpalatable facts, it is time to recognise that you cannot step up to the wicket to face the kind of ruthless pace bowling that is already in progress.)

Back to the main discussion, as someone asks:

But, isn't this a guns issue primarily?

Not, on a week-end when we see a knife attack in Jerusalem murdering two and wounding two others, and with fifteen years of major suicide bombing campaigns. Also, some mass attacks have been made by deliberately ploughing into crowds with cars etc, and the horrific genocide attempt in Rwanda in 1994 (was it 800,000 dead?) was made with mostly agricultural implements such as machetes.

So, while guns are a very emotional and likely unpalatable issue (especially in this context but it is a predictable hot-button tangent that has to be faced), we need some sobering and balancing thoughts -- maybe, especially because this is so loaded an issue.  

Which will therefore be uncomfortable to deal with or even think about, and will raise issues no one wants to contemplate. 

Where, too, 3-D printing technology has some serious implications. 

Guns are now inherently uncontrollable in a free society, even as knives as deadly as a Kukri can be built readily in any community with old vehicle leaf springs. And don't even go down the road of tropical agriculture dependent on the ubiquitous machete. As in, just sharpen it "back and belly" . . .

The thought of what can be done with gasoline bottles or a 25 lb gas cylinder sometimes makes me pause.

Let us observe:

 Townhall's Doug Giles (language warning)  remarks -- words we need to ponder rather than dismiss:

. . . your “gun free zone” rule was obviously a bad idea. Like in: "a very bad idea." Like in: "Nine Christian kids were shot in the head", bad idea.
Did you get that, Umpqua? Nine dead. As in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine ... dead. All because you don't value self-defense, the Second Amendment or the lives of the kids whose parents pay your bills. 
If I were one of the parents who had my child senselessly slaughtered on your campus, I'd sue your politically correct butt off. I think places like yours should no longer be left off the litigious hook. You're culpable because you could have prevented and yet … you didn't. You chose stupidity over common sense and you should pay ... heavily. I think a precedent should be set. Why not start with you, UCC? 
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. You did do all you could do. Silly me. You had one Barney Fife security cop with pepper spray and a plastic badge to protect 3000 students when a mass-murderer, with multiple weapons, strode onto your campus ready to kill . . . . 
This is simple: Gun Free Zones are target rich environments. That's why I do not frequent them and I'd advise all those reading to do the same . . . 
A comment on this article is chilling:
A Muslim student brings in a clock that looks like a bomb and gets arrested. The media and President are all over it. Christians get murdered and not a peep. 

In short, there is a policy problem backed by a people problem, a hate problem, a polarisation and targetting problem.

We need to wake up to what we are doing to ourselves globally, driven by all sorts of ideologies.

Hate kills.

Then, in the USA, there seems to be another back-burnered issue: the insane who are potentially violent, and let us add the linked side effects of various drugs being prescribed for the hyperactive, etc. 

Yup, there is such a thing as message dominance drowning out factors, possibilities and perspectives that a more sober assessment would ponder, leading to group-think driven marches of folly:

It is also to be noted, again, that as a brute fact, many of these mass murder incidents are happening in so-called gun-free safe zones, so that in the time it takes for police to arrive, much harm has been done. That points to a real common sense . . . but obviously very politically incorrect . . . solution: deputising a significant number of people as voluntary, trained, armed marshals who as civilians can be present "everywhere."

Similar to what is done in Israel, here we can see a teacher and class on a field trip:

H'mm, just found a pointed infographic that builds on the above, we need to ponder in a world gone increasingly chaotic:

Another graphic that should give us pause:

 It is obvious that in a US

  • with something like 300 million guns in civilian hands, 
  • across 100 million homes it seems, 
  • with a Constitutional affirmation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, 
  • with a major smuggling problem with huge borders and 
  • with a revolutionary tradition rooted in the power of an armed populace 

. . . that gun confiscation or registry/licensing schemes that open the door for confiscation attempts cannot work, would end up imposing a tyrannical police state and would issue in rivers of blood.

That readily predictable likely outcome presents a challenge to any superficial thought that we could simply disarm the USA and end up with an end to "gun violence." 

Unintended, but readily foreseeable -- and massively politically incorrect -- consequences.

The "cure," credibly, would be far worse than the disease. 

A point that should give us sobering pause before trotting out conveniently available "obvious" solutions that "those idiots and worse" could only object to for nefarious reasons.

Which, does not prevent irresponsible politicians from using mass murder incidents that use guns as a means to further the rhetoric of polarise, demonise, divide and rule.

It is time for a more sober approach.

As schools, malls etc are targetted and police cannot be everywhere, a trained, organised civilian marshal scheme established under law -- and with special provisions for schools makes sense. Linked, it is plain that the use of a gun, knife or bomb in committing any crime should be a severe aggravating factor in law.

Unfortunately, that said, a civilian marshals scheme will not stop a determined terrorist campaign, as suicide bombing demonstrates.

Managing and defeating such a campaign is at a totally different level. 

Though, once such is in clear progress, security guards can be trained to detect warning signs of someone about to commit such an awful act.

It is fortunate, that explosives chemistry and the design and implementation of fuzing, are not simple kitchen chemistry.

In short, if such a campaign emerges, it is amenable to intelligence service approaches.

But no democratic community wants to go there.

Sadly, we may have to.

Coming back to where we began, we also need to re-think the increasing anti-Christian bigotry, contempt and denigratory or demonising rhetoric that have now become all too common. Those madmen hearing voices telling them it's open season on Christians are getting their messages from something raging across our culture. 

It is high time that the unbridled hostility, denigration, slander, one sided stereotyping and worse were set aside. END

Saturday, October 03, 2015

Matt 24 watch, 270: Dr Michael Brown on how the marriage redefinition slippery slope . . . is for real

One of the dismissed concerns about attempted re-definitions of marriage away from creation order, under colour of law is that a slippery slope opens up.

Unfortunately, it seems the slope and slide down to chaotic confusion is beginning to happen . . . as Dr Michael Brown discusses:

This shockingly echoes remarks by Lesbian activist Masha Gessen about the implications of imposing homosexualisation on marriage, that have long been highlighted in this blog.

Key clip and quote:


Of course in a message dominance, deeply polarised, agendas and activists in Journalistic clothes media culture, unwelcome truths such as this are utterly unlikely to be generally headlined.

And, I know I know, much of this has already been said here at the KF blog (off in a little Internet-projected corner . . . ), I am simply following up on indicators and trends.

That does not make them any less significant as warning- signs of what we face as business as usual turns ever more plainly into a march of folly:

And again, more analytically:

Will we wake up, can we turn back from the brink before it collapses underfoot?

Or, is this time to save ourselves from an untoward generation, erecting alternatives designed to withstand the clearly coming cultural collapse into chaos?

Pardon my again reminding of the fullness of Christ theme and its implications for how the discipleship of the nations alternative must speak to and act towards the dominant cultural mountains:

 . . . even as Francis Schaeffer counselled us so long ago:

. . . understanding what happened when men declared intellectual autonomy from God:

. . . and the resulting trend-lines of thought in our civilisation:

We cannot say we have not been warned, or that we are utterly helpless in such a time as this day of rampant evil, deception and chaos.

Food for thought. END

Rosaria Butterfield, Rom 1 testimony of Christian Conversion

Ms Butterfield testifies to the power of Rom 1:

Food for thought. END

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Matt 24 watch,269: Israeli PM Netanyahu warns the World on Iran, at the UN 70th General Assembly, Oct 1, 2015



WND -- an important alternative news outlet -- gives some highlights:
In the 40-minute speech, Netanyahu devoted fully 30 minutes to railing against the nuclear pact the Obama administration has concluded with Iran.

He charged the agreement provides Iran with the resources to continue to fund terrorism while failing to block Tehran's ultimate path to obtaining nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu vowed Iran will never have nuclear weapons, pledging that Israel will stop the mullah-led regime, regardless of the consequences, whether or not the world community supports Israel’s self-defense of the Jewish state.

“In the wake of the nuclear deal, Iran is spending billions of dollars on weapons and satellites,” he continued. “Do you think Iran is doing that to advance peace? Do you think hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and fat contracts will turn this rapacious tiger into a kitten?”

He criticized the Iranian nuclear deal for giving Tehran international acceptance and a path to developing a nuclear weapon.

“As a leader of a country defending itself every day against Iran’s growing aggression, I wish I could take comfort in the claim that this deal blocks Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, but I can’t, because it doesn’t,” Netanyahu said. “Here’s the catch. Under this deal, if Iran doesn’t change it’s behavior, if Iran becomes more dangerous in the years to come, the most important constraints will still be automatically lifted by year 10 and again by year 15.”

Netanyahu said that 70 years after the murder of 6 million Jews, Iran’s leaders "promise to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here has been absolutely nothing – utter silence, deafening silence.”

He then paused [for 45 seconds].

“The Jewish people have learned the heavy price of silence,” he said, continuing his speech to the General Assembly. “As the prime minister of the Jewish state, as someone who knows that history, I refuse to be silent.

“The days when the Jewish people remained silent in the face of genocidal enemies are over,” he stressed. “Not being silent means defending ourselves against those dangers and we have, we have, and we will. Israel will not allow Iran to break in, sneak in, or walk in the nuclear weapons club.”
He said one should question Israel’s "determination to defend itself against those who seek our destruction.”

“For in every generation, there were those who rose up to destroy our people.,” he said.

“In antiquity, we faced destruction from the ancient empires of Babylon and Rome,” he continued. “In the middle ages, we faced inquisition and expulsion. And in modern times, we faced pogroms and the Holocaust.

“Yet the Jewish people persevered,” he concluded.

“And now another regime has arisen, swearing to destroy Israel,” he said, referring to Iran.
We have been warned. END