Does anyone know why there isn't an uproar in the Muslim world over Israel's action against nuclear facilities in Syria? Stocked by North Korea, no less?
Oh, sure, you can find 1.99M hits with "Israel+Syria+Nuclear" on Google, but no great and terrible "row" [that's British for 'an angry dispute, or quarrel'] in the Muslim world... or the Western for that matter.
The United States and Europe have yet to condemn Israel for the action, or if they have little of it has filtered into the media. So what's up with that? Why is no one condemning Israel? Why is no one "seemingly" defending Syria?
What could possibly prompt someone [Israel perhaps?] to nuke Damascus? Is the stage being set for just this scenario?
Just for fun:
The Nuking of Damascus
By Marylou Barry
When the Hebrew prophet Isaiah wrote his biblical account some 2,700 years ago, he relayed a prophecy God had given him about the destruction of Damascus, Syria. He couched nothing in ambiguity.See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid … though you set out the finest plants and plant imported vines, though on the day you set them out, you make them grow, and on the morning when you plant them, you bring them to bud, yet the harvest will be as nothing in the day of disease and incurable pain … In the evening, sudden terror! Before the morning, they are gone! This is the portion of those who loot us, the lot of those who plunder us.” – Isaiah 17:1-2, 10-11, 14, NIV*
So, if I am reading this correctly, somewhere between planting and harvesting seasons in some unnamed year, someone is going to annihilate Damascus, Syria, with its million-plus population, in an overnight raid? The harvest will be “as nothing”? The attack will be “sudden terror” with survivors experiencing “disease and incurable pain”? Aroer (unclear, but possibly Jordan) will be likewise afflicted? Before the morning “they are not”? This information has been out there for over two millennia
Has anyone out there read Isaiah 17?
_____
*Personally I don't care for the NIV. I prefer King James, but I am quoting someone else so....
10 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
EL you had some sharp things to say about the bombing of Japan. Would you support the nuking of a muslim city?
I don't support the nuking of ANY city. Knowing it's going to happen, and discussing it as though it were "present" fact should not be construed as support FOR it happening.
Mark:
The world will NEVER end, by thermo-nuclear war, or ANY means. These weapons will be used in war, but the world will not end. Nor do I believe when Jesus is here at last, will mankind abandon technology. It's focus will change; being used for the betterment of mankind rather than for war. Note the promise that "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." [Is 2:4] A refocus of technology. There will be cars, telephones, electricity... but no one will do without for lack of money. No one will go hungry unless they choose to starve themselves. And Israel will be the preeminent nation upon the earth, and Jerusalem the center of all things.
A lot of people talk about the "end of the world" but that's all it is: talk. There's no truth to it. Too many people think of heaven as celestial... somewhere over the rainbow, but it will be here on earth. God is in the business of Restoration. He doesn't abandon His creation, and this planet will be Heaven on earth.
Eden will be restored.
"1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."
By these words (and other scriptures)it is easy to see why some believe the earth, as we know it will be destroyed.
I am not saying the planet will be blown into a million bite sized pieces, but that all life will be destroyed and replaced with a new lush planet.
I think it would be appropriate to nuke military targets in muslim countries who are in the process of conducting war against our troops and building their own nuclear arsenal to employ against PURELY civilian targets.
Don't you think so, EL? BenT?
Nukes are best reserved for retaliatory strikes. But! If the U.S. has in its arsenal nukes that decimate, say, city blocks as opposed to entire cities....
Question is: Did U.S. Nuke-Builders think to create such a bomb? One that would take out only one city block the size of Ground-Zero?
I hesitate to employ nukes because it's like killing a fly with a shotgun... it's overkill.
As conservative as I am, I have always thought, in terms of myself and as a personal rule:
1. Never strike a man if dialog will suffice
2. Never maim a man if striking him will suffice
3. Never kill a man if maiming will suffice
4. Never strike at innocents unless your enemy gives you no choice
5. Never torture your enemy without purpose once he's in your power
6. If he is to be executed, do it as swiftly and painlessly as possible
7. Make reasonable recompense to affected innocents for the actions you took against your enemy
That, at least, is how I see it.
"1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."
In World War II the most stirring images are from Britain and London, where ordinary people continued about their lives during the German bombings. That's what we need to do. The day after the London bombings the buses were running again. People used them too. "Just Carry On!" That is how you deal with aggression and terrorism.
I fully support the use of conventional weapons for combat. I've always thought that a weapon with a blast radius measured in miles is too indiscriminate.
Eventually DOD scientists will find something even more deadly than nukes though. It might be controlled black holes, or nanomachines, or tailored microbes.
-------
Al, EL, how do you square your support for personal gun ownership with international suppression of weapons of mass destruction? The two issues seem to me to be the same, except for matters of scale. If individuals should be allowed to own guns, then shouldn't other states be allowed to own nukes?
Because they didn't have time to stage it.
As we've seen with the France2 thing (9/30/00 faux killing by the IDF) and with the Mohammed cartoon flap (just to pick two at random), the "spontaneous" expressions of outrage at the West by the Islamic 'street' are anything but spontaneous... which should be somewhat encouraging.
They can have all the street demonstrations they want. I'll see your street mob and raise you my Mossad and CIA wet-work boys.