With god watching, the world has already changed

On February 13, 2012 by Admin

Headlines 2/13/2012

See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins – Isaiah 17:1

Syria rejects Arab League call for UN peacekeepers, resumes assault on Homs

Syrian Revolt Gets Traction as Tribe by Tribe the Country Turns on Assad

Persia… Ezekiel 38:5

Iran preparing ‘suicide boats’ in case of Strait of Hormuz conflict, U.S. official says

Israeli diplomat’s wife injured by car bomb in New Delhi

Israel Blames Bombings on Iran

After string of foiled plots, concerns mount over Iranian-backed terror

A fatal attack on Israelis abroad could spark war with Iran and Hizballah

Iran warns Hamas against any “compromise” in fighting Israel

There will be famines and pestilences in various places – Matthew 24:7, Luke 21:11

Mystery Disease In Central America Kills Thousands

Egypt will not escape – Daniel 11:42

Cutting our own throat: Obama wants $800 million for “Arab Spring” countries, military aid to Egypt

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie – 2 Thessalonians 2:11

OIC to hold media workshop to stamp out all traces of truth-telling about Islam

…all who refused to worship the image (are) to be killed – Revelation 13:15

Senior Saudi cleric says Twitter blasphemer should be killed even if he repents

Economic Armageddon

Riots Rock Athens

“It means the world isn’t changing, it means the world has already changed” – and God watches

New Jersey Gay Marriage: State Senate Passes Bill Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

__________

Due to the ensuing development of a new page, there will be no editorial today.

Read more at Did You Know…?

One Response to “With god watching, the world has already changed”

  • Brill: If Arnold cares to deny any of this, I think it’s best that the denial come from him, not from some self-appointed skpoesman. And I’m quite sure he will. This is the fallacy of taking someone’s hypothetical example, blowing it up all of proportion to what was intended, then using it against them. You have no argument against the hypothetical, so you divert it and apply it to the base argument where the hypothetical is completely irrelevant. Arnold believes that Iran’s preservation of these rights will reduce the risk that the US will attack Iran. I can’t remember Arnold ever arguing any such cause and effect. What Arnold has said is that a) Iran should be allowed the same status as Japan, and b) he doesn’t think the US will attack Iran. I agree with a), disagree with b). I, in contrast, believe that Arnold’s suggested course of action would expose Iran and its people pointlessly to a much higher risk of US attack than otherwise would exist. Without, however, being ale to specify HOW it COULD be a much higher risk since you can’t point to ANY mechanism that would directly influence the US electorate’s perception of Iran regardless of how Iran acts, NOR how any mechanism would deflect the US intention for war which is the real basis of the entire crisis . This means that the US will not be sure how close Iran is to producing a nuclear weapon. The US will worry that Iran, if provoked, might withdraw from the NPT and build a nuclear weapon very quickly. The obvious solution: stop provoking Iran with threats of regime change and attack over its LEGAL enrichment program.Once again, you clearly take the side of the US in all this, despite all evidence that the US has nothing but bad faith in this matter.I re-iterate that the US KNOWS as FACTS that Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program, that Iran CANNOT have a nuclear weapons program under the NPT any more than Japan can (and in fact less so as I’ve pointed out earlier), and even if Iran DID have one, it would not be a significant factor necessitating any military action.All of which you once again ignore, because just like the US, you are hostile to Iran and are intent on putting the onus on Iran to justify its behavior when in fact it is the US that should be required to justify its accusations which neither it nor you can do. If not, and the US thus fails to reach the conclusion that Arnold hopes for, the US might decide that it must attack Iran before Iran has achieved nuclear weapons capability.’ And the US would be legally and morally in the wrong for doing so and in fact would NOT be doing so since the US already KNOWS differently and this is the point Iran should keep stressing in its public statements. But I think the opposite is more likely – not certain, but more likely: the US will attack Iran before or when the US believes the “now or never” point has arrived. On this we agree. However, none of your suggestions for Iran will alter that course. And it is incorrect to suggest that the onus is on Iran to do something which by definition will not alter that course. I think Iran would be better off just limiting its nuclear activities to whatever is necessary to carry out a peaceful nuclear energy program.I think Iran would be better off just limiting its nuclear activities to whatever is necessary to carry out a peaceful nuclear energy program. Which is precisely what they ARE doing and once again neither Arnold nor I have ever suggested they do anything else. That is YOUR completely irresponsible in fact, dishonest interpretation of our position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *