With a weird satisfaction, I am somewhat encouraged that the Egyptians are outraged because the Coptic Christians were beheaded. This is the first, as I remember it, time that a Muslim country has responded to the atrocities against Christians. Except Jordan of course. But their situation was somewhat different.
From an insightful article in the Washington Times by Wes Pruden.
“President Obama put on his preaching clothes yesterday and drove up Connecticut Avenue to the Washington Hilton to deliver a sermon to the choir. He took his text from the first chapter of the Book of Moral Equivalence and let the choir have both barrels.
He spoke from the pulpit of the National Prayer Breakfast, organized as an occasion of Christian congressmen six decades ago, and has devolved into an occasion for politicians to come together not so much as to pray as to be seen praying. Such prayers are often lectures to heaven, attempting to straighten God out on what’s going on down here.”………..”
Pruden is a Baptist from Arkansas, and is editor emeritus of the Times
While I’m quoting— I mentioned on the Daily Thread that I’m snowed in, so I’ll likely be around a while.–
From God’s War on Terror by Walid Shoebat:
“Neither land for peace or peace treaties will work, because according to Islam, in order to prove their Allah to be true, Israel MUST be destroyed. Since this is written in the Islamic prophesies it must take place, otherwise Allah is not God.”
This is true. The prophesies in our Bible directly contradict that. See Zechariah, esp. Ch. 12f.
Someday, soon I suspect, we will see how all of this plays out.
The world is moving quickly in that direction.
An addendum, Muslims believe that all land that was once Muslim must be returned to the faith. That includes the Balkans and Spain. The “land” is important to them, as it was to ancient Israel, and still is.
Noticed this vivid comment from my former pastor on one of my FB posts from yesterday with the photo of the Egyptian Christians kneeling, their executioners standing behind them ….
And I agree that it is a very interesting (and potentially positive) development that ISIS is managing to seriously alienate the established, predominantly Muslim countries surrounding them.
Cal Thomas: President Theodore Roosevelt said, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” More than a century later, President Barack Obama speaks loudly and carries a twig.
Like Nero of ancient Rome, Obama fiddles, takes selfies, and does internet interviews while the world burns. Is he trying to distract himself, or us? To use a sports analogy, is he trying to “run out the clock” and leave office before terrorist fires consume us?
“On Wednesday, President Obama proposed for Congress’s consideration an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL). The jihadists are already being fought — albeit not nearly vigorously enough — under existing AUMFs. So Obama’s proposal, which would gratuitously repeal one of the prior AUMFs, is unnecessary. It is, in addition, so pathetic a concoction of lawlessness and aimlessness that, in a healthier political climate, Congress would not give it the time of day.
The document defies the reality of war. Phrased as a license for the “limited” use of force, it suggests that lawmakers should delegitimize combat even as they authorize it. The president would have Congress limit the duration of combat (to three years), as if war came with an end-date. He’d have Congress limit the means of combat (no ground forces), as if war could be scripted to suit the Left’s anti-war sensibilities.
But, for a moment, let’s put aside the reality of the long war. Obama’s proposal could not even deal with the reality of Wednesday. Just as Congress received it, Obama’s new defense secretary was conceding that the president’s retreat from Afghanistan would have to be postponed because of Taliban advances; while in Yemen — that Obama-touted counterterrorism “success” story — Iran-backed jihadists seized the U.S. embassy after American diplomatic and military officials were forced to flee.
In fact, less than 24 hours after Obama suggested that Congress should forbid him from using ground troops against Islamic State terrorists, Islamic State terrorists were busy capturing a western Iraqi town just 13 minutes away from the base where 320 U.S. Marines are on the ground, training hapless Iraqi forces. Forget ground forces to defeat ISIS; the way Obama is managing things, we may need ground forces just to rescue our ground forces.”
I was listening to an interesting interview this morning on the radio concerning the executions of the 21 Coptic Christians: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2015/02/17/isis-new-libyan-front-puts-pressure-on-egypt-and-europe/. In answer to a question about the significance of the attack upon Christians, the experts pointed out a couple of things that stood out in my mind, one was that the Egyptian government in the past year has killed more Copts than ISIS has; the second was that ISIS propaganda apparently writes a lot about starting the apocalypse by provoking a conflict with Christians. In killing Christians, they were trying to not only get a reaction from France and Italy (in addition to Egypt), but also from the Christian world in general (they spoke of conquering Rome, apparently failing to recognize that Copts are not under the pope). In other words, they want Christians to respond violently. If Christians following the instructions of Christ to endure patiently, they will be doing the very thing that ISIS does not want them to do.
What ISIS really wants: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
“The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide: irrespective of whether they have given baya’a to the caliph, they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims. Yet another invasion and occupation would confirm that suspicion, and bolster recruitment. Add the incompetence of our previous efforts as occupiers, and we have reason for reluctance. The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?”
I’m not suggesting there’s a simple answer or one without consequences. But letting the horror and bloodshed continue unabated seems to be an obviously bad course. And there is a difference between a Christian response and a necessary government response in the interest of basic human rights.
Donna, if you read the Atlantic article, you see that the author recommends that the slow cutting off of resources and support, which governments have started, be continued. I agree that governments can and should take protective action – Egypt was acting within its own interests as a threatened nation; Iraq has every right to try to defeat ISIS; and Nigeria’s government should be acting, as Chad and Cameroon are, to protect its citizens from Boko Haram. I don’t think anyone is minimizing the horror of what is happening in areas under ISIS right now, just pointing out that caution must be observed as an invasion could backfire terribly and cause even more destruction of human life.
Wandering Views 
With a weird satisfaction, I am somewhat encouraged that the Egyptians are outraged because the Coptic Christians were beheaded. This is the first, as I remember it, time that a Muslim country has responded to the atrocities against Christians. Except Jordan of course. But their situation was somewhat different.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And I am appalled, but not surprised by the lack of leadership from Washington.
LikeLike
Chas, per Obama, they are NOT Christians, they are “Egyptian citizens.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
From an insightful article in the Washington Times by Wes Pruden.
“President Obama put on his preaching clothes yesterday and drove up Connecticut Avenue to the Washington Hilton to deliver a sermon to the choir. He took his text from the first chapter of the Book of Moral Equivalence and let the choir have both barrels.
He spoke from the pulpit of the National Prayer Breakfast, organized as an occasion of Christian congressmen six decades ago, and has devolved into an occasion for politicians to come together not so much as to pray as to be seen praying. Such prayers are often lectures to heaven, attempting to straighten God out on what’s going on down here.”………..”
Pruden is a Baptist from Arkansas, and is editor emeritus of the Times
LikeLike
And then he rode away on his high horse? 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
While I’m quoting— I mentioned on the Daily Thread that I’m snowed in, so I’ll likely be around a while.–
From God’s War on Terror by Walid Shoebat:
“Neither land for peace or peace treaties will work, because according to Islam, in order to prove their Allah to be true, Israel MUST be destroyed. Since this is written in the Islamic prophesies it must take place, otherwise Allah is not God.”
This is true. The prophesies in our Bible directly contradict that. See Zechariah, esp. Ch. 12f.
Someday, soon I suspect, we will see how all of this plays out.
The world is moving quickly in that direction.
An addendum, Muslims believe that all land that was once Muslim must be returned to the faith. That includes the Balkans and Spain. The “land” is important to them, as it was to ancient Israel, and still is.
LikeLike
Noticed this vivid comment from my former pastor on one of my FB posts from yesterday with the photo of the Egyptian Christians kneeling, their executioners standing behind them ….
“We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting piece on the journalist (a professing Christian) who is filling in for Brian Williams:
http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2015/2/17/anchor-for-his-soul-nbcs-lester-holt-described-as-a-humble-and-loving-christian
LikeLike
And I agree that it is a very interesting (and potentially positive) development that ISIS is managing to seriously alienate the established, predominantly Muslim countries surrounding them.
LikeLike
Bob Woodward: Anyone Paying Attention Realizes Obama Has No Strategy Against the Islamic State
LikeLike
Sorry for dominating the thread, but lots of interesting stuff this morning 😉
http://www.worldmag.com/2015/02/president_obama_america_s_nero
Cal Thomas: President Theodore Roosevelt said, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” More than a century later, President Barack Obama speaks loudly and carries a twig.
Like Nero of ancient Rome, Obama fiddles, takes selfies, and does internet interviews while the world burns. Is he trying to distract himself, or us? To use a sports analogy, is he trying to “run out the clock” and leave office before terrorist fires consume us?
LikeLike
And now I have a school board meeting to go cover …
LikeLike
AJ here,
Donna’s right, lots of stuff….
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398597/obamas-unconstitutional-attempt-shift-blame-his-losing-isis-strategy-andrew-c
“On Wednesday, President Obama proposed for Congress’s consideration an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL). The jihadists are already being fought — albeit not nearly vigorously enough — under existing AUMFs. So Obama’s proposal, which would gratuitously repeal one of the prior AUMFs, is unnecessary. It is, in addition, so pathetic a concoction of lawlessness and aimlessness that, in a healthier political climate, Congress would not give it the time of day.
The document defies the reality of war. Phrased as a license for the “limited” use of force, it suggests that lawmakers should delegitimize combat even as they authorize it. The president would have Congress limit the duration of combat (to three years), as if war came with an end-date. He’d have Congress limit the means of combat (no ground forces), as if war could be scripted to suit the Left’s anti-war sensibilities.
But, for a moment, let’s put aside the reality of the long war. Obama’s proposal could not even deal with the reality of Wednesday. Just as Congress received it, Obama’s new defense secretary was conceding that the president’s retreat from Afghanistan would have to be postponed because of Taliban advances; while in Yemen — that Obama-touted counterterrorism “success” story — Iran-backed jihadists seized the U.S. embassy after American diplomatic and military officials were forced to flee.
In fact, less than 24 hours after Obama suggested that Congress should forbid him from using ground troops against Islamic State terrorists, Islamic State terrorists were busy capturing a western Iraqi town just 13 minutes away from the base where 320 U.S. Marines are on the ground, training hapless Iraqi forces. Forget ground forces to defeat ISIS; the way Obama is managing things, we may need ground forces just to rescue our ground forces.”
Amateur hour continues…
LikeLike
Whose side is he on anyway?
No. Let me guess.
LikeLike
A powerful denunciation of anti-seminism, delivered by the French Prime Minister last month.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks for posting that. It is powerful and so good to hear that someone in authority is speaking out.
LikeLike
I was listening to an interesting interview this morning on the radio concerning the executions of the 21 Coptic Christians: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2015/02/17/isis-new-libyan-front-puts-pressure-on-egypt-and-europe/. In answer to a question about the significance of the attack upon Christians, the experts pointed out a couple of things that stood out in my mind, one was that the Egyptian government in the past year has killed more Copts than ISIS has; the second was that ISIS propaganda apparently writes a lot about starting the apocalypse by provoking a conflict with Christians. In killing Christians, they were trying to not only get a reaction from France and Italy (in addition to Egypt), but also from the Christian world in general (they spoke of conquering Rome, apparently failing to recognize that Copts are not under the pope). In other words, they want Christians to respond violently. If Christians following the instructions of Christ to endure patiently, they will be doing the very thing that ISIS does not want them to do.
LikeLike
What ISIS really wants: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
“The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide: irrespective of whether they have given baya’a to the caliph, they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims. Yet another invasion and occupation would confirm that suspicion, and bolster recruitment. Add the incompetence of our previous efforts as occupiers, and we have reason for reluctance. The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?”
LikeLike
Then we can just wait it out?
LikeLike
I’m not suggesting there’s a simple answer or one without consequences. But letting the horror and bloodshed continue unabated seems to be an obviously bad course. And there is a difference between a Christian response and a necessary government response in the interest of basic human rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Donna, if you read the Atlantic article, you see that the author recommends that the slow cutting off of resources and support, which governments have started, be continued. I agree that governments can and should take protective action – Egypt was acting within its own interests as a threatened nation; Iraq has every right to try to defeat ISIS; and Nigeria’s government should be acting, as Chad and Cameroon are, to protect its citizens from Boko Haram. I don’t think anyone is minimizing the horror of what is happening in areas under ISIS right now, just pointing out that caution must be observed as an invasion could backfire terribly and cause even more destruction of human life.
LikeLike
I have read it, saw it a day or two ago.
LikeLike
Ah, I do love Marie.
“So you suggested that maybe if you find these young men jobs, they might not become terrorists?” Blitzer asked.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/marie-harf-im-too-nuanced-for-you.php
LikeLike