- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 77
Witnesses: US helicopters attack Syrian village http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...&show_article=1
Witnesses: US helicopters attack Syrian village
- Thread starter tomwebster
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 77
(Follower;61798)
If the US military is attacking other countries, the President should tell us about it.
Ahead of time, right,
If the US military is attacking other countries, the President should tell us about it.
Ahead of time, right,
US military official confirms helicopter raid on Syrian soilOct. 26, 2008US military helicopters bombed targets in a Syrian border town near Iraq on Sunday, killing at least eight people, after global jihad operatives allegedly crossed the border into Syria. The attack, which was not confirmed by the US military, was the first-ever reported American strike on Syria, which called it a "serious aggression." Israeli defense officials said the incident was not connected to Israel and that the American troops had been chasing global jihad suspects in Iraq. The helicopters then crossed into Syria in pursuit of the terrorists. A government statement carried by the official Syrian Arab News Agency said the attack occurred at the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, eight kilometers inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction, firing on the workers inside shortly before sundown, the statement said. A US official, in confirming the raid, said the attack targeted elements of a robust foreign fighter logistics network and that due to Syrian inaction the US was now "taking matters into our own hands." The US military official said the special forces raid targeted elements of a network that sends fighters from North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qaida and other fighters. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids. Syria's Foreign Ministry said it summoned the charges d'affaires of the United States and Iraq to protest the strike. A resident of the nearby village of Hwijeh, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said the aircraft flew along the Euphrates River into the area of farms and several brick factories. On September 6, 2007, the IAF destroyed a purported nuclear reactor Syria was building in its northeast, along the Euphrates River. The area bombed Sunday is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for gunmen, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency. Iraqi insurgents seized Qaim in April 2005, forcing US Marines to recapture the town the following month in heavy fighting. The area became secure only after Sunni tribes in Anbar province turned against al-Qaida in late 2006 and joined forces with the Americans. AP contributed to this report.
(waquinas;62183)
take it to them George!!!!! And don't ask for my permission.
That sums up why the Republican party is dieing.
take it to them George!!!!! And don't ask for my permission.
That sums up why the Republican party is dieing.
take it to them George!!!!! And don't ask for my permission.
RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.Do as you are told.john.
RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.Do as you are told.john.
(Follower;62193)
That sums up why the Republican party is dieing.
Except for the little problem that the Republican party is not dying.All things considered, this election should be a landslide for every Democrat seeking office. But it's not going to be.By the way, President Bush DID tell us that foreign countries would be invaded - all of them that house terrorists. Right or wrong, it should be expected.
That sums up why the Republican party is dieing.
Except for the little problem that the Republican party is not dying.All things considered, this election should be a landslide for every Democrat seeking office. But it's not going to be.By the way, President Bush DID tell us that foreign countries would be invaded - all of them that house terrorists. Right or wrong, it should be expected.
(ffbruce;62219)
Except for the little problem that the Republican party is not dying.
Democrats control Congress and will possibly get a super-majority in the senate. And, Republicans are running a RINO for president, and even that Republican-in-name-only is going to get creamed. The Republican leadership hardly even gives lip service anymore to the traditional elements of the Republican platform.The Democrats have also won the last several election cycles, in mostly landslides. Bush even lost the popular vote four years ago. The last time Republicans won a clear majority for a presidential candidate was at the end of Reagan's second term. The only time in recent decades that the Republicans gained control of Congress was thanks to Clinton trying to push the liberal agenda a little too quickly for the American public to acclimatize.
By the way, President Bush DID tell us that foreign countries would be invaded - all of them that house terrorists. Right or wrong, it should be expected.
Right or wrong, it's hurting America.
Except for the little problem that the Republican party is not dying.
Democrats control Congress and will possibly get a super-majority in the senate. And, Republicans are running a RINO for president, and even that Republican-in-name-only is going to get creamed. The Republican leadership hardly even gives lip service anymore to the traditional elements of the Republican platform.The Democrats have also won the last several election cycles, in mostly landslides. Bush even lost the popular vote four years ago. The last time Republicans won a clear majority for a presidential candidate was at the end of Reagan's second term. The only time in recent decades that the Republicans gained control of Congress was thanks to Clinton trying to push the liberal agenda a little too quickly for the American public to acclimatize.
By the way, President Bush DID tell us that foreign countries would be invaded - all of them that house terrorists. Right or wrong, it should be expected.
Right or wrong, it's hurting America.
(Follower;62220)
Democrats control Congress and will possibly get a super-majority in the senate. And, Republicans are running a RINO for president, and even that Republican-in-name-only is going to get creamed. The Republican leadership hardly even gives lip service anymore to the traditional elements of the Republican platform.The Democrats have also won the last several election cycles, in mostly landslides. Bush even lost the popular vote four years ago. The last time Republicans won a clear majority for a presidential candidate was at the end of Reagan's second term. The only time in recent decades that the Republicans gained control of Congress was thanks to Clinton trying to push the liberal agenda a little too quickly for the American public to acclimatize.Right or wrong, it's hurting America.
You know, there are quite a few factual errors in this post. For instance, Bush did NOT lose the popular vote 4 years ago.I think you're also going to be surprised, a week from now, because I doubt that the Presidential election is going to be the Obama landslide that the media has been chanting for so long. But we shall see.Mostly though, it is extremely typical to find Americans voting in a Congress that is of the opposite party as the President - especially if it's a 2-term President. By the way, have you checked out the approval ratings for Congress lately? Some of these long-term incumbent Democrats better not be taking anything for granted.
Democrats control Congress and will possibly get a super-majority in the senate. And, Republicans are running a RINO for president, and even that Republican-in-name-only is going to get creamed. The Republican leadership hardly even gives lip service anymore to the traditional elements of the Republican platform.The Democrats have also won the last several election cycles, in mostly landslides. Bush even lost the popular vote four years ago. The last time Republicans won a clear majority for a presidential candidate was at the end of Reagan's second term. The only time in recent decades that the Republicans gained control of Congress was thanks to Clinton trying to push the liberal agenda a little too quickly for the American public to acclimatize.Right or wrong, it's hurting America.
You know, there are quite a few factual errors in this post. For instance, Bush did NOT lose the popular vote 4 years ago.I think you're also going to be surprised, a week from now, because I doubt that the Presidential election is going to be the Obama landslide that the media has been chanting for so long. But we shall see.Mostly though, it is extremely typical to find Americans voting in a Congress that is of the opposite party as the President - especially if it's a 2-term President. By the way, have you checked out the approval ratings for Congress lately? Some of these long-term incumbent Democrats better not be taking anything for granted.
(Follower;62193)
That sums up why the Republican party is dieing.
if dems believed the crap they peddle - that the party for America is dying, then one wonders why they would risk collecting millions in illegal campaign contributions just to then spend it on a 30 minute infomercial in a race against a "dying" party that cannot possibly match them in funding and according to the media is behind. Yeah, if you buy their logic I got a bridge to sell ya - McCain wins Tuesday!
That sums up why the Republican party is dieing.
if dems believed the crap they peddle - that the party for America is dying, then one wonders why they would risk collecting millions in illegal campaign contributions just to then spend it on a 30 minute infomercial in a race against a "dying" party that cannot possibly match them in funding and according to the media is behind. Yeah, if you buy their logic I got a bridge to sell ya - McCain wins Tuesday!
(waquinas;62258)
if dems believed the crap they peddle - that the party for America is dying, then one wonders why they would risk collecting millions in illegal campaign contributions just to then spend it on a 30 minute infomercial in a race against a "dying" party that cannot possibly match them in funding and according to the media is behind. Yeah, if you buy their logic I got a bridge to sell ya - McCain wins Tuesday!
If someone like Obama can win an electin in America, the opposition party must be dead or dying.
if dems believed the crap they peddle - that the party for America is dying, then one wonders why they would risk collecting millions in illegal campaign contributions just to then spend it on a 30 minute infomercial in a race against a "dying" party that cannot possibly match them in funding and according to the media is behind. Yeah, if you buy their logic I got a bridge to sell ya - McCain wins Tuesday!
If someone like Obama can win an electin in America, the opposition party must be dead or dying.
(Follower;62259)
If someone like Obama can win an electin in America, the opposition party must be dead or dying.
No, it doesn't mean that at all.Could I not have been saying the exact same thing, 8 years ago, about the Democrats? And 4 years ago.
If someone like Obama can win an electin in America, the opposition party must be dead or dying.
No, it doesn't mean that at all.Could I not have been saying the exact same thing, 8 years ago, about the Democrats? And 4 years ago.
(Follower;62259)
If someone like Obama can win an electin in America, the opposition party must be dead or dying.
you are assuming he is winning. Just ask yourself why someone would risk raising millions in illegal donations and spend it on expensive tv ads (the most expensive ever), way outspending an opponent that he says he is beating? It makes no sense. But, hey if you want to believe - go ahead. Suggest you don't buy any bridges.
If someone like Obama can win an electin in America, the opposition party must be dead or dying.
you are assuming he is winning. Just ask yourself why someone would risk raising millions in illegal donations and spend it on expensive tv ads (the most expensive ever), way outspending an opponent that he says he is beating? It makes no sense. But, hey if you want to believe - go ahead. Suggest you don't buy any bridges.
The problem is that as time passed, the Pentecostal army began to misplace its Swords. They left their first love (Rev. 2:4), even as Israel had done under Moses at Mount Sinai. Increasingly, in the interest of unity, the Church removed from the people the right to hear God for themselves and made it exclusive to the leadership. This is what the Israelites did in sending Moses up the Mount to hear God and to tell them what God said. The result was that the Christian soldiers began to lose their Swords, and these were replaced by physical swords once again.The theology then arose that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was given only on the day of Pentecost, and that when the last disciple died (John), the Church was expected to function in the carnal, non-Pentecostal manner that characterized the people of Israel under Moses. This teaching lowered expectations and made people content with keeping Passover (justification by faith). The law was forgotten, because it remained on tables of stone (books) and was not written on the hearts of the people by the power of the Spirit.In our own day, much of the Church has gone so far as to support the Jewish conquest and oppression of the Palestinian people by the power of physical weaponry. Once again, such bloodletting is justified on the basis of Joshua's conquest of Canaan. But all it really does is show forth the same problem today that occurred under Moses. While it may SEEM justifiable to those who do not understand the events in Ex. 20:18-21, Christians should know better, for they claim to have the indwelling Holy Spirit. They have been taught about the Sword of the Spirit, but they seem to have no understanding how it relates to the story in Exodus 20.I will not say that all physical warfare is banned by God or by Scripture. I merely say that if we were to use the Sword of the Spirit as our primary weapon of choice, we would soon be able to beat our physical swords into plowshares and stop learning the arts of war (Isaiah 2:4).This view does not put away the law in any way. This view treats the Bible as a whole book, instead of pitting Old Testament against the New. Insofar as warfare is concerned, it shows that even though Joshua was certainly commanded to shed the blood of the Canaanites, this was not really what pleased Yahweh-Jesus. Israel was offered a more merciful Sword to use on the Canaanites, but they were not ready to receive it. So the bloody mess was the consequence of Israel refusing to accept that Sword.We, on the other hand, do not have to follow Israel's bad example.Logabe
So what does this have to do with the laws of war? It has everything to do with it, because the Sword of the Spirit was given to us in order to provide mercy and not sacrifice when carnal men beat the war drums.God used this spiritual Sword upon His own people Israel in order to give them mercy. Hosea 6:4-6 says," (4) What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? For your loyalty is like a morning cloud, and like the dew which goes away early. (5) Therefore I have hewn them in pieces by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of My mouth; and the judgments on you are like the light that goes forth. (6) For I delight in loyalty [mercy] rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."In other words, the prophets used the prophetic word, the Sword of the Spirit, to chop them into pieces. The prophets brought judgment upon Israel "like the light that goes forth." Why? Because God delights in mercy and not sacrifice. If His priority had been sacrifice, He would have used a physical sword upon them, and the judgment would have been fatal, instead of enlightening.The people, of course, ultimately refused to hear God's voice. They continued to rebel against His character as expressed in the law which they had been given. They rejected His mercy. But they loved sacrifices and continued to bring them to the temple. They did not know the mind of Christ, and they either disregarded or disagreed with the law. Injustice prevailed, and the leaders and rich men oppressed the poor and the strangers.And so, after God had used the merciful Sword of the Spirit against Israel for centuries, only then did He bring the physical sword of judgment upon them. In essence, He declared war upon Israel and hired the Assyrians as His mercenaries. Later, He hired the Babylonian army to make war on Judah and Jerusalem and to destroy the temple. Still later, He hired the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem, as Jesus tells us in Matt. 22:7.So this shows plainly that physical warfare is not God's priority, but neither is it unlawful. War brings judgment, but it is called "sacrifice." A sacrifice is an offering to God. Logabe
(ffbruce;62223)
You know, there are quite a few factual errors in this post. For instance, Bush did NOT lose the popular vote 4 years ago.
Oops, that should have been 8. Bush: 50,456,002 Gore: 50,999,897. Switching the two elections has no impact on my point. For quite a few factual errors, you couldn't find a one that matters. Since the end of Reagan's second term, the GOP has not won more votes than the Democrats, except once and that was 51% of the popular vote, and that was while riding on Saddam's defeat.But, the health of a party should be measured by more than just the popular vote, but by how much it favors its principles over pandering. (and, the ref declares a TKO)
I think you're also going to be surprised, a week from now, because I doubt that the Presidential election is going to be the Obama landslide that the media has been chanting for so long. But we shall see.
If McCain wins, I won't just be surprised, I'll be shocked.
Mostly though, it is extremely typical to find Americans voting in a Congress that is of the opposite party as the President - especially if it's a 2-term President.
I don't know if the data is there to support you. In 1994, in Clinton's first term, Republicans gained control of the House for the first time since 1954. I explained why this happened in the message you responded to. But, I am hoping that an Obama victory will help put Republicans in Congress.
By the way, have you checked out the approval ratings for Congress lately? Some of these long-term incumbent Democrats better not be taking anything for granted.
The approval ratings of Congress is irrelevant because no one is voting for more than a few of them. The president is always more of a celebrity than the congressmen. And, Congress is always heavy in players from the other team. So, Congress will almost always have a lower approval rating.If everyone in Congress had an election at the same time, the winners - everyone elected - would average a much higher winning margin than the president, yet Congress would have a lower approval rating than the president.
You know, there are quite a few factual errors in this post. For instance, Bush did NOT lose the popular vote 4 years ago.
Oops, that should have been 8. Bush: 50,456,002 Gore: 50,999,897. Switching the two elections has no impact on my point. For quite a few factual errors, you couldn't find a one that matters. Since the end of Reagan's second term, the GOP has not won more votes than the Democrats, except once and that was 51% of the popular vote, and that was while riding on Saddam's defeat.But, the health of a party should be measured by more than just the popular vote, but by how much it favors its principles over pandering. (and, the ref declares a TKO)
I think you're also going to be surprised, a week from now, because I doubt that the Presidential election is going to be the Obama landslide that the media has been chanting for so long. But we shall see.
If McCain wins, I won't just be surprised, I'll be shocked.
Mostly though, it is extremely typical to find Americans voting in a Congress that is of the opposite party as the President - especially if it's a 2-term President.
I don't know if the data is there to support you. In 1994, in Clinton's first term, Republicans gained control of the House for the first time since 1954. I explained why this happened in the message you responded to. But, I am hoping that an Obama victory will help put Republicans in Congress.
By the way, have you checked out the approval ratings for Congress lately? Some of these long-term incumbent Democrats better not be taking anything for granted.
The approval ratings of Congress is irrelevant because no one is voting for more than a few of them. The president is always more of a celebrity than the congressmen. And, Congress is always heavy in players from the other team. So, Congress will almost always have a lower approval rating.If everyone in Congress had an election at the same time, the winners - everyone elected - would average a much higher winning margin than the president, yet Congress would have a lower approval rating than the president.
(Follower;62273)
Oops, that should have been 8. Bush: 50,456,002 Gore: 50,999,897. Switching the two elections has no impact on my point. For quite a few factual errors, you couldn't find a one that matters. Since the end of Reagan's second term, the GOP has not won more votes than the Democrats, except once and that was 51% of the popular vote, and that was while riding on Saddam's defeat.But, the health of a party should be measured by more than just the popular vote, but by how much it favors its principles over pandering. (and, the ref declares a TKO)If McCain wins, I won't just be surprised, I'll be shocked. I don't know if the data is there to support you. In 1994, in Clinton's first term, Republicans gained control of the House for the first time since 1954. I explained why this happened in the message you responded to. But, I am hoping that an Obama victory will help put Republicans in Congress. The approval ratings of Congress is irrelevant because no one is voting for more than a few of them. The president is always more of a celebrity than the congressmen. And, Congress is always heavy in players from the other team. So, Congress will almost always have a lower approval rating.If everyone in Congress had an election at the same time, the winners - everyone elected - would average a much higher winning margin than the president, yet Congress would have a lower approval rating than the president.
So what you're saying - and rightly so - is that if Obama is elected President, it's highly likely that we'll have a Republican Congress 2 years from now. And that's basically an admission that the Republican party is NOT dead.
Oops, that should have been 8. Bush: 50,456,002 Gore: 50,999,897. Switching the two elections has no impact on my point. For quite a few factual errors, you couldn't find a one that matters. Since the end of Reagan's second term, the GOP has not won more votes than the Democrats, except once and that was 51% of the popular vote, and that was while riding on Saddam's defeat.But, the health of a party should be measured by more than just the popular vote, but by how much it favors its principles over pandering. (and, the ref declares a TKO)If McCain wins, I won't just be surprised, I'll be shocked. I don't know if the data is there to support you. In 1994, in Clinton's first term, Republicans gained control of the House for the first time since 1954. I explained why this happened in the message you responded to. But, I am hoping that an Obama victory will help put Republicans in Congress. The approval ratings of Congress is irrelevant because no one is voting for more than a few of them. The president is always more of a celebrity than the congressmen. And, Congress is always heavy in players from the other team. So, Congress will almost always have a lower approval rating.If everyone in Congress had an election at the same time, the winners - everyone elected - would average a much higher winning margin than the president, yet Congress would have a lower approval rating than the president.
So what you're saying - and rightly so - is that if Obama is elected President, it's highly likely that we'll have a Republican Congress 2 years from now. And that's basically an admission that the Republican party is NOT dead.
(ffbruce;62296)
So what you're saying - and rightly so - is that if Obama is elected President, it's highly likely that we'll have a Republican Congress 2 years from now. And that's basically an admission that the Republican party is NOT dead.
Dieing isn't dead. If McCain (a post-Republican Republican) wins, the Republican party will be another step closer to dead. If Obama wins, the Republicans might find the will to revive.
So what you're saying - and rightly so - is that if Obama is elected President, it's highly likely that we'll have a Republican Congress 2 years from now. And that's basically an admission that the Republican party is NOT dead.
Dieing isn't dead. If McCain (a post-Republican Republican) wins, the Republican party will be another step closer to dead. If Obama wins, the Republicans might find the will to revive.
(Follower;62305)
(ffbruce;62296)
So what you're saying - and rightly so - is that if Obama is elected President, it's highly likely that we'll have a Republican Congress 2 years from now. And that's basically an admission that the Republican party is NOT dead.
Dieing isn't dead. If McCain (a post-Republican Republican) wins, the Republican party will be another step closer to dead. If Obama wins, the Republicans might find the will to revive.O...K Follower, whatever you say.
(ffbruce;62296)
So what you're saying - and rightly so - is that if Obama is elected President, it's highly likely that we'll have a Republican Congress 2 years from now. And that's basically an admission that the Republican party is NOT dead.
Dieing isn't dead. If McCain (a post-Republican Republican) wins, the Republican party will be another step closer to dead. If Obama wins, the Republicans might find the will to revive.O...K Follower, whatever you say.
Similar threads
