Shocking video

[Archaeopteryx]

It's easy to look at something like WW II and be critical of the Allies for bombing Dresden or Hiroshima. But how did those conflicts, start; who was responsible?

Many of the evil regimes over the millenia have one thing in common: a tyrant for whom every evil act possible is justified- lying, stealing, murdering; anything contrary to what God wants. Adolph Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden all subscribe to the same immoral code- a code that is only honoured by one entity- satan himself.

So they are all soldiers of the devil, who have no respect for anything good. Christians are a humble lot, always willing to forgive and forget, and to see the good in someone. But we need to be careful not to be fooled by these soldiers of the devil who have nothing but evil on their hearts, but will do anything they can to convince us otherwise.

In John 8, Jesus gave us an example of how we should recognize and confront evil when he bluntly told the Pharisees:

44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Think about this the next time you see a world leader lying through his teeth, and supporting all manner of evil deeds, and ask yourself: who is his commander?. You should ask that question of anyone you run across that justifies evil and is unrepentent: a lier, a fornicator, a murderer, a thief, all have the same thing in common: they all think that evil deeds are o.k, because they all follow the devil.

An example, Bush justifies a war on terror that only causes more terror. This is supporting an evil deed. Furthermore, it seems clear that he has lied, considering that the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq seems completely fabricated to justify an unjust war.

 

[LLWHA]

It's easy to look at something like WW II and be critical of the Allies for bombing Dresden or Hiroshima. But how did those conflicts, start; who was responsible?
quote]

Dear Servant, I pray you are well and joyful.

I liked your post.

The banker, gangsters of "the synagogue of Satan" finance both sides and enslave both winner and loser with their usury.

Both sides need bucks to fight these wars so the governments get money from these evil banker, gangsters and for decades after these wars that these bankers, gangsters start, the people of both the winner and loser pay and pay with their hard earned money. Taxes.

When the people start to forget the lost sons and all the taxes that they paid for the last war theses no good evil banker, gangster start one more war to end all wars.

Its easy for these follower of satan to do this as thy have been using the same old tricks for thousands of years and they work every time.
Rev: 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan.



LLTK, LLTF

Eut.

 

[Servant222]

An example, Bush justifies a war on terror that only causes more terror. This is supporting an evil deed. Furthermore, it seems clear that he has lied, considering that the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq seems completely fabricated to justify an unjust war.

If you're saying that the invasion of Iraq, to remove a ruthless despot and puppet of the devil, should never have happened, then you have to think really hard about what would have happened instead:

1. Millions of Iraqis, especially women, would continue to live under a barbaric regime that justified mass murder, torture, and just about every other depravity known to mankind.

2. The massive extra oil revenues that Saddam would have received would have surely encouraged him to greatly expand his funding and other support of world-wide terrorism. The rewards he gave to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers I am sure was just a small example of his generosity in this regard.

3. Saddam would have tried much harder to in fact acquire nuclear weapons. Why not- the world would have been divided and so what disincentive would there have been for him not to try again, and do exactly what Iran is now doing? As a matter of fact, Iran's nuclear program would have provided the perfect excuse for Saddam to do likewise.

4. Saddam would have been able to amass a much larger stockpile of weapons- especially more sophisticated missiles with which to attack Israel, as he did in the Gulf War.

History will eventually decide whether the U.S. incursion into Iraq was right or wrong. Personally, I think it was necessary, given the alternatives- but it should have been done with world-wide consensus and participation; that is, the war on terrorism and evil must be a united effort, and not one where we let the devil divide us.

 

[Carey]

If you're saying that the invasion of Iraq, to remove a ruthless despot and puppet of the devil, should never have happened, then you have to think really hard about what would have happened instead:

1. Millions of Iraqis, especially women, would continue to live under a barbaric regime that justified mass murder, torture, and just about every other depravity known to mankind.

2. The massive extra oil revenues that Saddam would have received would have surely encouraged him to greatly expand his funding and other support of world-wide terrorism. The rewards he gave to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers I am sure was just a small example of his generosity in this regard.

3. Saddam would have tried much harder to in fact acquire nuclear weapons. Why not- the world would have been divided and so what disincentive would there have been for him not to try again, and do exactly what Iran is now doing? As a matter of fact, Iran's nuclear program would have provided the perfect excuse for Saddam to do likewise.

4. Saddam would have been able to amass a much larger stockpile of weapons- especially more sophisticated missiles with which to attack Israel, as he did in the Gulf War.

History will eventually decide whether the U.S. incursion into Iraq was right or wrong. Personally, I think it was necessary, given the alternatives- but it should have been done with world-wide consensus and participation; that is, the war on terrorism and evil must be a united effort, and not one where we let the devil divide us.

I agree with you but worldwide consensus would have never happened just like the situation now with Iran.

China and Russia's jealousy of the US will prevent them from ever doing anything that might prevent harm to the US financially or militarily.
They just know better than to directly try themselves.
They live this terrorism war we have to spend money on. Their governments can simply jail all Muslims we are too civilized.

 

[Carey]

It's easy to look at something like WW II and be critical of the Allies for bombing Dresden or Hiroshima. But how did those conflicts, start; who was responsible?
quote]

Dear Servant, I pray you are well and joyful.

I liked your post.

The banker, gangsters of "the synagogue of Satan" finance both sides and enslave both winner and loser with their usury.

Both sides need bucks to fight these wars so the governments get money from these evil banker, gangsters and for decades after these wars that these bankers, gangsters start, the people of both the winner and loser pay and pay with their hard earned money. Taxes.

When the people start to forget the lost sons and all the taxes that they paid for the last war theses no good evil banker, gangster start one more war to end all wars.

Its easy for these follower of satan to do this as thy have been using the same old tricks for thousands of years and they work every time.
Rev: 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan.



LLTK, LLTF

Eut.

Here is Revelations 2 : 9 in context.

Notice it says Christians will be persecited to the point of Death. Jews of the Israel of today
( the ruling Government since 1948 )have never done this to Christians for being Christians

Notice also it is talking overcoming to be saved to miss the second death.

REvelations 9 : 8"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:
These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. 9I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since Iraq has been 'liberated', has there been any less depravity induced by terror in the country itself? Since this war on terror, supposedly to protect vital liberty and democracy was propagated, has liberty or democracy survived? Instead we see liberties being attacked not by terrorists but by Western governments themselves. An example being free-speech zones. The Constitution is being slowly wiped away in favour of a police state. Since when is free speech confined to a zone?! (Exception, if you support the war as was illustrated by the Sydney Apec protests)
The state has placed a veil over the eyes of society, convincing the masses that this war on terror is to protect freedom and democracy and thus the policies they pass come under the cloak of anti-terrorism. These policies, which slowly relinquish the liberties of the person. These policies, which give more power to the state. No, this is not a war on terror against an invisible enemy, but rather, a war on the liberty of the person.

 

[Servant222]

The depravity continues because they have so many soldiers of the devil, many probably holdovers from Saddam's regime, but also many foreign terrorists, who have exactly the opposite moral values that most decent human beings have.

The fact that these terrorists blow themselves up in crowded market places and indiscriminately kill ordinary men, women, and children of their own country, is proof-positive of their satanic connection.

So if these fanatics think nothing of killing their fellow citizens, while at least there is some semblance of a policing force present, imagine how much more heinous their actions would be if the U.S. pulled out.

The U.S. presence has at least temporarily curtailed the threat of the country developing nuclear arms, or being a new home base for global terrorists, and will eventually restore law and order to the country.....unless, of course, public sentiment demands that those soldiers, who are courageously trying to establish a better life for the Iraqi people, and helping reduce the scourage of terrorism for all of us, are forced to pull out.

Ask yourself: if the U.S. really pulled out now, what would happen? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think both the Iraqi people and the rest of the world would be far worse off.

 

[Carey]

Since Iraq has been 'liberated', has there been any less depravity induced by terror in the country itself? Since this war on terror, supposedly to protect vital liberty and democracy was propagated, has liberty or democracy survived? Instead we see liberties being attacked not by terrorists but by Western governments themselves. An example being free-speech zones. The Constitution is being slowly wiped away in favour of a police state. Since when is free speech confined to a zone?! (Exception, if you support the war as was illustrated by the Sydney Apec protests)
The state has placed a veil over the eyes of society, convincing the masses that this war on terror is to protect freedom and democracy and thus the policies they pass come under the cloak of anti-terrorism. These policies, which slowly relinquish the liberties of the person. These policies, which give more power to the state. No, this is not a war on terror against an invisible enemy, but rather, a war on the liberty of the person.

Here is a picture of your so called invisible fabricated foe

Islamic Terrorism Timeline



8/13/2006

How Many Muslims Are Terrorists?

I am often asked to guess as to how many Muslims are jihadists. The easiest answer is: enough to commit the terrorist acts detailed in this 1,000-page-long Islamic Terror Timeline. But if you are looking for a more analytical response, I think the math goes something like this:

There are between 1.2 and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Half are women. While a substantial percentage of Islamic women support jihad, less than one in fifty Islamic terrorist acts is actually perpetrated by a female. That leaves us with a maximum pool of jihadists that is just over 50% of the total population.

The overwhelming preponderance of terrorist acts are conducted by young Muslim men 15 to 30 years old. This age bracket covers about half of the male population of the Islamic world, leaving us with a potential jihad pool of 25% of all Muslims - approximately 300 million people.

The most logical way to determine the percentage of Muslims who are salafi/fundamentalists - a precondition to jihad - is to consider the most recent elections in Islamic countries. For example, the fundamentalist Islamic group HAMAS received 65% of the popular vote in "Palestine." The somewhat secular Fatah, at least by comparison to HAMAS, won only 30% of the votes.

While he was not popularly elected, Turkey's president, Ahmet Necdet Sezar, is a fundamentalist Muslim. Turkey's parliament, which selected him by a 70% majority, is formed as a result of a popular mandate and it is predominately composed of fundamentalist Muslims. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is the nation's most popular leader. He is a convicted felon who believes: "Mosques are our barracks, domes are our helmets, minarets our bayonets, and believers our soldiers." He won a landslide victory in 2002 - and Turkey is considered to be the most moderate Islamic state.

The newly elected fundamentalist Islamic nutcase ruling Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, earned 62% of the popular vote. The most moderate Islamic challenger garnered less than twenty percent support. The notion that the majority of Iranians are hostile to the Shia mullahs, and are poised for a revolution, is a myth

In Lebanon, politicians got all excited when 50,000 people marched in support of democracy. The following week when 500,000 people protested in support of Islam/Submission, the percentage of fundamentalist Muslims became clear.

Fundamentalist Islamic candidates in the most recent Iraqi elections, those individuals who belonged to clerical parties like the Islamic Revolution in Iraq founded by Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, won 65% of the seats in the new parliament.

While opinion surveys can be suspect, and are often tainted by the manner in which a question is phrased, there are two that are worth mentioning. Opinion polls taken by the British Government reveal that 70% of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified, something that is impossible to justify outside the conditioning of fundamentalist Islam. The rising death toll of American troops and stunning escalation in terror in Iraq give credence to those numbers. Polls taken in Pakistan, where bin Laden is being harbored, reveal that 70% of Pakistanis view the world's most famous Islamic terrorist very favorably. In fact, Osama has become the most popular name for boys in the region.

Therefore, based upon the most objective data available to us, at least 60% of all Muslims have the potential to be jihadists by way of their fundamentalist voting patterns. That is to say, Islam has grown substantially closer to its salafi, and thus terrorist, roots over the past decade. It is safe to say that 750 million Muslims are fundamentalists trying to follow Allah's orders and Muhammad's example. And as fundamentalists, they are potential jihadists.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline.Islam

 

[Carey]

An example, Bush justifies a war on terror that only causes more terror. This is supporting an evil deed. Furthermore, it seems clear that he has lied, considering that the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq seems completely fabricated to justify an unjust war.

How is it that because the weapons were moved before we invaded make our main reason for invading a lie a lie??

Would it not be just as easy to say that there is no evidence the weapons were NOT moved and therefore make the person complainig about of the reason to invade a liar??

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How is it that because the weapons were moved before we invaded make our main reason for invading a lie a lie??

Would it not be just as easy to say that there is no evidence the weapons were NOT moved and therefore make the person complainig about of the reason to invade a liar??

And who said the weapons (if there are or ever were any) were 'moved' Bush? Cheney? Rice? The UN? Hmmm

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you're saying that the invasion of Iraq, to remove a ruthless despot and puppet of the devil...

Ruthless despot and puppet of the devil... that sounds like Bush, after all... he is a member of the Skull & Bones secret society of Yale, formerly known as the Order of Death. Should we invade America to remove him as-well?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Knowing that I have been blessed enough to be born into a country who can reduce the suffering of not only my nation but other nations with my countries miltary might makes me praise God.

In regard to the quote I have referenced above, don't you think this is a major contradiction. Radical Islamists feel exactly the same way - thankful for their military strength to make a difference to their nation and the world. You may say that the motives are different, but they are not so different... radical Islamists also want to reduce overall suffering through the belief of enforcing Islamic law. (Whether this is right or wrong is not the point.) You seem to suggest your military can do that also, reduce suffering. So technically, regardless of your motives, the American state and radical extremists are using the same means to an end- violence and terror.

 

[Carey]

And who said the weapons (if there are or ever were any) were 'moved' Bush? Cheney? Rice? The UN? Hmmm

Well not onlu is obvious to anyone with a brain but there are thousands of links to evidence..
But of course one could say the war was a farce>>PROVE IT or one could say the weapons were moved PROVE IT...LOL


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh

Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Kenneth R. Timmerman[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006[/FONT]​

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well not onlu is obvious to anyone with a brain but there are thousands of links to evidence..
But of course one could say the war was a farce>>PROVE IT or one could say the weapons were moved PROVE IT...LOL


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh

Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Kenneth R. Timmerman[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006[/FONT]​

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

A quote from a Pentagon official I would not hold as credible, considering all the epic lies that have proceeded from official bodies including the White House.

 

[Servant222]

According to various articles (summarized here ), these claims by John A. Shaw that Iraq's WMD, including nuclear technology, were moved to Syria just prior to the U.S. invasion have never been disproven, although U.S. officials maintained, without providing any hard evidence, that the claims were baseless.

Interestingly, all of this occurred long before the recent Israeli bombing mission into Syria where rumors persist that the target may have included a WMD or nuclear facility.

So it does appear that 1+1 really may in fact equal 2, despite denials to the contrary.

The other interesting twist here is that Saddam's mortal enemy for many years was Iran- which we know is proceeding full bore with a nuclear technology program (not proven quite yet to be a nuclear weapons program, but stay tuned).

So imagine if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq. Iran would be even farther ahead now in its nuclear technology program, which would have provided Iraq with a double excuse to do whatever it took to resurrect their own nuclear program- one to counter Iran, and the second to neutralize Israeli's nuclear threat.

It's bad enough having a nuclear armed Pakistan- but I just can't imagine what the Middle East would be like today if both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein were around doing their sabre rattling with nuclear weapons.

 

[Micah68]

According to various articles (summarized here ), these claims by John A. Shaw that Iraq's WMD, including nuclear technology, were moved to Syria just prior to the U.S. invasion have never been disproven, although U.S. officials maintained, without providing any hard evidence, that the claims were baseless.

Interestingly, all of this occurred long before the recent Israeli bombing mission into Syria where rumors persist that the target may have included a WMD or nuclear facility.

So it does appear that 1+1 really may in fact equal 2, despite denials to the contrary.

The other interesting twist here is that Saddam's mortal enemy for many years was Iran- which we know is proceeding full bore with a nuclear technology program (not proven quite yet to be a nuclear weapons program, but stay tuned).

So imagine if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq. Iran would be even farther ahead now in its nuclear technology program, which would have provided Iraq with a double excuse to do whatever it took to resurrect their own nuclear program- one to counter Iran, and the second to neutralize Israeli's nuclear threat.

It's bad enough having a nuclear armed Pakistan- but I just can't imagine what the Middle East would be like today if both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein were around doing their sabre rattling with nuclear weapons.

Well then why don't we just wipe out anyone who does not agree with US? Heck why not pre-emptively strike all NON-democrarcies as they may pose a threat sometime down the road. Yeap, who would Jesus attack today? Can I hear an AMEN?!

 

[Carey]

Well then why don't we just wipe out anyone who does not agree with US? Heck why not pre-emptively strike all NON-democrarcies as they may pose a threat sometime down the road. Yeap, who would Jesus attack today? Can I hear an AMEN?!

Good idea

here is who Jesus would attack if he returned today.

Revelations 20 :
Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

 

[Carey]

A quote from a Pentagon official I would not hold as credible, considering all the epic lies that have proceeded from official bodies including the White House.

Only those who agree with you are credible??

 

[Carey]

According to various articles (summarized here ), these claims by John A. Shaw that Iraq's WMD, including nuclear technology, were moved to Syria just prior to the U.S. invasion have never been disproven, although U.S. officials maintained, without providing any hard evidence, that the claims were baseless.

Interestingly, all of this occurred long before the recent Israeli bombing mission into Syria where rumors persist that the target may have included a WMD or nuclear facility.

So it does appear that 1+1 really may in fact equal 2, despite denials to the contrary.

The other interesting twist here is that Saddam's mortal enemy for many years was Iran- which we know is proceeding full bore with a nuclear technology program (not proven quite yet to be a nuclear weapons program, but stay tuned).

So imagine if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq. Iran would be even farther ahead now in its nuclear technology program, which would have provided Iraq with a double excuse to do whatever it took to resurrect their own nuclear program- one to counter Iran, and the second to neutralize Israeli's nuclear threat.

It's bad enough having a nuclear armed Pakistan- but I just can't imagine what the Middle East would be like today if both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein were around doing their sabre rattling with nuclear weapons.

Coomon sense is a good thing

 

[Micah68]

Good idea

here is who Jesus would attack if he returned today.

Revelations 20 :
Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

Your Christ and my Christ are not the same. My friend you are deceived.