What do you think, was this an attempt on the Queen's life? From CNN:



Here is another video from YouTube.

Here's a video and article from the Digital Journal.

Update: The police are refusing to release the name of the man but have charged him with attacking the royal family.

You can watch a report from Sky News here: http://video.news.sky.co..._P7650_CRASH_HOLLAND.flv

Edited by user Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:06:05 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

From CNN:

From CNN:

From CNN:

Why honour the people who kill you?

Shalom,

This puts paid to my idea of retiring to Hawaii... If it's just going to be like where I am now why bother moving? Hahaha! SIGH!

Sounds awfully a lot like Muhammad's Treaty of Hudaybiyah!

Did anyone know that this was the national 'sport' in Afghanistan? From CNN:

From CNN:

Was that slaughter the pigs or slaughter the Jews?

Just how is this peace plan going to come together?? This AC guy is going to be one slick dude.

From CNN:



One excerpt:



The full article is here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/.../iran.hanging/index.html

From CNN:

The Sheriff at the end of the video states that Muhammad had no ties to other groups or organizations and acted alone. I think that it is a little early in the investigation to be asserting that, but, if true, it proves that all you need in your "Johnny-Jihad Islamic Terrorist Starter Kit" is al-Qur'an and an AR-15. Just read and follow the instructions.

From CNN today:

Shalom,

The Obamanation has spoken and is setting the stage for The Abomination. What else is there to say?

From CNN:

From CNN:

From CNN:

its kinda like the evil boss dude giving away his dastardly plans to the "goodguy"... except he isnt going to escape and stop him..

As my Brother Theophilus knows; getting a nuke to work properly is a difficult task, and most of AQ's minions are not exactly nuclear physicists... Therefore the chances of AQ getting a Paki-built device to actually go super-critical inside a US city* or harbor are pretty low. A "fizzle" is much more likely, spewing radioactive material around a small area. The real bad stuff will happen when the Whomever Is In The Whitehouse strikes back. Then the dogs of war will be unleashed.

The US reaction to Islamic attacks is always more destructive than the actual attack.

9/11: about 3,000 killed
War on Terror: 4,000+ US Citizens & Warriors killed and no less than 30,000 Iraqis killed


I would expect to see destruction in the same (or greater) proportions, even if the device failed to operate properly.

On the other hand, an event like this could cause the US and A to go into such a tailspin that we are completely marginalized as a world power. This might be why The Red, White, and Blue doesn't really seem to show up in eschatological prophecy.



* my money is on a device being shipped to Mexico, driven across the border in an 18-wheeler, then east on I-10 to Atlanta or west on I-10 to Los Angeles. Or both.

I think any non-zero number of devices would 'destroy' the USA.

The stupid Americans would demand a massive retaliation and cripple the economy.

Look at last week's mass hysteria regarding billeting the former Club Gitmo guests 'on US soil'.

This nation is now governed by 'weak minded old women of both sexes'. (Churchill?)




Yes.

(There, I said it!)

Tojo's (not Hirohito) goal in the winter of 1941 was to cripple the US Navy's ability to interfere with the expansion of "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". (Their conquest of Manchuria, Korea and Indochina.) They were not trying to invade the US mainland. They wanted to shut down the advanced naval bases with the ability to dispatch squadrons of warships that would interdict the flow of steel and oil into the home islands.

In my mind, the question is 'How should the US have conducted itself in the second half of 1941, if, say, ummm, Jesus could see what we were up to?'
(Oh, wait, He was watching! Adm Kimmel, Gen. Short and FDR will have to give account for their actions and be judged for them.)

1) A good case for self-defense can be made from the scriptures, even on a national level. If the battleships and AAC squadrons had been out patrolling that weekend, things would have gone differently.

2) If you (or your country) gets sucker punched (Sept 11, Dec 7, etc.), it is legitimate to be on your guard and be ready to beat back another attack. I cannot find justification for making war beyond my borders (personally or nationally) in my Bible. Can you?

On December 8th, FDR, Knox, Stimpson, Short and Kimmel should have been given a fair trial, then immediately strung up from the yardarm as punishment for their treasonous conduct and/or dereliction of duty. I cannot find scriptural justification for the actions by the US that ended with the firebombing of Tokyo and Yokohama (much more destructive than the nuclear bombing campaign).

To take a verse out of context, I think the US&A would have been better off if we had 'turned the other cheek' after the sneak attacks (12/7 and 9/11) and focused upon self-defense rather than killing millions of people. An unpopular position, to be sure, but I do believe that I have 'earned the right to be heard' on this issue, as you have, my Brother. (Theophilus is a veteran, so you slimey-civilians are to give him his due!)

To bring this back on topic, I'd like to put forth the idea that we would have done better in Iraq if, instead of sending in the US Army, we sent in the Salvation Army. (With a Marine Corps escort!)

The "War on Terror"? That sort of thing is best handled by Mitch Rapp and Christians In Action. (Yada described a good plan in POD.)

I’m thinking that this would make a good topic on its own in some other folder but I’m unsure just how to move it or even to which one it rightfully belongs in?

I've been re-assessing my own thoughts on when military action is justified and when it is not. When I was in growing up in the late Cold War, seeking peace through deterrent strength made good sense to me and was preferable to open war or capitulation to totalitarianism. After listening to you Ed, KP, Yada and others I’ve been re-examining my thoughts on this subject and whether America remains a place and idea worth fighting for or as we continue to slide, even worth supporting.

I conclude that Scripturally speaking, war is never a moral “good” but is only acceptable because we live in an fallen world in which rulers frequently don't heed the better angels of our nature and instead seek conquest for selfish motives. I also struggle with the instruction to love our enemies, but recognize that along with that is an instruction to love my wife and son and to love my neighbors. When I balance these instructions, I find that when attacked by an enemy, it would be appropriate to use force sufficient to subdue an attacker and protect my family and neighbors. I'd take the love your enemies instruction to in addition to praying for them to change heart, to once subdued to seek a just peace in which you communicate the reasons where the conflict arose and to seek means of getting along in the future.

Ed, I’m trying to understand how applying your military philosophy would’ve looked in WW-II. In the case of the Pacific, I gather that US policy of expressing our disapproval with Japan's aggression in Asia via trade sanctions helped Japan decide to make it not worth America's effort to prevent them from taking what they needed to complete their Asian and Pacific conquests. I'm unclear how turning the other cheek would've looked post December 7th? Clearly fighting towards absolute victory as FDR advised would be out of the question. You’d have advised against the US fighting alongside of Allies to liberate the peoples and territories invaded by Japan such as Guam, Wake, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, Indo-China, Singapore, etc and focus on ConUS defense exclusively?

In Europe, if Stalin were to have applied the defense doctrine that your describing the Red Army should have fought up to but not beyond the 1940 Soviet frontier and seek whatever terms the Reich offered to cease fighting and leave Hitler whatever conquests held beyond? I suppose the Russians would then need to hope that the Reich would change political doctrines or not come back for another round should they gain a military advantage.

Ed, please know that I respect your service and your wisdom. I’m not telling you that I think that you’re wrong, but I remain unclear as to how the doctrine you propose would’ve worked out and if subduing the Axis via unconditional surrenders was indeed worse than keeping them around with whatever gains their power allowed them to retain. For my part, I preferred serving alongside the West Germans as Allies deterring Soviet invasion rather than monitoring the Germans as Nazis occupying Europe which seems the outcome of your prescriptions.

Please correct me if I misunderstand you.

They were only at the "back of the napkin" stage of building atomic weapons. They where waaaaaaay behind us. It has been surmised that the Ruski's main derived benefit from the Japanese research was in learning what path not to follow.

The USSR would not have had da' Bomb without the Manhattan Project.

The Japanese did have a fruitful biological weapons program.